Politians can really be Dumb

[Gregg]

You don't think Kansas should be able to teach creationism in science class, but you think people should be able to make up their own mind?

Ahhh...what?

Well, what if they make up their minds to teach the world is flat? Is that OK? Isn't that kind of what you're saying?

No peggy. Scientifically and logically we know the world isn't flat. We've observed and proved that to be true. To you and me creationism (literally speaking) is about the same as someone saying the world is flat, but there are differences. I can prove to you that the world is a sphere, but I can not absolutely prove to you that what we comprehend as billions of years of evolution didn't actually happen in a few thousand years or for that matter a few minutes. I don't personally accept the notion that it did and I don't want to go all Gene Roddenberry on you, but no matter how remote it may be scientifically the possibility does exist. We have a responsibility to teach our kids to consider EVERY option, they're going to need that skill. Also important to note politically is that a significant part of our population believes creation is at least possible. See below...

No one is saying people can't believe what they want to believe. Just try to stop them! But should educational standards/curriculum be based on that?

Based on that? No. But a strong education is one that exposes the student to as many of the possibilities as is, well, possible. I would not stand for my kids schools replacing evolution with creation theory, but I would stand up in support of them making a class in world religions a requirement for graduation. There's lots of ways to skin a cat.

I think you're trying to deflect/redirect with this straw man argument that I somehow want to dictate what people believe. You know that isn't true. And a dishonest redirect.

I know you don't want to dictate beliefs, but I don't see this as a strawman in any way. A tangent, yes, but a dishonest redirect? Nope. Evolution is a belief that you and I share. There is a ton of evidence proclaiming its truth. The only real evidence in favor of creation theory, IMO, is the fact that we are here. All the science kind of boils down to trying to explain how that happened. So far, no one's been able to do it. I don't see any harm in letting our kids know that.

[Gregg]

***MOD HAT ON***

An example originally posted by Yossarian:

They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Liberals do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some ... utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.

[edited for emphasis]

Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressives.

The practice of cherry picking words in a quote is standard internet forum fare. A note explaining that it was done is not mandatory on these boards, but it has become our de facto practice as a courtesy to other posters. I think that is a good and civil way to handle the practice. A technicality to be sure, but it would be more clear what has been done if notes describing such actions are included in your post and not inside the quote from a previous post. Why don't we try that unless someone has a better suggestion.

Re: any name calling or personal attacks. Don't do it. That is one of the VERY few hard and fast rules around here. If it's already done please edit on your own. Let's keep it civil and self moderating.

[bae]

***MOD HAT ON***

“But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

[Gregg]

“But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

No accusations of thought crimes here. I believe the prior line in the book goes something like...

Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless, misunderstanding!

Certainly not a direct parallel to us taken in context, but aren't we all struggling to find truth like Winston? And wouldn't avoiding needless misunderstanding generally be a good thing? Of course if you feel the moderation here has crept into the realm of being Big Brother-esque that is an entirely different conversation that we should all engage in.

[peggy]

Ahhh...what?




No peggy. Scientifically and logically we know the world isn't flat. We've observed and proved that to be true. To you and me creationism (literally speaking) is about the same as someone saying the world is flat, but there are differences. I can prove to you that the world is a sphere, but I can not absolutely prove to you that what we comprehend as billions of years of evolution didn't actually happen in a few thousand years or for that matter a few minutes. I don't personally accept the notion that it did and I don't want to go all Gene Roddenberry on you, but no matter how remote it may be scientifically the possibility does exist. We have a responsibility to teach our kids to consider EVERY option, they're going to need that skill. Also important to note politically is that a significant part of our population believes creation is at least possible. See below...




Based on that? No. But a strong education is one that exposes the student to as many of the possibilities as is, well, possible. I would not stand for my kids schools replacing evolution with creation theory, but I would stand up in support of them making a class in world religions a requirement for graduation. There's lots of ways to skin a cat.




I know you don't want to dictate beliefs, but I don't see this as a strawman in any way. A tangent, yes, but a dishonest redirect? Nope. Evolution is a belief that you and I share. There is a ton of evidence proclaiming its truth. The only real evidence in favor of creation theory, IMO, is the fact that we are here. All the science kind of boils down to trying to explain how that happened. So far, no one's been able to do it. I don't see any harm in letting our kids know that.

The truth isn't an option. It is what it is. Creationism and evolution are not two sides of one coin. Creationism is pure religious dogma. Maybe you believe it, i don't believe it, but the truth is, it is a BELIEF, and science isn't a belief.
Evolution is a truth, with mountains of evidence. It's not a belief system, and just because some refuse to see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. We can't 'see' gravity but all the evidence and data point to it's existence.
I think many people are thrown off by the term 'theory' as in the theory of gravity or the theory or evolution. Scientifically it's used differently.
So, actually science has explained how it happened.

The point is, without national educational standards, many schools would replace science study with creationism, and all the other 'facts' from the bible. They are trying to do it now. Could you imagine what would happen if each state was given the green light to 'have at it'? Talk about a race to the bottom!

Yes, i think a class on comparative religions would be a good one for all students.

[peggy]

***MOD HAT ON***

An example originally posted by Yossarian:




The practice of cherry picking words in a quote is standard internet forum fare. A note explaining that it was done is not mandatory on these boards, but it has become our de facto practice as a courtesy to other posters. I think that is a good and civil way to handle the practice. A technicality to be sure, but it would be more clear what has been done if notes describing such actions are included in your post and not inside the quote from a previous post. Why don't we try that unless someone has a better suggestion.

Re: any name calling or personal attacks. Don't do it. That is one of the VERY few hard and fast rules around here. If it's already done please edit on your own. Let's keep it civil and self moderating.

No gregg, yossarian didn't simply 'cherry pick' my words to answer to them. Nor were MY words quoted to answer to. What yossarian did was to CHANGE my words, then post them as a quote from ME. That's why I got pissed, and so would you. It's thoroughly dishonest and not some Internet standard as some would claim.

And bae, seems to me you got ticked when someone simply lifted your words from another thread. They weren't changed, just picked up.

If yossarian doesn't have the intellectual ability to come up with an original thought, well then that person should just stay out of the discussion.

[Zoebird]

Yes you did insinuate that those who vote against bigger/better entitlements are numbskulls. You said:

"I just am not sure if they know what they are talking about when they are rambling on about cutting them."

It's right out of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? book in which the author explains how conservative citizens in Kansas vote against their best interests in economic policies and entitlements because they been swayed by polemics of the right on non-economic issues. Your statement is derisive of conservative voters.

Any relationship to that book is purely coincidental, because I have never read nor heard of that book. As I stated before in my prior post, the "they" was specifically reflective of the people to whom I am speaking directly in terms of friends and family. It is not derisive of all conservative voters or even these conservative voters.

I argue that it's not even derisive. I simply question whether they really understand what they are talking about. My experience bears out (with these people) that they may not.

This does not mean (or imply) that they are "voting against themselves" or "numbskulls." I think that these issues are very complex, and either they don't know what they are talking about (i've run into that about 1/3 of the time) or they do, but are unable or unwilling to communicate about it.

What I also find is an extreme "touchy"-ness about anything I happen to say because of an assumption that I, myself, am not conservative.

The reality is that I am conservative. Most of my values align within libertarianism and traditional republicanism. BUT, it does not align with neocon and theocon agendas, which means that at this time, the party is working against my political views and values.

Likewise, what I see is that we actually all have shared values in terms of desired outcomes (both liberals and conservatives), as Gregg so rightly points out what it is that we are already, but that there are many methodologies of getting to that place.

Democrats have one methodology, Republicans another (with diversity in methodologies in both -- since theos and neos and tea partiers are actually three different methods as an example; and dems have the same with new left, social democracy, and several other ideologies floating about). But, there are also many, many other methodologies out there (different kinds of libertarians, different kinds of greens, different kinds of socialist/communist parties, etc).

Which then brings me to political discussion. What I find when I communicate with my friends/family who are republican is that they seem to dislike anyone questioning their perspective. My sister and I got into an argument over the birth-control/catholic church as employer issue. I brought up the facts that it's already law in 28 states, that the church was already functioning under this employment law, etc. She brought up separation of church/state. I brought up the history of that doctrine. She accused me of being a "big government lover" and her husband said we are "diametrically opposed" and that there's no need to discuss it.

I hadn't even brought up my own position. I'd only provided history and context of the current situation and begged the question: if it wasn't a problem in X state 10 years ago when it became law there, why is it a problem (for them, personally) now simply because it's federal mandate? Or is it simply because it is federal mandate (they disagreed with methodology, but overall have no issue with the law itself, so long as it is state designated, which is traditional republicanism)?

They vehemently asserted the separation of church/state doctrine as the origin, which would mean that they then oppose the 28 states already doing it, but didn't know about it before now, so now it's a problem for them. I asked if this was correct. They said that I was just making noise and having more links and resources wasn't going to "win" the argument.

Where does a person go from there? I wasn't trying to win any argument. I was trying to figure out what they were "on about" in terms of this particular law, and what alternative outcomes they were interested in.

becuase in my opinion, we would do much better to not have health insurance covered by employers, move into an individual-purchasing with tax parity element in a wider free market (which is what the MA law does in the marketplace), and as such the individuals can choose based on their own ethics whether or not they want their birth control covered.

Which is a very conservative, and in fact libertarian (as per Cato institute), perspective of how this should go. It's also very closely related to the republican party's first incarnation of Obamacare in the 1990s (response to Clinton care).

So, in essence, I agree with them in terms of conservative policy, but they were completely cluttered in terms of the actual elements of the issue in question. And unable to dialogue without getting defensive.

And I've had the same sort of issue over entitlements, military spending, etc etc.

And I know it's confusing to people that I would vote "against myself" and vote for Obama. But currently, the green party lacks power, the libertarian party is too confused/diverse, and the republicans want to continue against my better values and judgement in terms of theocon and neocon agendas. Their tea-party aspect has a lot of loud noises, but I don't think it has any actual power at this point. I don't think they'll really follow the Pauls or any libertarians once in office at this point (maybe in another 15 years?).

Right now, for me at least, the only party that looks viable in terms of my social values and even my economic values is the Democrats. So, I'm voting that way.

It's subject to change over the next 4 years. It's anyone's game, imo. If the republicans CAN walk away from theocon and neocon agendas in the next 4 years (long shot), and then return to traditional republicanism with libertarian leanings (in certain aspects), then I'm golden. I'll vote republican again.

But until then, it's against my conscience to do so.

And, I was providing the link to the Cato Institute, since I'd provided it as reference to that before, but hadn't provided the link.

[Gregg]

Creationism is pure religious dogma.

Since I know you like to stick closely to your affirmative position, I will take the negative. Prove to me that there is no possible way the creation story is true. If you can't do that, you're argument is flawed regardless of how much "evidence" you have to prove something else. Proving evolution is true in no way proves creation false. They aren't mutually exclusive. Granted, I haven't read Genesis for 35 years or more, but to me creationism and evolution blend pretty well if you can accept the idea that a "day" might be more than 24 hours. What got created, the order it all came in, etc. all follow roughly the same path in either 'theory'. The only real friction revolves around how long it took.

[Gregg]

*** ONE MORE MOD COMMENT***

What yossarian did was to CHANGE my words, then post them as a quote from ME. That's why I got pissed, and so would you.

Yes peggy, I would. I do see that a word in your original post was indeed changed in the quote. I missed that earlier, my bad. In the name of fairness people, if you're going to quote someone, please just quote what they actually said. Grabbing sound bites is one thing, but changing other's words isn't what we're about.

[iris lily]

Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.

Neither is Ayn Rand. She's just a very poor novelist.

I can't imagine what in libertarian philosophy supports Peggy's assertion that Rand would have U.S. citizens commit genocide against those who disagree with the state.