or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional - Page 3

post #81 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
psha... WHY NICK DID THEY FOCUS ON EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN THE TEXTBOOK STICKERS? I expressly stated in my remake of the sticker that all theories should be approached critically... but that isn't what the real sticker said now is it?

As I stated, where there is the most at stake, there is the highest likelyhood of fallibility. The proponants of evolution often don't believe it just a theory. They think it a foundational tenent of their worldview. As a result, it becomes more than just a scientific theory to them. This bias obviously showed up in the science book where evolution was made out to be fact rather than just a theory. (Not even an especially testable theory or mathematical predictable theory)

The reality is that evolution is more than a theory to some. That is true for people who are not religious as well. They will defend it irrational and refuse to admit to some large holes in it. With any other scientific theory, this wouldn't be tolerated. Yet with evolution, this is the case. Why is that so? Because it has the highest stakes.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course they should...but whatever happened to that old liberal saw...how does it go..."Question authority"?

Oh, the irony of someone who supports the teaching of creation pseudoscience saying 'question authority.'
post #83 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As I stated, where there is the most at stake, there is the highest likelyhood of fallibility. The proponants of evolution often don't believe it just a theory. They think it a foundational tenent of their worldview. As a result, it becomes more than just a scientific theory to them. This bias obviously showed up in the science book where evolution was made out to be fact rather than just a theory. (Not even an especially testable theory or mathematical predictable theory)

The reality is that evolution is more than a theory to some. That is true for people who are not religious as well. They will defend it irrational and refuse to admit to some large holes in it. With any other scientific theory, this wouldn't be tolerated. Yet with evolution, this is the case. Why is that so? Because it has the highest stakes.

Nick

No no no no no.... There is no reason to single out evolution -- in fact, we would make better scientists of all students if we treated all theories in a critical manner -- the first chapter of the best science texts for primary education should be on theories etc etc...

The reason why there is so much anger with evolution is that unlike most theories it directly challenges the story laid out in genesis. That is it. It really is that simple. There are those who believe that genesis is the god-given truth and there are those who don't. Those who don't don't all think evolution is the answer, but those who do hate evolution because it is science, has supporting evidence, and doesn't really require a suspension of intellect to understand and use...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #84 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.

Ah you are clearly not a scientist -- Control: non-christian home schooled children...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #85 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Oh, the irony of someone who supports the teaching of creation pseudoscience saying 'question authority.'

Oh, the irony of a liberal "intellectual" that won't question anything.
post #86 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The reason why there is so much anger with evolution is that unlike most theories it directly challenges the story laid out in genesis.

And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.
post #87 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.



But not because they are taught lies like that the earth is 6000 years old.

Most of my family did most of their schooling in christian schools, so don't try to push some BS about the benefits having anything to do with creation pseudoscience.
post #88 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh, the irony of a liberal "intellectual" that won't question anything.



WTF?
post #89 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.

No, the problem is that creation pseudoscience has no evidence to back it up.
post #90 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by giant


But not because they are taught lies like that the earth is 6000 years old.

Most of my family did most of their schooling in christian schools, so don't try to push some BS about the benefits having anything to do with creation pseudoscience.

You made the statement:

Quote:
The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

My statement stands, Christian schooled children do not show these qualities, and are actually better educated than the kids coming from public schools.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #91 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Ah you are clearly not a scientist -- Control: non-christian home schooled children...

That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #92 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
My statement stands, Christian schooled children do not show these qualities, and are actually better educated than the kids coming from public schools.

Are you citing studies that focus on schools teaching creation pseudoscience instead of science?
post #93 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.

But for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience. Find another argument because the one you are making is total BS and you know it.
post #94 of 325
giant, I understand that these arguments can get heated, but you have to admit that...

Quote:
The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

...wasn't a very responsible thing to say.

And no, I don't have any studies for you. But if you are going to stack up public schools as superior agianst private Christian schools, I guess you are free to do so. The fact that the Christians have done so well in teaching their children just adds insult to the injury of this judge's ruling, and the sort of thinking that spawned it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #95 of 325
Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is. And not single out the one thing that religious mmm... people are fighting this day and age (btw, they don't have a very good track record).
Next thing you know we'll have to explain to children that AIDS could actually possibly be a punishment by God for blacks and gays, because, hey, some scientists don't think there's conclusive proof that HIV leads to AIDS \
Oh, and since many historic teachings later turned out to be false, you shouldn't trust anything we tell you about the past, please ask your parents.
Btw, there's a distinct chance we never landed on the moon, it was a giant governement conspiracy.
And so on.
So may i challange all here to publicly state you don't believe that some form of evolution (the general principle, not the specifics) is actually real. And if there aren't any takers, than why shouldn't we teach this to our children?
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #96 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But if you are going to stack up public schools as superior agianst private Christian schools, I guess you are free to do so.

This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.
post #97 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is.

But then all the little childrens will know that the 'science' in creation [pseudo]'science' isn't really science.
post #98 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.


I think you are employing the smoke and mirrors here, giant.

SAT Test Scores
Class of 2003

Verbal Math
National 507 519

Public 504 516

Religious 535 530

Independent 550 573

The "cults" seem to be doing just fine.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #99 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is.

I think this is quite right. I don't know if this is happening or not to be honest. Still, something is happening that is resulting in the prevailing, common notion that evolution is an undeniable, irrefutable fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
(btw, they don't have a very good track record).

Well, the scientific community has had some problems in the past too. For example...the scientific "truth" that seemed beyond all questioning, but turned out to be wrong (or at least non-universal) is Newtonian mechanics. It ruled
physics for over 200 years, but was superseded by quantum mechanics and relativity.

Another example is the idea that proteins carried genes. This too was "obvious", so obvious in fact that Avery's experiments that proved this idea wrong were not generally accepted for about 8 years.

There was a time when many not only didn't conceive of things invisible to the naked eye (bacteria, viruses, atomic particles) that they simply refused to accept their existence.

The reason that scientists are sometimes very wrong for so long is that the real answer seems so unreasonable that it doesn't get tested properly until something odd comes up to force the issue.

Are any of our current paradigms just as wrong? Who knows?

Quote:
Originally posted by SpcMs
than why shouldn't we teach this to our children?

This issue wasn't about whether or not it should be taught.
post #100 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.

Actually, the discussion was about the legal decision about placing stickers on books that suggest that students should think critically about the theory of evolution.
post #101 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.

It is however an irrelevent comparison.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #102 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.

But it isn't.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #103 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually, the discussion was about the legal decision about placing stickers on books that suggest that students should think critically about the theory of evolution.

Oh, yeah. And the whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience.

like I said:
<- @ this whole thread.
post #104 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But it isn't.

But for some it is about world view.
post #105 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Oh, yeah. And the whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience.

like I said:
<- @ this whole thread.

I didn't mean to imply that the questions of evolution or creationism are irrelevant...but there was a central question about the legal decision.
post #106 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But for some it is about world view.

But trumpt was making the argument that it is such an important thing because it is the world view of many people, but that isn't why it is important...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #107 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?

You do know that ad-homs are against the forums rules right?

Quote:
Let me spell it out: I thought that particular piece of satire made a specific good point about a specific issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it.

Actually all it did was poke a little fun by practicing some slippery-slope reasoning. If South Park shows PETA loving animals to the point of having sex and marrying with them, that really doesn't mean that PETA does such things. They are taking the small bit of truth in there and blowing it up larger for comic effect. This can be done with anything and isn't a reason to disregard good statements or reasoning. In fact satire is the weakest reason to disregard something because anyone can do it to anything.

Quote:
The parallel with how evolution is taught would be ?

The parallel is that evolution is seldom taught with any holes or disagreements evident. It is often presented as a comprehensive theory when it is not. Again the parallel is that we present gravity but we do not claim to know what causes the force of gravity. If a textbook claimed a comprehensive unified theory of gravity, you can bet you but the criticism of it would involve more than a sticker.

Quote:
Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.

Yes, but Einstein nor did others ever feel his theory of gravitation was beyond reproach nor did they use it to anchor their worldview.

Quote:
This is all about what gets singled out for special disclaimers -- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered.

Why does of the person have to be considered when the result is still a desirable one? Should we claim that the motives of freedom and liberty are suspect because the founding fathers were fallible people who reflect the times in which they lived for example?

Quote:
Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.

Your analogy falls short and I already explained why. I don't need to reconsider it to find it still flawed. All theories are not suffering from the same problems evolution toils under. We don't have people attempting, for example to explain why gravity works as a constant for a period of time and then seems to stop working at all for large periods of time.

Quote:
Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.

I don't have a high school biology text in front of me, do you that shows have one that shows evolutionary claims and criticism as well?

Quote:
Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.

Strange reasoning. I really don't know how to approach something so odd. If it isn't an endorsement of religion, then it isn't. I don't need parallel non-endorsements of religion. It either is an endorsement or not. Quantity does not matter.

Quote:
Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?

The age of the earth need not be tied to evolution. It is often used as circumstancial evidence since evolution itself has so little actually explaining and supporting it. Also again, this is both a slippery-slope and an attempt to discredit via intent (kill the messenger) instead of dealing with the matter at hand. You don't need to claim FUTURE disclaimers might be requested in an attempt to validate the faulty reasoning behind the ruling here. They can each be treated on their own merits. If a school board that claims rocks won't fall at a standard rate of motion, then the community will have the opportunity to vote them out next election.

Quote:
So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?

So it would be okay, to practice genocide? Please stop with your terrible analogy and strawmen.

Quote:
I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).

You're not the only one who doesn't buy it. It is a crappy analogy that you keep pursuing. My mistake was in attempting to help you understand better through such a crappy analogy. But I'm such a glutton for punishment I guess I'll do it again.

Schools hang "labels" on students all the time. They may not be wearing them openly around their neck as they walk in the classroom, but labels like disadvantaged, gifted, resource specialist program, English learner, special needs, ADD/ADHD, etc. are put all over kids and have loads of programs created to insure each is treated individually.

I also "don't buy" your strange assertion that evolution is somehow "shamed" by the label.

Quote:
You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.

It is relevent considering people the number of people here who seem to believe that criticism of evolution or even pointing out evolution is a theory = religious endorsement. (the ruling judge included)

Quote:
Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.

I don't have to show any examples. It doesn't even have to occur multiple times. It could occur in one book, at one time, in one community and they should have the right to label the book. Popularity or correctness doesn't need to be anecdotal or have large numbers. I've stated that evolution is likely to be singled out because of the unwillingness of the parties invested in it to subject it to the same rigors as other scientific assertions. Pointing out that it should be treated the same in not a religious endorsement.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #108 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But trumpt was making the argument that it is such an important thing because it is the world view of many people, but that isn't why it is important...

I'm not so sure.
post #109 of 325
Welcome back, Groverat, as a moderator!

*cues "Welcome Back, Kotter" theme song*

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.

Ah. Yes.

The scientific method depends on evolution.

We have so much at stake!

post #110 of 325
Shetline:

That was unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the thread. Avoid in future.

Love you.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #111 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The scientific method depends on evolution.

How do you figure that?

( I don't think anyone here has suggested that. )
post #112 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

Just because people did something in a legal manner to do something illegal doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the end result was illegal. It would be like saying since they all went the legal route and said black kids couldn't go to these schools anymore and the courts said they couldn't do that then the courts are imposing their own "agenda" upon these people who did everything "right" because it was legal. That just isn't right, going the right route to do something wrong is still wrong. The truth is that good people with good intentions can do bad things and even break the law.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

Using Democracy to further your illegal agneda is still illegal. Any system can be manipulated - thank the good lord we have checks and balances eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Brussel, if a group of scientists had done this it would be accepted.


Also, the "government" bought these books in the first place. This is the reaction of the more deeply entrenched Federal level of government dictating who may or may not direct their children's education based on "correct" motivations.

Except for the fact that it was NOT a group of scientists - The reason? Well if I had to guess I would think that it is because scientists don't need to be explained to what theories are?


Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.



I don't think the judge cares at all if people read the bible and want to change their community for the better or even change laws - so far as that these people are not doing things that aren't necessary(like putting stickers in a book of theories stating that one of them and only one of them certainly is just a theory) and when the judge looks and can tell that it isn't necessary then you have to look at intent and it is pretty obvious as to what the intent is and what the inent is trying to achieve and in doing so is promoting a religious agenda.

Would you be ok if we put creationism in this book and then put a sticker on it that said something to the effect of - Readers of this material should know that this book contains articles on creationsim, something that isn't even a theory but is just based on a belief system passed down through 5,000 or so years of multi-cultural/linugual telephone.
post #113 of 325
Ya'll are the same folks who condemned Socrates and excommunicated Gallileo, aren't ya'll? I think we ought to just slap a sticker on the front of those "science" books that says "It's tutles all the way down!"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #114 of 325
No offense PeePeeSee, you're in over your head.

I would not supply hyperbole in the form of "what if" statements, but would try some punctuation.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #115 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Ya'll are the same folks who condemned Socrates and excommunicated Gallileo, aren't ya'll? I think we ought to just slap a sticker on the front of those "science" books that says "It's tutles all the way down!"


There isn't anyway to keep the conversation within the last couple hundred [relevant] years or so, is there?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #116 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
There isn't anyway to keep the conversation within the last couple hundred [relevant] years or so, is there?

You're saying this is a different conversation?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #117 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No offense PeePeeSee, you're in over your head.

I would not supply hyperbole in the form of "what if" statements, but would try some punctuation.

That's it? That is your only reply? You tell me I am in over my head and reply to a personal comment and that is it? No offense but - who do you think you are?

That was one weak attempt at looking as if you could speak from authority.

Well I suppose not responding to anything specifically you kind of did reply in your own special way.

Thanks for proving me right.

oh yeah - and "but would try some punctuation" from the guy who said - The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable.

Yeah - congrats - you fail it at internet english professor.
post #118 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
That's it? That is your only reply? You tell me I am in over my head and reply to a personal comment and that is it? No offense but - who do you think you are?

That was one weak attempt at looking as if you could speak from authority.

Well I suppose not responding to anything specifically you kind of did reply in your own special way.

Thanks for proving me right.

PeePeeSee, you didn't say much more than "the judge was right". And you stated it very poorly. I don't mean to be offesive, but you need to build a case better.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #119 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
You're saying this is a different conversation?


It's a tired "argument" of guilt by association, where somehow I'm guilty of the same thinking as the vatican circa 1630. I guess I fail to see the connection.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good smear, but I don't think smears will move the conversation forward. It's just not very constructive.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
PeePeeSee, you didn't say much more than "the judge was right". And you stated it very poorly. I don't mean to be offesive, but you need to build a case better.

Then it should be oh so easy to tear me apart.

But yes I pretty much did say that the judge was right. That really goes a long way when it happens to be true.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional