Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Support for Louisiana repeal effort
Trae
Member (Idle past 4328 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 1 of 108 (614875)
05-08-2011 7:18 AM


A bill is gaining support to repeal Louisiana's antievolution law.
link

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 11:10 AM Trae has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 2 of 108 (614945)
05-09-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trae
05-08-2011 7:18 AM


Shouldn't this be a state issue and left to the Louisianans determine for themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trae, posted 05-08-2011 7:18 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 11:34 AM Tram law has replied
 Message 47 by Trae, posted 05-11-2011 5:34 AM Tram law has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4039
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 3 of 108 (614950)
05-09-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tram law
05-09-2011 11:10 AM


Shouldn't this be a state issue and left to the Louisianans determine for themselves?
In what way? Do you mean that Louisiana should deal with its own legislation through its own courts and legislature and voters? If so, then that's exactly what will happen here, at least at first.
If you mean that everyone outside the state should shut up, well...there's this thing called "free speech," and it crosses state lines. I guarantee Creationists from out of state are paying attention and funneling money and support into this. Why shouldn't we?
Of course, since establishment of a state religion via the endorsement of religious dogma like Creationism and Intelligent Design would in fact be a violation of the US Constitution, this can very well head all the way up to Federal court, where it would most certainly NOT be a State issue any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 11:10 AM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 12:03 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 4 of 108 (614957)
05-09-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rahvin
05-09-2011 11:34 AM


In what way in that taking the petition to national levels. I believe states should stay out of other states businesses. It should be left to the Louisianans to discuss what they want to do with it. Making a petition available on the internet brings it to a national level.
With such groups such as The American Institute for Biological Sciences, that also can have the potential to bring it to a national level as well.
But this is a slippery slope argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 11:34 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 12:22 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 12:32 PM Tram law has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4039
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 5 of 108 (614959)
05-09-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tram law
05-09-2011 12:03 PM


Again, free speech does not stop at state lines. I'm free to express my opinion of the Louisiana law, just as you are. If I want to express my speech by donating money or time to a group supporting or against a Louisiana law, I'm free to do so. I just don't get to actually vote within the state of Louisiana.
You're arguing a principle that has literally zero basis in law. Why do you think people outside of a state should remain silent about what happens within that state?
Especially when the "state" issue has Constitutional implications, like this one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 12:03 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:10 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9142
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 6 of 108 (614961)
05-09-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tram law
05-09-2011 12:03 PM


I believe states should stay out of other states businesses. It should be left to the Louisianans to discuss what they want to do with it.
So state should be allowed to not follow the Constitution? So if a state wants to legalize slavery it is ok? I mean slippery slope and all.
But this is a slippery slope argument.
The slippery slope is a horrendous argument to make. Unless you can back it up with facts of course.
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
I am not picking on you or trying to be rude. I just don't seem to agree with anything you post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 12:03 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:11 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 7 of 108 (614968)
05-09-2011 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
05-09-2011 12:22 PM


Why do you think people outside of a state should remain silent about what happens within that state?
Because, really, it's none of their business.
And how does this issue, of removing anti-evolution laws, effect the Constitution and other laws based on the constitution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 12:22 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:18 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 1:46 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 48 by Trae, posted 05-11-2011 5:46 AM Tram law has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 8 of 108 (614969)
05-09-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 12:32 PM


You're now my stalker.
Stop posting to me.
And yes, you are. Stop posting to me.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 12:32 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9142
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 9 of 108 (614971)
05-09-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:10 PM


Because, really, it's none of their business.
Federal law and the Constitution is the business of all US citizens.
And how does this issue, of removing anti-evolution laws, effect the Constitution and other laws based on the constitution?
Separation of church and state issues. It goes against settled precedent.
Research First Amendment and establishment clause.
quote:
the Livingston Parish and Tangipahoa Parish school board members have discussed using the LSEA to teach creationism. In July 2010, the Livingston Parish School Board instructed staff to study this for the 2011-2012 academic year. The March 15 Tangipahoa Parish School Board minutes show that LFF operative Darrell White approached the Curriculum Committee about the law. School boards are being tempted to risk lawsuits when teachers face layoffs because of budget cuts!
Read the link provided in the OP.
ABE
And I will reply to any of your posts that I feel deserve a reply.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:10 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 10 of 108 (614972)
05-09-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Theodoric
05-09-2011 1:18 PM


I didn't ask you nor was I talking to you. Stop posting to me and get out of my face.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:18 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by menes777, posted 05-09-2011 1:33 PM Tram law has replied
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 1:48 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 15 by AdminPD, posted 05-09-2011 1:51 PM Tram law has not replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4340 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 11 of 108 (614975)
05-09-2011 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:20 PM


So in other words...
You have got no real rebuttal?
If you don't want certain people to reply to your post you shouldn't be on a forum. If you don't want to answer someone just ignore their post, but your post just seems to say you don't any real rebuttal to his replies.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:20 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:41 PM menes777 has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 12 of 108 (614979)
05-09-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by menes777
05-09-2011 1:33 PM


Re: So in other words...
Stop putting words in my mouth and stop saying crap like this.
Theodoric has been very rude to me and been in my face since he started insulting me over not using the reply button. Because of this I have no interest in discussing or debating anything with him, especially since he's so dishonest about debating.
He is posting to every single post I make ever since. Every single one of them.
And he should stop now.
Because in doing so he is putting pressure on me to make these kinds of responses. Of course it makes me look bad, but in short it derails the threads and he needs to stop.
If I ignore them others will just put more pressure on me to respond to them. and I will be the one who's seen as being disruptive when in fact he is. And eventually i will be banned even though he started this whole nonsense of his.
I want to discuss things with other people, and he is being disruptive to that in his efforts to drive me off of this forum.
And again, I apologize to the forum for my behavior. But the only way it'll truly stop is if he stops posting to me and stop being disruptive when I am talking to other people.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by menes777, posted 05-09-2011 1:33 PM menes777 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4039
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 13 of 108 (614980)
05-09-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:10 PM


Because, really, it's none of their business.
So? I can exercise my free speech regarding things that aren't my business all the time. Why should a state line make any difference with regard to that?
Do you hate free speech, Tram?
And how does this issue, of removing anti-evolution laws, effect the Constitution and other laws based on the constitution?
See the Dover trial, Tram - anti-evolution laws are not religiously neutral, they are universally derived from religious dogma and as such constitute a State endorsement of a religion, and as such are a violation of the Constitution. There is no scientific "controversy" regarding evolution, and the only people trying to keep evolution out of schools are doing so for religious reasons, thus violating the religious rights of everyone who wants an actual science education.
Do you hate freedom of religion, Tram?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:10 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:57 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4039
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 14 of 108 (614981)
05-09-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:20 PM


I didn't ask you nor was I talking to you. Stop posting to me and get out of my face.
That's really not how debate forums work, Tram. Theo is perfectly able to respond to you as he sees fit, just like anyone else.
If you don't want people to argue with you, don't post on an internet debate board!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:20 PM Tram law has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 15 of 108 (614982)
05-09-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:20 PM


Topic Please
Tram Law,
This is an open debate forum and not a chat page. Anyone is free to reply as long as they abide by the rules.
Remember Rule #1? Follow all moderator requests.
Please stop telling people to stop responding to you. If you don't like what they say, just don't reply back. Very simple.
Even in the Coffee House forum participants are required to stick to the topic. Instructing others to stop responding is not on topic.
Please move the discussion forward and stay on topic.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:20 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024