Support for Louisiana repeal effort

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

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.

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?

You're now my stalker.Stop posting to me.And yes, you are. Stop posting to me. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I didn't ask you nor was I talking to you. Stop posting to me and get out of my face. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

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. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

It's one thing to discuss things and express an opinion, it's another thing to impose your opinion on people who don't want it.And asking idiotic questions like "Do you hate x" is not conductive to debate.And of course, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The common good is determined by the masses, of course.So some say.

But yet, science laws teach only scientific opinions in school. What makes scientific opinions more right to teach our children than religion?Expressing an opinion is not the same as imposing one's opinions of course, but encouraging people from other states to get involved actually does impose a person's will because they are attempting to act on an opinion and force people to accept their opinion as truth and to change the laws.Laws force people to behave in ways they can't accept. Such as imposing anti-abortion laws because they think abortion murders children and the end results is that law abiding citizens are forced to have a child they may not want.I personally see no real difference in forcing people to teach only science.And wouldn't free speech also apply to creationists as well? Why should science be taught in schools under the guise of free speech when creationism is not taught in schools under free speech.Perhaps this is really two conflicting rights. The right of free speech vs the separation of religion. I don't agree that they are useful. They've always been used as strawmen and other distracting tactics in order to shift the burden of proof onto another person. So please, if you don't want me to use the Star Trek quote, i would appreciate it if you wouldn't use those kinds of questions on me.I'm simply trying to say that this should be left up to the Louisianans to decide for themselves, and it should be left up to the real experts to determine if they truly decide to include creationism in schools.But yes, the Supreme Court does agree that anti-evolution laws do infringe upon free speech rights.And I have been making actual arguments to the best of my ability.Edit:To put it simply, I suck at debate ebcause I'm not an intellectual elitist than can use a hundred thousand different words to describe a black carpenter ant. I don't do semantic bs.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

The common good is determined by the masses. Free speech is besides the point. Especially if it's harmful speech. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any hate speech laws.It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. People have their beliefs when it comes to fact, and schools have become a great tool for indoctrination of those beliefs. After all, if homosexual literature telling why it's okay to be homosexual, which is a belief and not a fact, then it should be okay to teach that creationism is okay to believe, otherwise, it is discrimination.But all that really is is nothing more than indoctrination.The common good is dictated by the masses.That means individual rights are moot and have no place in society.Or so I'm told.

Evidence schmevidence. Just because there's evidence doesn't mean it's right. After all, science always teaches that it is not about morality.That's why religion is needed/ in schools.And children need to be taught what's right and wrong. Not the so called morality of science.If science is not about morality, then religion is, and it is needed in schools now more than ever.Not, evolution.Evolution is no more than science fiction.

All you people tell me is I don't understand anything and I must be for this and that. So it doesn't really matter what I say or do now, does it?So why should I be concerned?It's not going to do anything for me.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

No, it's not okay to be wrong. Every time I'm wrong all people do is get pissed off at me and be rude to me, make it personal, and call me a a child, tell me I don't understand, and tell me I have to sit down and take it.So no, it's not okay to be wrong.A person must be right one million percent of the time or he's nothing but a retard, a jerk, a child, or a monster.Debate is not supposed to be personal, it's not supposed to be rude, it's not supposed to be hostile. That's what I've been taught all my life. But that's not how things are. People get rude, they get hostile, they get personal.Debate is supposed to be for exchange of information, and to learn about things.But hey, what do I know.I don't mind a debate, I just don't like it when people get rude, hostile, or personal when I am not trying to be.Can you understand that?

{Non-topic stuff - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide plus note.

1.You were a bit rude to me when asked those personal questions "Am I against x". Every single time I get asked questions like those, every single time I answer them, somebody zaps me with an insult. Otherwise, no you haven't.2.It's never been okay for me to be wrong. Every single time I'm wrong people call me a retard or a child or insult me to no end.3.I have been trying to use it as such. And I have learned a lot more about evolution and the conflict with creation thanks to you and other people answering my questions. I also suck at debate because I don't have a very good education amid other things that are way too personal for me to discuss on a board.And thank you for answering my questions.But no, it's never okay for me to be wrong.Ever.

So, everything has to be consistent without any contradictions? That's the only way a belief can be valid?Nobody can be that perfect.And the thing about argumentation is that anybody who is skilled at it can make anything be a contradiction.And 2, I'm also a very facetious guy when I feel I'm being rude to.People have a hard time with sarcasm and facetiousness.