29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism

Yeah, sure there's less slave-trading, less genocide, less child labor, a lower crime rate, and the age of consent is no longer 10, but the standard of morality of posters on internet forums has gone way down since the colonial era. Why, back in the eighteenth century if you called someone a "conceited jackanapes" on a discussion board the moderators would ban you immediately for caddish behavior. O tempora, o mores! Let's bring back that good old Christian era when a God-fearing Englishman could exterminate a nation of defenseless aborigines for a little light exercise before enjoying tea, crumpets, and sex with a 10-year-old --- and no-one ever disagreed with you on the Internet.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Some of the finer points of your critique are still eluding me.Shorn of sarcasm, my points would be these:* We can compare Britain today with Britain in the past on such measurable criteria as the murder rate, or the number of slaves bought and sold, or the number of inoffensive nations wiped from the face of the Earth. Such comparisons are rather to the favor of modern Britain.* We cannot compare their standards of internet discourse with those of the present day, 'cos of them not having an internet.As these are facts, and for the greater part very obvious facts which you must know yourself, I don't see how it is "evil" to exhibit them.If it is merely my tone that you object to, then I would urge you to tend to your own eye, which appears to have a beam in it.

... said the conservative christian. I've committed genocide less often. I've burned few people at the stake. I've owned fewer slaves. I'm just generally not such an evil son-of-a-bitch.Oh, but wait, I believe that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to lapse. Well, I guess then I'm every bit as evil as someone who would have burned you alive for disagreeing with me about theology.Sheesh, let us talk about moral indignation. I get all worked up about genocide. Whereas you assail me as evil for believing in principle that people might conceivably be entitled to the state benefits which you yourself claim (or at least did last time we discussed this). And one of us is being "sanctimonious". Which of us is it? Is it "sanctimonious" for me to say that it is wrong to exterminate an entire nation? Or is it "sanctimonious" for you to denounce the source of your daily bread?