If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?
If the whole community agrees, why not?
So, you are anti-American.
Haven't you argued in the past that you are a big proconstitution guy, original intent and all that crap? Now you claim that any community can suspend the Constitution. Careful your head might explode with this much cognitive dissonance.
Edited by Theodoric, : Subtitle
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
yeah yeah yeah. That is what the "they" said about Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment, and here we are 8 years later and guess what that amendment is still there.
You're rebuttal is that someone else was wrong about something else?
I guess we will see who is correct if this passes.
The outcome of efforts by boards of education and state legislatures to promote creationism has been very consistently one-sided, but as we can see by your own example, fundamentalists seem more than willing to keep repeating this history.
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
I don't want to discourage you from making up your own mind. By all means, make up your own mind. But, teaching other people is a bigger responsibility than making up one's own mind: it should be done with more objectivity and detachment and with less hubris and navel-gazing.
There's no doubt about what this bill is attempting to do. 1. Get religion, ID and creationism into science classes 2. Avoid overtly breaching the Constitution by careful wording.
You know, the sponsor didn't come up with this originally. He was "inspired" by the DI. Given that this would/will be found unconstitutional, doesn't that damn the DI? I doubt there's anything criminal to tricking sponsors into pushing unconstitutional bills, well I dunno, is there? Regardless, people should be louder in exposing the DI for what they are... we don't need their shit.
Do they really think that they're fooling anyone?
Apparently they've fooled AE...
I suppose that the only reason they keep trying this is because they believe that their version of God is above the Constitution and/or the Constitution isn't worth jack.
Or they just don't care. The end justifies the means. Spreading the good news is more important than anything. The must know the Constitution is worth something, or they wouldn't go throught the trouble of trying to word their way around it.
I think the only time"worth" comes into it is when they consider the cost of trying to defend violating the Consitution. I don't think it has anything to do with the value of the Constitution itself.
I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.
There were/are still slaves in the 20th / 21st century in the rural deep south. Sure, they didn’t call them slaves, but as you say if it sounds like slavery and looks like slavery…
Ronald Regan writes:
It isn’t that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
What were you saying again about the constitution, and how poor rural people were protected by it?
I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow. This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?
You want to start a thread about creationists web sites? It’s really not that big of a deal. You win, I’d rather not get into something that you think I am into that I am not into. I have no clue what you are insinuating right now.
AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.
Relevant education to understand elementary school level science class, and its instruction to 6 year olds (as stated previously here). Check, I have that knowledge. Any more brain busters? The delusion that one must understand the minutia of ALL biology to teach an elementary biology class is all on you. The delusion that 1st grade science class requires a science based degree, relevant original work, and relevant data is hilarious! You could have a bachelor’s in English and teach 1st grade science class. You are too funny man. Get a grip on reality…maaaannnn.
The outcome of efforts by boards of education and state legislatures to promote creationism has been very consistently one-sided, but as we can see by your own example, fundamentalists seem more than willing to keep repeating this history.
And as we can see by your example, Authoritarians will stop at nothing to make everyone follow “their rules”.
There were/are still slaves in the 20th / 21st century in the rural deep south. Sure, they didn’t call them slaves, but as you say if it sounds like slavery and looks like slavery…
I didn't say it couldn't happen. I said they couldn't make it legal. Even if they passed a law in favor of it (which your articles do not, on a brief perusal, allege) that still wouldn't make it legal, 'cos of the constitution.
Ronald Regan writes:
It isn’t that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Ronald Reagan writes:
My surname has an a after the e. Now, what was I saying about liberals? I forget, I have Alzheimer's and I was never all that bright to begin with.
What were you saying again about the constitution, and how poor rural people were protected by it?
Nothing, I said that their poorness and their rurality didn't protect them from the constitution.
quote:Relevant education to understand elementary school level science class, and its instruction to 6 year olds (as stated previously here). Check, I have that knowledge.
I'll take your word that you have at least the understanding of science that a six year old does.
quote:Any more brain busters?
No. I'll try and keep on topic on this one.
quote:The delusion that one must understand the minutia of ALL biology to teach an elementary biology class is all on you. The delusion that 1st grade science class requires a science based degree, relevant original work, and relevant data is hilarious!
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Try not to make things up. Even six year olds know that lying is bad.
quote:You could have a bachelor’s in English and teach 1st grade science class.
I reckon you're right but that's entirely not the point...
quote:
Bluejay writes:
Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your response here in the context of this thread suggests that you think schoolteachers (including, of course English teachers) should be deciding for themselves what is 'sciencey' enough to teach their classes. It suggests that these teachers have the background knowledge and time to sift through obscure data and therefore be able to overrule the opinions of the scientific community. Don't forget subscriptions to all of the journals they'll need to have just to get at the data in he first place - otherwise they're often just stuck with the abstracts.
We're talking about deciding the consensus of what kids are taught about science, not how hard it is to wow them with a chemical reaction. This is about curriculum, not teaching. Science teachers should teach about what scientists have learned.
You are also saying the same thing about yourself. What data have you looked at to come to your all encompassing theory of the universe? What makes you think that your single viewpoint is sufficient to even know all of the questions? Where did you get your data and how did you have time to go over all of it? Not to mention testing it for yourself.
I still maintain that your arrogance is breathtaking.
quote:You are too funny man.
I'm touched but I don't think anyone could be too funny. There is no maximum limit where heads begin to explode or anything, so don't worry.
Besides, there's not enough time. Not with all the research we have to do to keep up with you.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your response here in the context of this thread suggests that you think schoolteachers (including, of course English teachers) should be deciding for themselves what is 'sciencey' enough to teach their classes.
You can count on that correction. Close but no cigar. Not that they should be deciding for themselves, but that they should be allowed to decide for themselves.
It suggests that these teachers have the background knowledge and time to sift through obscure data and therefore be able to overrule the opinions of the scientific community. Don't forget subscriptions to all of the journals they'll need to have just to get at the data in he first place - otherwise they're often just stuck with the abstracts.
Because all of that is necessary to teach 1st grade science. Riiight ::rolls eyes::
We're talking about deciding the consensus of what kids are taught about science, not how hard it is to wow them with a chemical reaction. This is about curriculum, not teaching. Science teachers should teach about what scientists have learned.
I haven’t said otherwise.
You are also saying the same thing about yourself. What data have you looked at to come to your all encompassing theory of the universe? What makes you think that your single viewpoint is sufficient to even know all of the questions? Where did you get your data and how did you have time to go over all of it? Not to mention testing it for yourself.
Its elementary school, here you go again with your slippery slope argument that you just cant get over.
I still maintain that your arrogance is breathtaking.
Whatever dude, I am not the one talking science journals and knowing the universe to teach 6 year olds the difference between a plant and an animal. Get over yourself already. LOL
quote:Not that they should be deciding for themselves, but that they should be allowed to decide for themselves.
So they shouldn't be doing what you are arguing that they should be allowed to do?
quote:Because all of that is necessary to teach 1st grade science. Riiight ::rolls eyes::
No, because a knowledge foundation is a structured thing and when some idiot comes along and decides to teach them that evolution is an atheist hoax and that divining rods are powered by the devil, it'll screw up their education. First grade science is the foundation for the next grade and so on. Without that, they can never get to the point that they can seriously decide for themselves - they don't have the skills.
quote:I haven’t said otherwise
I didn't bring up education specifically - I was originally talking about armchair scientists, remember?. You're the one who misrepresented it to be about teaching kids...
once again...
quote:The delusion that one must understand the minutia of ALL biology to teach an elementary biology class is all on you. The delusion that 1st grade science class requires a science based degree, relevant original work, and relevant data is hilarious!
Nobody is saying that you have to be a theoretical physicist to teach a 1st grade class about gravity. My original point is that there is always some idiot ready to jump up and down whining that their version of the truth is right and that the nasty scientists won't believe them. Message 239
quote:Its elementary school, here you go again with your slippery slope argument that you just cant get over.
If we're just talking about elementary school, then there's really no debating the science at that level. This is foundational stuff. Why should anyone want to change what is taught according to their own 'higher' understanding? What would you change with yours? The only reason for this is to introduce religion as science. Elementary school is not the place for religious quacks to confuse the meaning of science for children. That's what churches are for.
If I'm wrong about this, what are the things that schoolteachers should be allowed to do that they shouldn't be doing?
quote:Whatever dude, I am not the one talking science journals and knowing the universe to teach 6 year olds the difference between a plant and an animal.
Tell me where I said that you need science journals and knowing the universe to teach 6 year olds the difference between a plant and an animal. I'm actually saying exactly the opposite. That teachers don't need to know this much to teach but that they also don't know enough to seriously question scientific consensus.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)