Political Compass?

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:18 am

Admiral Breetai wrote: right and you and I may accept it to be correct based on the evidence presented.

We however, have absolutely no right to impose our convictions on them..when their actions in this regard are one of the chief things we decry as wrong and not moral.
I do not care what people believe as long as they do not try to force it into the classrooms that are for science facts so they can corrupt young minds. People can believe in any superstition they like be it bronze age or modern but at the point any faction attempts to insinuate itself as the one truth rather than a unsupported belief system it becomes a problem.

and it neither disproves the existence of a supreme being or..said supreme entities possible "will" giving direction to the evolutionary process
And that is why religion belongs with the other superstitions in the class for them and not in the science class because the science class is for things that are proven and have the potential to be dis-proven as more knowledge is gained. Superstitions like religion starts by claiming to know the truth and any knowledge gained has to fit with it or is discarded or contorted in order for it to seemingly fit (see apologetics).

Oh and the material concerning comparing our genome clearly shows that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, we have 46 chromosomes while the great apes have 48 and we learned that 2 have fused so that we have 46 and scientists found those that fused proving on the genetic level we are related.

35:10 to 39:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This means that either humans and the other great apes come from a common ancestor or the magic designer is trying to deceive us into believing that we do.

again I think it's preposterous the Christian take on things but I'm not going to challenge a persons world views or seem then as unreasonable because only on the basis that they choose to go on faith
See above regarding trying to shoehorn it into the science classroom and redefine science.
This should never have been allowed I agree - A state run school should teach only the scientific method
I have no problem with state ran schools having a class for religion and other superstitions as long as they do not call it a science class. In fact you cannot learn world history appreciate great literature like Shakespeare without knowing something about a variety of religions.

now that being said any private institution that wants to teach whatever so long as it isn't treasonous is welcomed to do so
Christians only, Muslims only, Wikka only etc etc?.

Do you really see that as a good idea and if that why not white only private schools or even better white Christians only schools, or black Muslims only schools for those who have that "world view".

If you answered "yes" take a look at Mecca where they have gone to the point of making it a actual LAW that nobody but a Muslims can enter Mecca because a bronze age highly interpreted and rewritten scripture says so.

After that take a look at their contribution to the knowledge of mankind or how many Nobel prizes or other similar awards for the advancement of human knowledge and understanding have come out of that part of the world. A look at the level of human rights will give you a idea as well as their are still women being found guilty of witchcraft (meaning they confessed after being flogged shitless) and sentenced to being stoned to death.

That is also why universities etc are accredited or not as even liars like Kent Hovind can get a fake PhD from one of these absurd religious diploma mills for a few dollars. Then tout it around to the ignorant by calling himself Dr Hovind and even having himself called Dr Hovind in the phone book, fyi his supposed dissertation was looked into and so was the place he got his PhD and both were a joke.



Code: Select all

sure they should not have the ability to influence local and state policy I agree but you made it is as though it was the duty of every Atheist to actively destroy religion

and that's equally presumptuous and reckless
I support a secular system actually and have said so repeatedly although i am personally a anti-theist.
I also happen to believe if you're going to attack religion you can't be PC about it..you need to go after Islam, Buddhism. Christianity, Judaism ,Hinduism, Neo Pagan religions
I am not attacking a single religion as i am against them all, however in this particular instance i am defending against one that is actively trying to replace fact with superstition and ignorance.
in fact you know what? When was the last time any of us internet Atheist had a good Wiccan pwning?


When was the last time a Wiccan organization manipulated representatives to be on school boards so they could rewrite the definition of science specifically to allow their particular superstition to be preached as science.

Actually the last wiccan pwning in the west was when dogmatically sexually repressed Christians decided to barbecue women among other unpleasant things after being tortured into confessing to be wiccans.
I mean seriously? Why is it always Christianity! Get 'em boys!! I miss the good ol'days of equal opportunity assault on value systems dammit!
Again it is Christianity that is doing the attacking so it is Christianity that is being defended against. Science truth and fact do not care what superstition you choose to follow but it does care when you try to claim that superstition is science truth and fact.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Cocytus » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:33 am

sonofccn wrote:It would be if I argued Creationism was correct due to popularity. I have not. My point is A. Evolution has not sold well in the US of A all things considered which as evidence I linked to some polls showing this and B. People have a right to be wrong and have a right to teach their children what they believe in hence why I did not have a negative reaction of ID being taught in school if the comuninity wanted it taught.
Taught in a theology course? Sure, have at it. But as a scientific alternative to evolution? No. There is no "controversy" except in the minds of creationists, and the judges have had the sense to require that educational curricula conform to certain standards. Education is not about turning children into carbon copies of their parents. Besides, parents can always tutor their children in theology on their own time if its such a concern to them.
sonofccn wrote:I think your confusing public opinion with a "marketplace of ideas". One is a state which changes day to day generation to generation the other is a process where thoughts and ideas are traded between citizenry. Now I could be wrong, maybe Heliocentrism was forced down from on high at spear point to unquestioning plebes, but it doesn't seem to me an effective means of dissimulating knowledge or for social tranquility.


To continue the marketplace analogy, any government worth its salt, or individual for that matter, would require that purveyors of products clearly label what they attempt to sell, yes? That's why we have standards for advertising, and why, for example, Apple can't advertise the iPhone as a cure for cancer. Intelligent Design is not science, and claiming it as such, or as an alternative to evolution, is false advertising.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:45 am

Cocytus wrote:Taught in a theology course? Sure, have at it. But as a scientific alternative to evolution? No. There is no "controversy" except in the minds of creationists, and the judges have had the sense to require that educational curricula conform to certain standards.
Why? It is their kids being taught in their school being funded by presumbly their taxes. They have a right to determine what is being taught. I see no point or reason for people to meddle in it.

And that is the long and short of regardless if your right or wrong we are dealing with American citizens who have rights, who have a say in how this country is to be run as a Democratic Republic. Step away from that, make it rule of force, and things become ugly. Which is where being in the minority becomes a problem, as I said before if you make it come down to a push you will lose. And will for generations barring sudden shifts.

And as much as I think the Crocoduck is the stupidist thing ever to appear or the insanity of dinosaur bones sinking through the earth soil due to forty day and night of rain to try and explain our fossile record I'd have to stand with them. Crocoduck and all.
To continue the marketplace analogy, any government worth its salt, or individual for that matter, would require that purveyors of products clearly label what they attempt to sell, yes? That's why we have standards for advertising, and why, for example, Apple can't advertise the iPhone as a cure for cancer. Intelligent Design is not science, and claiming it as such, or as an alternative to evolution, is false advertising.
While I may find their methodology lacking, their findings in error as far as product is concerned it is advertized as an alternative to Evolution and it is an alternative if not one I feel has proper scientific support. Continuing with the market place analogy I may find the product poorly constructed with shoddy workmanship but it is a product. One that overall has sold fairly well in an open and free market with nothing hidden from them. They can see just as well as we can that the product is broken and duct taped togather but they prefer it.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:08 am

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Its understandable as most people see evolution as people digging up old fossils etc and do not realize it is a vast science that includes chemistry and unifies all of biology and by doing so saves lives in ways they do not begin to imagine.

Quite literally all biological research a lot of areas of chemical research and even engineering benefit from the study of evolution, the mapping and understanding of the genome in humans and other animals that gives us access to the building blocks of life have benefited medicine in many ways.

Evolution in agriculture helps us improve crops, understand how to modify them to produce more and or survive in harsh conditions and how to understand and deal with the fact that insects evolve to resist pesticides.

Evolution in conservation knowing how biodiversity works for examples helps us recover or prevent things like fishing stocks from being depleted and help us speed up their recovery.

Evolution in medicine is obviously huge as we know diseases evolve and become immune to treatment so knowing how they do this and knowing how to make cures or treatment that evolve is a vast benefit, obviously knowing exactly how a lifeform is built down to the base chemicals also helps immeasurably in dealing with genetic diseases or anomalies.
Thanks!
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:3:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW4tx ... re=related
That was actually pretty cool! Thanks again!
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:According to the graph Evolution has doubled, creationism has dropped and ID has not moved. It could do with a bit better promotion and a faster climb would be nice to see but regardless Evolution is a proven and supported fact that cannot be disputed either rationally or scientifically.
Still we're talking about the 21th century here and it looks like we'll be nearing the 22nd before things even out assuming trends don't suddenly change one way or another. I don't know I guess my concern is the groups walling from each other growing more and more convinced the other side are wrong,stupid and pure evil. That's a path I don't see anything good coming from.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:The above links showing its already massive benefit to mankind that people do not realize all come from Evolutionary theory being proven right and researched presented well and in a understandable way i think would turn heads.
I do think people will see reason come the end of the day, work with them showing them why its correct. But I do believe it ultimatly will have to come from them to see it, you can't make'em and I think forcing them just creates more resiestence.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Actually if you look at the educational standards of countries that adopt a theistic view it drops significantly along with human rights and other things.
Well its a bit of a stretch comparing letting a community pick its curriculum in a Democratic Republic with the rights of the minority,however imperfectly, inscribed to a theocracy.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:You do not get a more top down institution than one that answers ultimately to a god but i understand your meaning
Well to those of us who believe, and I do believe in God, we don't see it that way but I understand what you mean.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Cocytus » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:11 am

sonofccn wrote:
Cocytus wrote:Taught in a theology course? Sure, have at it. But as a scientific alternative to evolution? No. There is no "controversy" except in the minds of creationists, and the judges have had the sense to require that educational curricula conform to certain standards.
Why? It is their kids being taught in their school being funded by presumbly their taxes. They have a right to determine what is being taught. I see no point or reason for people to meddle in it.

And that is the long and short of regardless if your right or wrong we are dealing with American citizens who have rights, who have a say in how this country is to be run as a Democratic Republic. Step away from that, make it rule of force, and things become ugly. Which is where being in the minority becomes a problem, as I said before if you make it come down to a push you will lose. And will for generations barring sudden shifts.

And as much as I think the Crocoduck is the stupidist thing ever to appear or the insanity of dinosaur bones sinking through the earth soil due to forty day and night of rain to try and explain our fossile record I'd have to stand with them. Crocoduck and all.
We didn't lose. We won the Kitzmiller vs Dover District case. A conservative judge appointed by George W Bush handed down that ruling. Another conservative judge, appointed by Ronald Reagan, torpedoed California's proposition 8. Why can't they have it taught, you ask? Because we have a Constitution, and the requirement that Intelligent Design be taught in public schools was found to be unconstitutional. Simple as that. The people MAY NOT have their way if their way conflicts with that document, regardless of how many of them there are. They can bray about "elitists" and "fascism" all they please. If they don't like having to abide by the Constitution, they may change it (good luck with that in this day and age) or they may move to another country.

Like it or not, courts exist in part as a check and balance on the will of the people, and those courts acquitted themselves admirably in this case.

You asked why. The Constitution is why. Majorities are irrelevant, unless they managed to change the Constitution. And to get ID taught in public schools, they would have to change it so radically that the US you and I know and love would become, to crib a frequent quip, "fundamentally altered."
sonofccn wrote:
Cocytus wrote:To continue the marketplace analogy, any government worth its salt, or individual for that matter, would require that purveyors of products clearly label what they attempt to sell, yes? That's why we have standards for advertising, and why, for example, Apple can't advertise the iPhone as a cure for cancer. Intelligent Design is not science, and claiming it as such, or as an alternative to evolution, is false advertising.
While I may find their methodology lacking, their findings in error as far as product is concerned it is advertized as an alternative to Evolution and it is an alternative if not one I feel has proper scientific support. Continuing with the market place analogy I may find the product poorly constructed with shoddy workmanship but it is a product. One that overall has sold fairly well in an open and free market with nothing hidden from them. They can see just as well as we can that the product is broken and duct taped togather but they prefer it.
Even poorly constructed products with shoddy workmanship must conform to certain standards. I don't like certain car marques, but to even be sold in the US they must conform to Federal safety standards. Why do companies have to recall products? Why do companies have to give warnings on certain products? Why do companies have those lengthy liability-limiting disclaimers on misuse and such? Because we have standards. When cars are found to have defective brake pedals, or beef is found to be contaminated, those products are recalled because of those standards. Similarly, if I were driving a beat up old jalopy with white smoke spewing from the tailpipe to form a noxious trail half-a-mile long behind me, I should rightly expect to be pulled over and cited for violating emissions standards.

ID is not science, and has no place in a science course, per standards which are predicated upon the founding document of our country. In a religion course, absolutely. They can knock themselves out with it, but it does not belong in a science course.

I apologize if my tone seems antagonistic, but I will never apologize for defending truth and our Constitution, even if the majority don't like what they say sometimes. I like Obamacare, but if our Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, I must live with that. If the Supreme Court rules gay marriage bans unconstitutional, you must live with that. It is certainly possible for decisions to be reversed. Stare Decisis is not legally binding on the Supreme Court after all, and SCOTUS has reversed earlier precedents (Lawrence v Texas being an example, where the court overruled its earlier Bowers v Hardwick decision) But doing so requires serious consideration. I doubt that any court will ever find serious reason to overturn the Kitzmiller v Dover decision. There are dozens of precedents stretching all the way back to Scopes itself.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Political Compass?

Post by sonofccn » Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:45 am

Cocytus wrote:We didn't lose. We won the Kitzmiller vs Dover District case.
I never questioned who won the case. I questioned by what justification you employed. Instead citing justification that a judge agreed with you kinda feeds back to my point. But to the case Judge's decisions are not holy writ, they can be debatable and they can overstep their bounds. Which is not to say they can be ignored, they are meant to be a check and balance I agree, and yes back to the case creationist lost and by the rules of the land were duty bound to face the results.

But we were speaking far more for the basic case than a particular example.
A conservative judge appointed by George W Bush handed down that ruling. Another conservative judge, appointed by Ronald Reagan, torpedoed California's proposition 8.
And I can disagree on the verdict regardless whom appointed them.
Why can't they have it taught, you ask? Because we have a Constitution, and the requirement that Intelligent Design be taught in public schools was found to be unconstitutional.
Yes. And I happen to disagree and am therefore entitled to make arguments to such an affect.
The people MAY NOT have their way if their way conflicts with that document, regardless of how many of them there are.
And if there is a conflict I would agree, I don't see one and merely a Judge ruling that it is unconstitutional does not make the argument verboten.
They can bray about "elitists" and "fascism" all they please. If they don't like having to abide by the Constitution, they may change it (good luck with that in this day and age) or they may move to another country.
Actually all they need is a Judge to agree with them and overturn the previous ruling. Which is the problem of such games as I stated.
Like it or not, courts exist in part as a check and balance on the will of the people, and those courts acquitted themselves admirably in this case.
And had they gone the other way I very much doubt you would be as obliging. Now don't misunderstand me I understand why the courts were set up. I'm totaly in agreement with the idea nor do I expouse ignoring them. But throwing out a ruling isn't an argument, it does make it appear you don't care about actually reasoning or winning people over merely having people in power whom will side in your favor.
Even poorly constructed products with shoddy workmanship must conform to certain standards. I don't like certain car marques, but to even be sold in the US they must conform to Federal safety standards. Why do companies have to recall products? Why do companies have to give warnings on certain products? Why do companies have those lengthy liability-limiting disclaimers on misuse and such? Because we have standards. When cars are found to have defective brake pedals, or beef is found to be contaminated, those products are recalled because of those standards. Similarly, if I were driving a beat up old jalopy with white smoke spewing from the tailpipe to form a noxious trail half-a-mile long behind me, I should rightly expect to be pulled over and cited for violating emissions standards.
Well as a laissez-faire Capitalist I'm less inclined towards Regulations then I suspect you are. But accepting the above it does do exactly what it was designed to do, offer an alternative to Evolution and support Religion so its not defective towards its intended goal. As to the smoking jalopy I don't see parrelels, such a vehicle affects people aorund it and is in violation of various laws and regulations which have been set down, ID doesn't directly affect anyone else but those submitting to it.
ID is not science, and has no place in a science course, per standards which are predicated upon the founding document of our country.
The US constitution doesn't really go into schools or the standards thereof. If you are refering to Kitzmiller V Dover I believe the sticking point was they proved it was based from a religion and therefor violated the Establishment Clause.

Nor would I disagree that ID is not science, merely the ruling that the First Admendment preventing Congress from respecting an establishment of Religion applies to nonlaws of a school's curiculum, merely that people should have the right to decide what they want taught to their children.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Cocytus » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:15 am

sonofccn wrote:Judge's decisions are not holy writ, they can be debatable and they can overstep their bounds.

And I can disagree on the verdict regardless whom appointed them.

Yes. And I happen to disagree and am therefore entitled to make arguments to such an affect.

And if there is a conflict I would agree, I don't see one and merely a Judge ruling that it is unconstitutional does not make the argument verboten.

Actually all they need is a Judge to agree with them and overturn the previous ruling. Which is the problem of such games as I stated.
All of this is true. The ruling of that particular judge may be overruled by a higher court. However, no court may overrule the Supreme Court. The only real way to overrule SCOTUS is with a constitutional amendment, as happened when the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship overruled the Dred Scott case. In the absence of that, the next highest federal court (since we're dealing with federal law aka the Establishment Clause) would be one of the 13 appeals courts, with the various district courts beneath them. Kitzmiller v Dover was a district court case. If the case were to be appealed to the 3rd circuit and overturned, then your side would have won. If said case were further heard by the Supreme Court and reversed, my side would have finally and uncontestably won, barring a constitutional amendment to undo the Establishment Clause. As it is, in the absence of such decisions, the decision we do have stands. And, as you yourself said, the people are duty bound to face the results. They may disagree all they wish. No one is denying them that right. But if they wish to actually enact the curriculum they want, they will have to bring a new case. I'd be interested in seeing a lawyer play the Free Exercise Clause against the Establishment Clause. It'd be one for the history books.

Or they could send their children to private schools. I went to private schools all my life. I was (am) quite the spoiled brat. I got a lengthy education in religion in high school, and I fought with many of the teachers. The Book of Leviticus was the source of much consternation.
sonofccn wrote:And had they gone the other way I very much doubt you would be as obliging. Now don't misunderstand me I understand why the courts were set up. I'm totaly in agreement with the idea nor do I expouse ignoring them. But throwing out a ruling isn't an argument, it does make it appear you don't care about actually reasoning or winning people over merely having people in power whom will side in your favor.
That's basically it. Once we've argued to the point of blue-facedness, I can stand back and say I've won because the law is on my side. Is that a satisfactory response? If we have respect for the rule of law, then yes. If you successfully change the law, I have to respect it no matter how much I disagree with it. I will certainly try everything in my power to prevent you from changing it, but if you did I'd honor bound as a US citizen, subject to US Supreme Court/Appeals Court/District Court interpretations of US law, which supersede my own, to accept it as law until such time as it is changed again. That's the funny thing about the laws of a democracy. They're fluid things. If there are vast intelligences watching our planet, they're probably laughing themselves silly at how frequently things change here.
sonofccn wrote:Well as a laissez-faire Capitalist I'm less inclined towards Regulations then I suspect you are. But accepting the above it does do exactly what it was designed to do, offer an alternative to Evolution and support Religion so its not defective towards its intended goal. As to the smoking jalopy I don't see parrelels, such a vehicle affects people aorund it and is in violation of various laws and regulations which have been set down, ID doesn't directly affect anyone else but those submitting to it.
It would certainly affect the minority that did not wish to submit to it. The will of the majority prevails in democratic votes, but the recourse of the minority is that the law prevails over the majority. The constitution is the highest law (G-canon, if you will) and prevails against all else unless the people can amass the votes and the representation to change it.

What more is there to argue, really? No one is denying you or anyone else the right to disagree. You have done so, and done so well. But disagreeing with a law does not invalidate it. Being overturned by a court or repealed/rewritten by a congress does. Since the relevant law at issue here is the Establishment Clause, it would take either a) some serious rewriting of the constitution or b) a judicial argument (at a higher level than a district court) that teaching creationism/ID in schools didn't actually violate the clause.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:07 pm

Still we're talking about the 21th century here and it looks like we'll be nearing the 22nd before things even out assuming trends don't suddenly change one way or another. I don't know I guess my concern is the groups walling from each other growing more and more convinced the other side are wrong,stupid and pure evil. That's a path I don't see anything good coming from.
On this we certainly agree, however you have to admit that the scientific method is literally one that changes its position with the evidence and facts and happily follows where they lead in regards to the truth, while religion claims it already knows the truth and any evidence and facts must fit with it to be considered such (at least by many).

I do think people will see reason come the end of the day, work with them showing them why its correct. But I do believe it ultimately will have to come from them to see it, you can't make'em and I think forcing them just creates more Resistance.
I saw a amusing clip where Ken Miller was talking about the topic to a English professor and the Professors said:

"i do not understand why it was such a big deal, in the UK had this happened we would have sent a few Professors from Cambridge to the school had them educate and clarify what evolution was and how it is firmly proven and passed every test for 150 years to those questioning it then the people involved would have said "ok we understand now" apologized to the professors for wasting their valuable time and got on with teaching proper science".

Ken Miller said "you have not spent much time in the USA have ya bud".....

Well its a bit of a stretch comparing letting a community pick its curriculum in a Democratic Republic with the rights of the minority,however imperfectly, inscribed to a theocracy.
If a community wants to teach religious education it is within its rights to do so but when it purposefully teaches religious propaganda as science while at the same time actively tries to dismiss the truth gained from science and scientific methodology itself it is no longer a matter of Democracy as it infringes the constitution.
I never questioned who won the case. I questioned by what justification you employed. Instead citing justification that a judge agreed with you kinda feeds back to my point. But to the case Judge's decisions are not holy writ, they can be debatable and they can overstep their bounds. Which is not to say they can be ignored, they are meant to be a check and balance I agree, and yes back to the case creationist lost and by the rules of the land were duty bound to face the results.
I have to be honest i find your choice of words in regards to "Judge's decisions are not holy writ" to be quite apt under the circumstances. As you know creationism comes about when certain individuals or groups take dogma or comments made in the bible as fact or "holy writ" rather than the musings of iron age primitives and put them against all rational thought ABOVE proven fact (the universe being less than 10,000 years old etc etc).

A lot of evangelical types tend to worship the bible itself rather than seeing past it for the compilation of human opinion that it (one that describes events those writing it never saw) is and worshiping god. Its simply a form of idolatry and by doing this it puts education and science at odds with their beliefs as science disproves a literal interpretation of the bible and teaching historical studies on the bible show it was written by a compilation of men who were not even at the events described and in some cases left stuff out.

Now what this caused people to do was intimidate, threaten, lie, cheat, destroy children's drawings (of the intermediate species from our common ancestor to now) and other information all to try and supplant the truth and force a unsupported doctrine into a place reserved for proven fact while at the same time downplaying proven fact and the methods it is gained. Comparable methods to Germany in the 1930's admittedly to a lesser degree yet this was from so called Christians who supposedly follow the commandment regarding telling lies among other things.

When you look at it from that perspective and see just how far they were willing to go, see the death threats some people got and the lies under oath that were told it just illustrates WHY the idea of a secular system is such a good idea and that is because people can rationalize anything if they think they are serving a God.

Here is a superb documentary on the Dover trial and its well worth watching if a little shocking at how far some will go, it also shows just how utterly destroyed ID was during that trial by science and truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

In the past cannibalism, rape, genocide, slavery and more all justified in the bible by God multiple times, ok if we are honest all done by men because they felt like it or needed to do it for one reason or another and justified doing it by claiming God ok'd it. However it is shown again and again just how society fairs when a single religious belief is given preference over not only other beliefs but society and its laws and values.

When you can defer morality and guilt to a higher being (be it imaginary or not) you can justify anything and i have no doubt it is how those who behaved so deplorably in Dover justify their actions.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by General Donner » Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:18 pm

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:On a individual level for a person who has examined the material on both sides it is not a issue as a individual can believe against all the evidence that 2 + 2 = 5 if they wished to and society would go on quite happily.

On a national level where they dishonesty try to avoid the scientific method of peer review and honest open testing of the facts and attempt to slip flawed material into the science classroom BECAUSE its arguments cannot hold up to scrutiny it is a direct threat to truth and knowledge and scientific discovery.
But then, what is truth, if we are to quote Pilate? It's clear that not all people can agree even on how to define it. Let alone what facts qualify to be included in it. Some believe it can be found through science. (I would dispute that, BTW; I think science is very good at telling us what isn't true, but not always so good at telling us what is.) Others search for it in the holy scriptures of ancient faiths and traditions. And others still, in modern times, think there's no such thing as one truth to be found by men. (Postmodernists, nihilists, existentialists, what have you.) These latter would immediately respond to you, "Whose truth?"

Me, I'm not so much of a relativist ... But I recognize an inherent difficulty in this approach. How to define truth for "public consumption" (e.g., in school), so to speak? Is that to be done through a democratic process? Or should we submit the truth to be defined by some smaller group (scientists, philosophers, scripture scholars) on their own terms?
To be that dishonest for the utterly political reason of promoting a single religion to the vulnerable minds of children so they grow up to support a certain view point is not only disgraceful but dangerous as shown in regards to EVERY historical and contemporary example of human right atrocities from Theocracies towards those who do not share that view.
Well; addressing that, we may consider how many societies in history have maintained "separation of church and state" in the American style throughout history. Even a cursory glance at the high-school history curriculum indicates the vast majority have not. Secularism in its modern sense is, in fact, a very recent invention, and has emerged as a powerful force only in the last two centuries.

By modern definitions, nearly all past societies were "theocracies" to some degree or another. (With law based in large part or small on the holy scriptures.) Thus, distinguishing between theocratic and non-theocratic societies in history and comparing their recordss for atrocities or human rights most likely isn't a very viable approach. In this context, it probably also makes sense for me to mention the fact that several of the most oppressive regimes in recent times have generally been secularists or downright atheists (though that argument is an old one). And that those they have persecuted have generally been the religious, above all Bible-believing Christians.

I might also say, going back to your phrasing, that Christian evangelicals obviously feel their vulnerable children have atheist propaganda promoted to them in secularist schools for obviously political reasons. And they tend to believe this will be equally disastrous for the nation.
Considering how much mankind relies on truth and knowledge and scientific discovery for its very survival in regards to developing better ways of feeding the masses, curing diseases and looking into alternate fuels and solutions to problems in the future. When they attack science in general and its methods through one of the most supported theories in science (Evolution) to promote a superstition they becomes a direct threat to humanities progress and survival.
Progress, perhaps. Survival, really not IMHO. As sonofcnn said, we got along long before there was any such thing as the scientific method. Median income was lower, as was life expectancy, but the species was never in peril of extinction. In fact, our modern, science-fuelled ecologically unsustainable level of consumption (which is still growing exponentially) is arguably a far greater threat to that. (Though I don't believe that is one in absolute terms, either.)

What one might legitimately worry about is that the US would lose in competitiveness as compared to other great powers in the world if its science establishment suffered. Which is, IMHO, a very real danger, and in fact something we can already see the consequences of to some extent. But then, I think that problem has much deeper root causes than the religious sentiments of some (predominantly socioeconomically poor) segments of the population.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:17 pm

General Donner wrote:
But then, what is truth, if we are to quote Pilate? It's clear that not all people can agree even on how to define it. Let alone what facts qualify to be included in it. Some believe it can be found through science. (I would dispute that, BTW; I think science is very good at telling us what isn't true, but not always so good at telling us what is.) Others search for it in the holy scriptures of ancient faiths and traditions. And others still, in modern times, think there's no such thing as one truth to be found by men. (Postmodernists, nihilists, existentialists, what have you.) These latter would immediately respond to you, "Whose truth?"
Truth is just a word what i am referring to is science and the fact its description is to find natural answers to the natural world, things that can be tested, proven and have the ability to be disproved.

The supernatural is by definition not part of that.
Me, I'm not so much of a relativist ... But I recognize an inherent difficulty in this approach. How to define truth for "public consumption" (e.g., in school), so to speak? Is that to be done through a democratic process? Or should we submit the truth to be defined by some smaller group (scientists, philosophers, scripture scholars) on their own terms?
You put science in the science classroom and religion in the class for religions and other superstitions. I think a school without religious studies are doing the students a huge disfavor as you cannot learn about history or appreciate great literature like Shakespeare without knowing about it.


Well; addressing that, we may consider how many societies in history have maintained "separation of church and state" in the American style throughout history. Even a cursory glance at the high-school history curriculum indicates the vast majority have not. Secularism in its modern sense is, in fact, a very recent invention, and has emerged as a powerful force only in the last two centuries.
In the UK religions are taught as a separate class to any others and the class covers many types although the head of state and religion are the same person we tend not to take it or them very seriously (its pretty easy not take a religion seriously when you know it was created cos Henry the 8th had a boner for Anne Boleyn).
By modern definitions, nearly all past societies were "theocracies" to some degree or another. (With law based in large part or small on the holy scriptures.) Thus, distinguishing between theocratic and non-theocratic societies in history and comparing their recordss for atrocities or human rights most likely isn't a very viable approach. In this context, it probably also makes sense for me to mention the fact that several of the most oppressive regimes in recent times have generally been secularists or downright atheists (though that argument is an old one). And that those they have persecuted have generally been the religious, above all Bible-believing Christians.
It should be pointed out that those regimes you mention did not do what they did in the name of atheism they did it because they had the same absolutism as religions and saw the church and religion as a direct threat to their authority with Christianity at the forefront due to its prevalence, none i can think of were secular as "neutral on matters of belief" could hardly be applied to them.
I might also say, going back to your phrasing, that Christian evangelicals obviously feel their vulnerable children have atheist propaganda promoted to them in secularist schools for obviously political reasons. And they tend to believe this will be equally disastrous for the nation.
Those would be the guys flying around in personal jets, living in million dollar homes, while traveling staying in rooms normally reserved for royalty etc and preching in stadium sized super churches?. Oh yea and in some cases being stoned to shit on meth amphetamine while having a 3 year sex stint with a prostitute....a MALE prostitute (Ted Haggard is my favorite evangelical preacher EVER lulz).

Progress, perhaps. Survival, really not IMHO. As sonofcnn said, we got along long before there was any such thing as the scientific method. Median income was lower, as was life expectancy, but the species was never in peril of extinction. In fact, our modern, science-fuelled ecologically unsustainable level of consumption (which is still growing exponentially) is arguably a far greater threat to that. (Though I don't believe that is one in absolute terms, either.)
Well the death rate was huge back before science cured many things like smallpox for example and removing its benefits would have a vast amount of most countries population starving to death.
What one might legitimately worry about is that the US would lose in competitiveness as compared to other great powers in the world if its science establishment suffered. Which is, IMHO, a very real danger, and in fact something we can already see the consequences of to some extent. But then, I think that problem has much deeper root causes than the religious sentiments of some (predominantly socioeconomically poor) segments of the population.
Just a look at Texas and the fucktard Governor who uses the "prayer" method of solving the states problems:


A $27 billion dollar budget deficit
Texas ranks #4 in population living below the poverty line (17.2 %).
Worst environmental record in the United States
Ranks #1 in illiteracy
Ranks #1 on the poorest gun regulations in the US and highest per capita gun murder rates in the US (The Brady campaign gives Texas a score of 6 out of 100 possible points.)
Ranks #1 in the lowest high school graduation rate
Ranks #1 with the highest interest rates “pay day” companies can charge
Ranks #1 in those making below minimum wage
Ranks # 1 (26.5%) who lack health insurance
Ranks # 1 (20.3%) of children who lack health insurance
Ranks # 1 in the highest per capita executions in the world
Ranks #50 in $ spent for Medicaid for the poor and children
Ranks 50th ( dead last ) in $ spent on its citizens
Ranks #2 in the rate of food insecure children.
Ranks 49th ( the 2nd lowest ) in Medicaid $ given to nursing homes
Ranks #1 in teen repeat births
Ranks #4 in teen pregnancy rate
Ranks #3 in teen birth rate
Ranks #2 with the highest home insurance rates
Ranks 49th in $ funded for the mentally ill
Ranks #1 with the highest overall pollution rate
Ranks #4 in adults under correctional control
Ranks #1 in adults under probation

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Political Compass?

Post by 2046 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:12 pm

Kor, don't quote leftist trash.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote: Just a look at Texas and the fucktard Governor who uses the "prayer" method of solving the states problems:


A $27 billion dollar budget deficit
False. That was a worst-case "as high as" projected figure that didn't happen.
Texas ranks #4 in population living below the poverty line (17.2 %).
A figure which means less given that the federal poverty line makes no significant distinction between relative costs of living or wages in different areas.
Worst environmental record in the United States
This probably means they're (a) doing just fine and (b) are actually doing things.
Ranks #1 in illiteracy
English or Spanish?
Ranks #1 on the poorest gun regulations in the US
Which means they have the best gun regulations.

. . . and so on. I just hate to see leftist subjectivist garbage claims used as fact. I realize politics is a complex business and there is incentive for liars to lie big, but it really angers me to see a good state singled out by the jealous.

Every state has problems. Some are self-caused, some are situational. I certainly wouldn't think it fair to criticize California because they spend money on coastal needs whereas Arizona doesn't, for instance . . . that's stupid, but that's just the sort of thing the ignorant like to do.

And then you get things in this list that are subjective, like "poorest gun laws". Oh, you mean they're the most free and most respecting of the 2nd Amendment? Sadly, yes, that's exactly what is meant.

As for the rest of your list, there's stupid stuff like payday loan shark interest rates, folks making below minimum wage (which is obviously illegal anyway, and simply relates to illegal immigration which the federal government won't solve or allow Texas to solve), and dishonest things about crime.

For instance, the list gives Texas the highest number of executions, folks on probation, and #4 "under correctional control" (whatever that actually means, since it's probably a dishonest phrasing meant to include more than just "in jail"), yet ignores that Texas has a great crime rate given the population. Texas, after all, has the 2nd highest population in the 50 states, yet is 15th for violent crimes.

But instead of noting that, whoever wrote this trash desperately tried to find something to pin on Texas to make it sound criminal and bad.

Well if they're doing so good compared to the population, maybe every other state oughta start doing what Texas is doing, 'cause it seems to work. Get me some electric chairs and probation anklets, stat!

Oh yeah, and they do all that without any state income tax. Eat it, communo-statists!

Edit: I was right about that #4 "under correctional control" dishonest phrasing. That actually includes people on parole or under probation, meaning they tried to double-count the probation claim while at the same time making it sound like all of Texas was in prison.

Kids, it's not that I'm just super-good at spotting leftist lies. It's just that they're so consistent with how (and how poorly) they lie.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Picard » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:22 pm

http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/docume ... ssueID=168
F-35: Out of Altitude, Airspeed, and Ideas — But Never Money

By CHUCK SPINNEY | January 30, 2012

No program better illustrates the pathologies of the weapons acquisition process as it is currently practiced by the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex (MICC) than the entirely predictable, and in this case, predicted, problems dragging the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into a dead man’s spiral.

The F-35 in on track to be the most expensive program in the history of the Defense Department, and it has repeated just about every mistake we invented since Robert McNamara concocted the multimission, multi-service TFX — a program conceived with the same kind of fanciful one-shoe fits all imaginings as the F-35.

Technical problems, cost overruns, and schedule slippages caused the TFX to implode into one of the most infamous debacles in Pentagon’s history. The result was the super-costly single-mission (deep strike), single service, swing-wing F-111. Planes were delivered without mission essential avionics and sat on the runway for two years awaiting parts. Production rates were slowed and total production quantities were reduced from 1,500 to 500. That cutback would have worked materially to wreck tactical fighter aviation in the Air Force, had it not been for the intervention of a brilliant iconoclastic band of military officers and civilians, who became known in the Pentagon and industry as the Fighter Mafia (their exploits are described here).

The Fighter Mafia began its operation by saving the F-15 from going down the same pathway to swing-wing oblivion as the F-111, and then conceived the lower cost, high-performance F-16 and the lethal A-10 attack aircraft. Together these three airplanes were produced at sufficiently high production rates to modernize and expand the tactical fighter force in the late 1970s through the mid 1980s — something not achieved by any other major category of force structure. Ironically, the bulk of these airplanes were purchased with money appropriated during the Carter Administration. Costs skyrocketed and production rates declined as soon as the Reagan Administration began to flood money into Pentagon, because the contractors loaded these planes with bells and whistles … and raised prices, sometimes quite arbitrarily, according to official data I assembled while working in the Pentagon in the 1980s.

Today there is no Fighter Mafia to rescue tactical aviation form the predators in the MICC. But the boondoggles remain: Like the ill-fated TFX, the F-35 is planned to be produced in high quantities for all three services. Like the TFX, the future of fighter aviation is dependent on the high F-35 production rates. Like the TFX the F-35 has suffered from chronic requirements creep, technical problems (engineering change proposals are now flooding in like water going over Niagara Falls — an official summary of the current technical problems can be found here). Like the TFX, the F-35 is suffering severe cost overruns, and horrendous schedule slippages as production rates are cut back. And like the TFX, the F-35, now entering its sixth year of low rate production, was put into production way before before its technical/cost problems were solved, a process known as concurrent engineering and manufacturing development that guarantees costly backfits and/or specification relaxations (known in the trade as ‘managing to a rubber baseline).

But the F-35 program is not at serious risk, despite all the hysterical hype in the trade press — not by a long shot. The F-35?s political safety net has been front- loaded and politically engineered (the general practices of the power games are explained here) with exquisite malice of forethought. Domestically, the F-35 employs 130,000 people and 1300 domestic suppliers in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The only states missing the gravy train are Hawaii, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Internationally, there are already cooperative development/production plans involving nine countries, and more are in the offing. Given the intensity of the geographic carpet-bombing of contracts around the globe, can there be any question why the Secretary of the Air Force said in September, “”Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program. It must succeed.” If you think that is an accident, dear reader, I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
2046 wrote:And then you get things in this list that are subjective, like "poorest gun laws". Oh, you mean they're the most free and most respecting of the 2nd Amendment? Sadly, yes, that's exactly what is meant.
Most free? As in, "Here, to buy a gun you have to just walk in a shop and buy it, you don't even have to prove you don't have a PTSD or other issues that may cause you to use it for inappropriate purposes, like killing students at a high school party. Oh, and you get a free cookie!"?

I'd call that quite poor gun laws, and AFAIK, it's exactly how it is in several US states.
But instead of noting that, whoever wrote this trash desperately tried to find something to pin on Texas to make it sound criminal and bad.
Entire US are quite... deregulated. I didn't read article, but if he/she/they tried to say that Texas is worse off than rest of US... quite idiotic.
What one might legitimately worry about is that the US would lose in competitiveness as compared to other great powers in the world if its science establishment suffered. Which is, IMHO, a very real danger, and in fact something we can already see the consequences of to some extent. But then, I think that problem has much deeper root causes than the religious sentiments of some (predominantly socioeconomically poor) segments of the population.
I'd say it is due to extreme state deregulation of corporations. Lockheed Martin, for example, outright lied about true cost of F22, and still does - it was to cost 35 million USD per copy (I don't know exact year, but I'd say it would be 60 to 100 million USD in today's dollars), now it costs 250 million USD per copy flyaway cost, 411 million USD unit procurement cost; F35 is, if anything, even worse when it comes to cost overruns - far less capable at AtA and AtG than legacy platforms, touted as "affordable", and with estimated unit production run 11 or 12 times higher, it has flyaway cost of 208 million USD per plane, 304 million USD per plane with R&D, and it will only increase (all figures are describing situation in 2011 if not outright stated otherwise) - yet Lockheed Martin gets no punishment whatsoever. Oh, and let's not forget substandardly manufactured parts (stealth coatings, canopies).

And this:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244 ... ears-later

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Political Compass?

Post by 2046 » Fri May 10, 2013 12:17 pm

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/09/sta ... star-trek/

Among Britons, in addition to age and gender, there seems to be a left and right component to Trek vs. Wars preference.

I can imagine that some of this appearance is just age but not all, given my own observations. So why would statists prefer Star Wars?

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Admiral Breetai » Fri May 10, 2013 6:01 pm

Kor people burned at the stake the last time a bunch of religious loons decided to have a good witch pwning weren't wiccans Wicca isn't even that old or atleast the modern nonsense psuedo religion is about as old as those children of god whackos

most of them were probably Christians, jews or just plain crazy people or people rail roaded by petty jealousy and lies (see the majority of the people offed during the Salem witch trials)

as for non Christians religions attempting to dangerously subvert our secular society? Wake up elements of the Islamic religion within the US have been doing this for years now. You act as if Christianity is the only offender

it isn't and it isn't the most dangerous one currently..that'd be Islam

you can stop a Christian from forcing his nonsense ID on a school board you cannot stop a Muslim group from doing the same, due to certain protections and outcries

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Political Compass?

Post by Khas » Fri May 10, 2013 8:32 pm

I wouldn't say the Islamic subversions are the most dangerous. It's pretty much a toss-up between the Christian and Islamic right.

Also Breetai, the post you responded to was nearly a year old. :P DarkStar just committed some thread necromancy, that's all. :P

Post Reply