Replies

"So a guy with a BS in Art History will need to know how much math in order to be qualified to discuss it on a school board? None"

Why is someone with no knowledge of math qualified to discus it's merits?

"And if enough parents want 2 sets of math books to be presented to their kids, for whatever goofy reason, it should be allowable as long as it doesn’t cause harm to society."

So you have no opinion as to what type of math is promoted as long as it is done democratically?

"You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true.
***Show me where there is that requirement here on FR and I will follow it."

It's not a FR rule, it's a rule of logical debate. You made an assertion and then refused to back it up.

"This appears to be some unwritten rule that you guys have been following, and you’ve been ridiculing anyone who can’t stand up to some nebulous technical standard."

Providing evidence is not a *nebulous technical standard*.

"If a school board is made up of all art history majors, they’ll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff."

And they will make horrible decisions on scientific issues.
You talk as if ignorance is a virtue.

"If this is a definite requirement for entering crevo threads, show me where it is written by the mods or JimRob and I will follow whatever is considered to be the correct norm. Until then, I’m gonna stick around."

You can stick around, making ludicrous statements about a theory you refuse to engage. But that won't make you look like anything but a fool.

"Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to.
***Oh, that’s a good, zippy one liner. Your callousness should not be the level we strive to when we teach our children. Sorry, I’m just not as crisp as you when it comes to one liners."

"Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide.
***Ok. A garden left to itself will grow weeds. This area of concern, where kids will process the evo information in an unhealthy manner by default, is due to the fact that Science stops right at the point where the moral implications start to arise. The lack of a moral guide is like having the lack of a gardener, the default position is moral weeds."

No, I said where does the theory of evolution corrupt people. Evolution, and science in general, doesn't pretend to be a moral guide.

"A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse.
***I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children. But like the art history laden school board, the level of expertise has its limits."

No you aren't, you are ducking every attempt by us to get you to say what specifically about the theory is dangerous.
You call it soulless but won't say how it is soulless.

"Yes you did.
***Um, no I didn’t. "

You want science to be decided by a vote.

Hey, you are the one who wants everybody to be as ignorant as you.

"***I’m not ignorant. I know enough about the theory to have gotten this far and close down a couple of crevo threads."

Now we know your motives.

"Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?"

That isn't evolution.

""Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. "…Do you know how ironic your above statement is?
***Glad you caught that. But when did I question your character? "
When you tied NAMBLA and Islamic terrorism to evolution.

"You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney.
***Time for a bran muffin and decaf. Geez, get ahold of yourself. You presume to tell me what I think? "

It's not a difficult task.

"Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy.
***And yet you do not address the points brought up in the analogy, even though you’ve been shown to be wrong that I wasn’t using Association. But your colorful language is enjoyable, keep up the good work."

You didn't make any points. We are still waiting for some substance.

"Nonsense. I appealed to no authority.
***Sure you do. The authority of knowledge in the subject matter, that someone who doesn’t know as much as [whatever yardstick, note that this isn’t written down anywhere I can find] should not be engaging in these social policy debates."

That is not authority. You have no knowledge of evolution and yet want to influence policy on evolution in the classroom. It's not that someone has more knowledge than you, it's that they address the subject and you evade it. The social policy is evolution.

"***The core of the debate is what should we teach our children, and I have engaged. The core is not how much I know about evolution, thus I choose not to engage there for the most part. If you want to engage others on what you consider to be the core, go ahead."

Look, you gave away your plan earlier; you want to shut down these crevo threads. You are proud of the threads you have shut down. They make your side look stupid.

You have provided a lot of amusement. For that I thank you.

Why is someone with no knowledge of math qualified to discus it's merits?
***Because in our analogy he’s on the school board.

It's not a FR rule, it's a rule of logical debate. You made an assertion and then refused to back it up.
***Did not George W make the same assertion?

"If a school board is made up of all art history majors, they’ll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff."…. And they will make horrible decisions on scientific issues
***How do you know they will make horrible decisions on technical issues? Most school boards don’t have so many PhDs and they seem to be doing pretty well in that regard.

…You talk as if ignorance is a virtue.
***What is the standard of whether it is a horrible decision? If their communities are safer or quieter or whatever as a result of their decisions, they did a good thing. I’m not advocating ignorance of the theory of evo, just that the burden of knowledge might be something that kids shouldn’t have to bear. They can carry that burden later on in life when they are better equipped for it. It’s not an advocacy of ignorance, it is an advocacy of wisdom for our children.

You can stick around, making ludicrous statements about a theory you refuse to engage. But that won't make you look like anything but a fool.
***OK, thanks for the invite.

No, I said where does the theory of evolution corrupt people. Evolution, and science in general, doesn't pretend to be a moral guide.
***We all know that. The fact that there is no moral guide is the problem.

No you aren't, you are ducking every attempt by us to get you to say what specifically about the theory is dangerous.
***I’ll get around to it.

You call it soulless but won't say how it is soulless.
***It is soulless by its silence on the moral issues that arise from processing the theory on a behavioral level. Kids think they are not accountable, that they can get away with animalistic behavior, that it is a world of “survival of the fittest” so I might as well just start getting mine right now.

Hey, you are the one who wants everybody to be as ignorant as you.
***Another good zippy one liner.

Now we know your motives.
***If you want to know my motives, ask. I’ll tell you.

"Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?"… That isn't evolution.
***That’s my point, that you don’t want me telling you what you want so why do you tell me what I want?

When you tied NAMBLA and Islamic terrorism to evolution.
***Again. They’re not tied. They’re not Associated. It is an analogy.

You presume to tell me what I think? "… It's not a difficult task.
***Go ahead.

You didn't make any points. We are still waiting for some substance.
***If I make the points again will you answer them?

That is not authority. You have no knowledge of evolution and yet want to influence policy on evolution in the classroom. It's not that someone has more knowledge than you, it's that they address the subject and you evade it. The social policy is evolution.
***Why is knowledge of evolution required in the discussion of whether it is good social policy? GWB didn’t have the knowledge enough to take you guys on, neither does the average school board member. You are right, in my limited knowledge of evolution I “want to influence policy on evolution in the classroom”. That is my right as a freeper, an American, a voter, etc.

Look, you gave away your plan earlier; you want to shut down these crevo threads.
***No. I prefer to discuss things rather than have the other side just give up or throw one liner zingers or ridicule or whatever 2nd grade game is the order of the day. “I gave away my plan?” I didn’t know I had a plan. Could you please tell me what the plan is so that I can have it back, you’re so good at telling me what I think and what I want.

You are proud of the threads you have shut down.
***Now you are telling me how I feel? Well, if you are right, please please tell me what stock I should buy tomorrow.

They make your side look stupid.
***My guess is that my side can handle it. So far, no freepmail asking me to pipe down or apologize or anything like that.

Glad I was amusing for you.