I know that we disagree on merit on central banking and economic control, but do you think the Fed should be more transparent? Do you support a comprehensive audit of the Fed?
Ben Bernanke is now doing press conferences.He is doing it because of Ron Paul. A Federal Reserve chairman is forced to do press conferences because of Ron Paul.
That is an enormous accomplishment. Winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan(neither of which will happen) is miniscule in comparison.
Go back and watch clips of Alan Greenspan testify to Congress and engage in "syntax destruction" to understand what I mean.
For the first time, the Federal Reserve, which rips us off every day and provides the money needed to fund all of these costly wars is on the defensive.
Long term, that is greater change, in a positive direction, than the last six Presidents combined have managed to accomplish.
I'm not so sure I would attribute that directly to Ron Paul, and I am equally not as sure as you are that it is a good thing. I am not of the opinion that the federal reserve as the devil that many want to make it out to be, especially considering how very crappy things were on a continuous basis before it was formed.
That said -- A monarch should always have a noose around his neck -- It helps him sit up straighter.
Actually, I'm all for it.
Huckabee Opts Against 2012 White House Bid
Hnn. Thoughts? I'm actually a bit disappointed. I like Huckabee, I think he'd give Obama a run for his money.
I like Huckabee, I think he'd give Obama a run for his money.
I love to listen to him talk. I'd elect him as Grand Speechifier of the Nation. But when he starts talking about amending the Constitution so that it's "in line with God's scriptures," I run in the opposite direction, fast.
I like Huckabee, I think he'd give Obama a run for his money.I love to listen to him talk. I'd elect him as Grand Speechifier of the Nation. But when he starts talking about amending the Constitution so that it's "in line with God's scriptures," I run in the opposite direction, fast.
True dat.
Maybe my Catholic upbringing is shading my understanding of mutually exclusive? That might have been a better way to posit my comment. Or, the reconciliation of differences. ??? *scratches head*Actually it does. That is sort of the explicit point. Now you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time - its actually fairly easy and, officially speaking, all Catholics do - God is the cause of all causes being their official line.
'Believing' in ID does not equal dismissing evolution.There is a difference between what ID contends is the case and what the Pope contends is the case. The Papal position, God is the cause of all causes, contends that whatever science finds there will always be a God that came before that and set it in motion. Hence Evolution by natural selection is perfectly possible - its just that God may well have caused the first life form to spring up...and if Science shows how that is done then, well, no problem. God caused the Big Bang, and if Science figures out what caused the Big Bang...well again not an issue - God caused whatever caused the Big Bang, etc.
On the other hand ID makes a very specific contention and this contention is explicitly counter to Evolution - A Creator created each individual species in a unique act of creation and no species can transit from this divinely created form to another species. In other words species are rigid.
This explicitly stands in juxtaposition to Evolution which holds that species evolve from other species. In other words species are fluid.
To evolution by natural selection to be specific.
ID as proposed by Michal Behe is a parrellel theory of evolutionary (which does include for the record common decent). It has however been discredited to the point where it has basicially ruined Behe's career.
It is also not the same as the ID which is proposed for teaching to children by the Christian right which has been shown in court to be a near copy/paste name replacement job of earlier creationist text books ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
I actually quiet respect the catholic church for their "God of the Gaps", it is a very tight piece of mental athletics, that makes their approach almost impossible to refute.
|
No interest thus far. However, he could easily change his mind once in office. Obama's done it. Bush has done it. Every president back to the beginning has done it. It's an issue that, while not necessarily make or break for me(I don't plan on voting for him anyway), could very much be one for others.It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
That's unlikely. Since I've been following Ron Paul, he has been saying mostly the same things over and over for 21 years now. I don't think he would change much when he is President. The only thing I think he's changed on is from supporting the death penalty to being against it.
No interest thus far. However, he could easily change his mind once in office. Obama's done it. Bush has done it. Every president back to the beginning has done it. It's an issue that, while not necessarily make or break for me(I don't plan on voting for him anyway), could very much be one for others.It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
It seems like a distraction to me, but to each their own.
I very much prefer Cirino's objections which are largely based on Paul's legislative history and are clear policy driven arguments.
I'd much rather people be debating bills he has sponsored than the nuances of ID or the Declaration of Independence.
I'd like to get back to addressing the bills he has sponsored on a point by point basis, but I just got some very bad personal news, and i don't think I'll be up for it for a while.
True dat.I like Huckabee, I think he'd give Obama a run for his money.I love to listen to him talk. I'd elect him as Grand Speechifier of the Nation. But when he starts talking about amending the Constitution so that it's "in line with God's scriptures," I run in the opposite direction, fast.
+1
You have my apologies for taking the thread off topic.
This is beautiful, by the way.
Heck the fact that this is a conversation and not a shouting match is a wonder thing in and of itself.
To evolution by natural selection to be specific.ID as proposed by Michal Behe is a parrellel theory of evolutionary (which does include for the record common decent). It has however been discredited to the point where it has basicially ruined Behe's career.
It is also not the same as the ID which is proposed for teaching to children by the Christian right which has been shown in court to be a near copy/paste name replacement job of earlier creationist text books ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
I actually quiet respect the catholic church for their "God of the Gaps", it is a very tight piece of mental athletics, that makes their approach almost impossible to refute.
I stand corrected. Your correct in your statement that there seem to be several strands of ID. Seems I read some ID material which seemed to imply that the movement was more uniform then maybe it is/was.
Like you I've no real issue with the Catholic position, or any similar position in religion, because it allows science to get on with it which is really where my bottom line is.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception
You realize of course that it does and the bill you link was instead defining:
a)Human life begins at conception, andb)a person includes all human life.
There is no argument that parasitic underdeveloped homo sapiens are alive. The question is if they are persons. And that was what the bill was addressing. We can argue about that, but I would hope we would not be arguing about whether these things are alive.
|
|
I should know to stay away from other political websites. I just saw a post from a woman screaming (or ALL CAPS, whatever that is) about how Ron Paul wants to federally dictate all women's medical issues.
How depressing. This is so far away from the truth that I have no words to describe the immense sadness that came over me just from reading that one post. Its not even rooted in any fact, but I will try to understand where she is coming from and assume that she has some deep emotional tie to her pro-choice rights.
Ron Paul, likely, has a deep emotional tie to his pro-life stance. After delivering 4,000 babies, its quite easy to see where this stance comes from. However, he has said on multiple occasions that the determining if abortion should be legal or not (though he is personally against it), should be relegated to the states, since it is not within the mandate of the Constitution for the federal government to oversee or regulate.
People are looking at Ron Paul's personal issues and thinking he's going to somehow mandate them across the board. Is this what we, as a nation, have come to expect from our President: a king who cannot separate his religious or personal beliefs from his political office? If I want to elect someone who has the same exact beliefs as mine, I will be waiting a very long time. I did vote for Natural Law party presidential candidate at one time, but even then there were things I did not agree with him about. But I think I have matured over the years and now understand that there is no way that the President will have all (or even most) of the same beliefs and principles I have.
Ron Paul's beliefs are not my own, but he doesn't want to enforce his beliefs on me. And that I have a great appreciation for. He may personally be against homosexual behavior, but he has never demonstrated a political bias towards heterosexuals. His only bias is towards the Constitutionally defended rights of the Individual. These he defends to every possible extreme, and the more I watch him do this, the more respect I have for him.
I do not agree with him personally on many issues. The beautiful part is that he doesn't want me to. He wants me to be FREE. I can't think of another candidate that promotes this philosophy while holding staunchly to his own, repeatedly, in the face of all adversity.
To evolution by natural selection to be specific.ID as proposed by Michal Behe is a parrellel theory of evolutionary (which does include for the record common decent). It has however been discredited to the point where it has basicially ruined Behe's career.
It is also not the same as the ID which is proposed for teaching to children by the Christian right which has been shown in court to be a near copy/paste name replacement job of earlier creationist text books ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
I actually quiet respect the catholic church for their "God of the Gaps", it is a very tight piece of mental athletics, that makes their approach almost impossible to refute.
I stand corrected. Your correct in your statement that there seem to be several strands of ID. Seems I read some ID material which seemed to imply that the movement was more uniform then maybe it is/was.
Like you I've no real issue with the Catholic position, or any similar position in religion, because it allows science to get on with it which is really where my bottom line is.
Like nearly all the issues that ever get discussed around here, it is a complex issue, that people try to treat as though is simple.
Behe was a fairly run of the mill scientist, who had an idea(an admittedly fairly interesting one) that said some structures are to two complex in their most simple form to have evolved. He believes that structures like the bacteria flagellum could not evolve because if simplified they do not perform a function. He called this idea Irreducible complexity.
After Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), creationism was successfully held out of the science class room. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a texas based christian publishing house latched onto Behe's hypothesis, and adapted their creationist text book "Unlocking the secrets:The Mystery of Life's Origin" to be an Intelligent Design text book named Of pandas and People.
This tactic was specifically to dodge the supreme court ruling, with only minor changes having been made to the text.
The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.
Now compare the above sections with their corresponding sections from Of Pandas and People.
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
I highlighted one of the most amusing Copypasta errors.
Behe had utterly failed to capture the imagination of the biological sciences with his ideas. For some reason, he hitched his cart to the horses of the Christian right, after they started using his hypothesis. Thoughts as to why he would do so (especially when they actually disagree on so much; for instance ID as set out by Behe, in no way supports the Of Pandas and People definition as it supports common decent). It seems most likely to have been a marriage of convenience, with Behe desperately having wanted to get his idea talked about, even if only in negative terms.
It has been talked about a great deal. Every single one of the examples of an Irreducibly complex structure put forwards has been blown out of the water. Poor Behe has been left a laughing stock to as large extent, with few courses of action but to ever more ardently ride out on the side of the creationists. I feel deeply sorry for the man.
No interest thus far. However, he could easily change his mind once in office. Obama's done it. Bush has done it. Every president back to the beginning has done it. It's an issue that, while not necessarily make or break for me(I don't plan on voting for him anyway), could very much be one for others.It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
It seems like a distraction to me, but to each their own.
I very much prefer Cirino's objections which are largely based on Paul's legislative history and are clear policy driven arguments.
I'd much rather people be debating bills he has sponsored than the nuances of ID or the Declaration of Independence.
I'd like to get back to addressing the bills he has sponsored on a point by point basis, but I just got some very bad personal news, and i don't think I'll be up for it for a while.
ID is a pretty important topic when it comes to Ron Paul for two reasons.
1. It calls into question his suitability for high office.
It is reasonable to ask if he is suitable, because after spending more than a decade studying biology and medicine gets this issue so wildly and laughably wrong. If he fails to that extent at making decisions about a subject he should have a degree of expertese with, how do you trust his decision making on issues he has far less expertese with. It points to fairly major issues with deductive reasoning on his part.
2. Policy implications.
I haven't read up on Ron Paul's economic policies. My gut feeling is that like most conservative Eco-policy, it will result in widening gap between rich an poor, and the associated worsening in social well being that accompanies increased income inequality.
Well thats pretty par for the course. Another Democrat term might do something to alleviate it. The issue is relatively easy to fix in the long term.
However, should Ron Paul actually implement nationwide changes to the educational system, to start teaching ID, it basically would result in the complete destruction of science education for a generation of school children(save those few luck individuals in private schools which didn't take it up.) Destroy science education and with it goes high tech industry, scientific and medical advancement, and that is just dealing with the easy to predict stuff.
It is ofcause unlikely Ron Paul would make such a choice...but the danger such a possibility represents is stunning to say the least.
Ugh…
Okay stardust lets try and break this down a little.
1. You shouldn’t draw conclusions about a person until you have ment them.
I wouldn't classify a person as an insane bigot until you've met the person. There's absolutely no way that you can judge a person until you meet them and have spoken with them yourself. Asking questions as necessary.
And indeed, I withhold such judgments about people until I have met them in person and had a conversation.
Stardust, have you met Hitler? Have you met Starlin? Are you unwilling to call these men vicious, genocide committing lunatics?
Because I am willing to call them such.
I do not need to have met these individuals to draw conclusions about them. It is possible to study their writings, actions and speechs, and come to conclusions about them, just as it is possible to do so for other less monstrous historical figures.
We are also able to draw conclusions from the behaviour and stated beliefs of living people, it is a basic skill of living within a society.
Even this discussion is flavoured by the conclusions we make based upon reading each other’s posts on this forum, without having met. For instance by respect for Kirth’s sharp mind( based on many discussions alongside him), or my conclusion that Bitter Thorn is fairly decent despite his silly politicial views(based on his consession of a point to me about the nature of rights in a previous discussion, despite the fact it went against his own views on the subject). These conclusions can be wrong, and being able to change your position if they are shown to be wrong is important, but we have to be able to draw conclusions about those we discuss or interact with if, we wish to be able to engage in discussion about them or with them.
2. Having met a person is a better way of drawing a conclusion about some one than studying their actions and statements across a range of audiences.
Well, having met the man in person several times, I can safely say that the Good Doctor is neither Stupid nor Cynical.
I hate to tell you this, but all your meeting has really told you about Ron Paul is that you do not think he is either stupid or cynical. Your conclusion may well be wrong. History is littered with individuals who have come to erroneous conclusions about others, based on personal meetings, discussions and even friendships.
Stardust, have you met Hitler? Have you met Starlin? Are you unwilling to call these men vicious, genocide committing lunatics?
What do you have against Jim Starlin?
Stardust, have you met Hitler? Have you met Starlin? Are you unwilling to call these men vicious, genocide committing lunatics?
What do you have against Jim Starlin?
His writing is stilted and his characters flat ;)
|
|
I'm afraid I can't post anything in response without getting defensive. I felt insulted a few times by what you've just written. So, I'm going to sit this one out and wait for the next political statement I can respond to. Thanks for expressing your opinion. I'm sorry I don't share enough of it to have a conversation about it.
EDIT: I do have to say, though, that you seem a little mistaken about Ron Paul's policies. You might want to see his recent speech from his campaign. I linked it above, in This is beautiful..
I'm afraid I can't post anything in response without getting defensive. I felt insulted a few times by what you've just written. So, I'm going to sit this one out and wait for the next political statement I can respond to. Thanks for expressing your opinion. I'm sorry I don't share enough of it to have a conversation about it.
I assume that this was aimed at me.
How have I offended you? I personally struggle to see how I could have offended you with my last few posts. Especially as I went to great lengths to remove my often caustic attempts at wit from the my text. All that I have said, directed at you, is that your position with regards to how you form opinion on individuals is illogical.
|
|
Well, let us just say that I felt you attacked my ability to judge character. Having been in the human sciences field for 10 years now, I like to think that I have a significant portion of character judgment down. There's room for improvement, of course.
Hitler and Stalin were both warmongers (which Ron Paul very specifically is not), and it was apparent to most who met them that these were very powerful, hateful individuals. Of course, there were times when they could present a calmer facade, but not all the time. Almost always, there were several individuals around them who could distinguish the burning hatred under the outer pretenses.
As a person who seems to have quite a bit of research to do about Ron Paul's policies, I found it incredulous and disappointing that you would call him names. It's one thing to attack the beliefs of another person, their policies, their deeds and actions. You could safely say that a policy is insane, or a person's deeds and actions are insane, but I think you would have to have a higher degree in Psychology to declare a person insane.
I also fail to understand where your hostility arises from, so I am unfortunately perturbed by that. But I do feel as though you are saying we should judge people before we meet them, based on what other people write about them, or tell us to believe about them. This is insulting to me because I believe I have expressed clearly that our judgments should be based on our own personal experiences. Forming a judgment based on the mob rule is nowhere close to personal liberty and responsibility.
So, yes, you can judge a person based on what you read about them, but is that a fair judgment, or even a fair assessment of their person-hood?
Admittedly, I am also feeling a little anguish on behalf of Ron Paul, who is not here personally to defend himself from such an assault. The comparison of Ron Paul to Hitler and Stalin is not only unprovoked, its exceptionally unfair. When you have read his books, his policies, his bills, his arguments for a stable monetary stadard, his debates against slavery and racism and the death penalty, and perhaps most importantly his appeal for a return to the Contitutional Rule of Law and a return of individual liberties, then you may tell me how he is an insane bigot, but please provide your reasons why you believe so.
EDIT: I have been informed by an onlooker to drop the argument, as there is no way we will be able to convince one another of the other person's viewpoints. This may be the case, but I would like to make a general call for courtesy and respect in this thread. If you disagree with Ron Paul's policies, please express clearly and politely where you disagree. His personal beliefs should not really been an issue, since he has expressed on numerous occasions his belief that most of the issues he has strong beliefs about should, by the Constitution, be mandated to the States, not the federal government.
Yeah, but how do you feel about his comparison of Ron Paul with Jim Starlin?
I don't think Ron Paul would make Galactacus's butt look so big, do you?
No interest thus far. However, he could easily change his mind once in office. Obama's done it. Bush has done it. Every president back to the beginning has done it. It's an issue that, while not necessarily make or break for me(I don't plan on voting for him anyway), could very much be one for others.It's interesting what peoples disqualifies are, but it would be nice if this thread doesn't go down the ID rabbit hole.As long as the person the thread is about is firmly ensconced in its camp, then the topic is less a rabbit hole and more of an unavoidable pothole.I understand it as a personal objection like in zombieneighbors' case. That's a personal characteristic that is an automatic deal breaker, but it's not a legitimate policy issue when the candidate has no interest in making it policy.
It seems like a distraction to me, but to each their own.
I very much prefer Cirino's objections which are largely based on Paul's legislative history and are clear policy driven arguments.
I'd much rather people be debating bills he has sponsored than the nuances of ID or the Declaration of Independence.
I'd like to get back to addressing the bills he has sponsored on a point by point basis, but I just got some very bad personal news, and i don't think I'll be up for it for a while.
I may not agree with Cirno on many things, but I can't deny he doesn't bring something to the table almost every time. Excellent line by line.
I'm still going through some things myself, BT, I hope things improve for you as well.
So called "macro-evolution" is of a much lower importance to the actual advancement of science and industry than the so called "micro-evolution" ideas. I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the idea of ID.
EDIT: Also, about a president ordering certain concepts to be taught in school. I'd be more worried about from someone who pushes ideas of large federal government, over someone who pushes ideas of limited federal government. If Paul could toss No-Child-Left-Behind, that alone would get my vote.
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
Don't know if he'll be running in 2012, but Mike Gravel might interest you. Although he's originally a Democrat, he did switch to the Libertarian party last election (probably to increase his odds).
Removed a post - please post civilly, particularly in political threads. Please and thank you.
I encourage everyone to actually read up on RP's actual beliefs and policies before disparaging them. The only reason the guy is a republican is because anyone who isnt in the big 2 parties has no chance.
Yeah, but how do you feel about his comparison of Ron Paul with Jim Starlin?
I don't think Ron Paul would make Galactacus's butt look so big, do you?
You, sir, owe me one moutain dew, as the one I had went through my nose.
I encourage everyone to actually read up on RP's actual beliefs and policies before disparaging them. The only reason the guy is a republican is because anyone who isnt in the big 2 parties has no chance.
Are they any different from what he has voted for or said in the past (e.g. the links Professorcirno provided)?
If so, why has he changed his stance or why are they different now?Also, why shouldn't one disparage a candidate for his deeply held personal beliefs if they run contrary to one's own? E.g. religious belief can certainly affect a President's decisions, c.f. Bush.
|
|
I'm sure you realize that Professorcirno's comments about the links were biased. Not to say that anything is not these days, but I'll allow you to judge for yourself.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
I encourage everyone to actually read up on RP's actual beliefs and policies before disparaging them. The only reason the guy is a republican is because anyone who isnt in the big 2 parties has no chance.Are they any different from what he has voted for or said in the past (e.g. the links Professorcirno provided)?
If so, why has he changed his stance or why are they different now?
Also, why shouldn't one disparage a candidate for his deeply held personal beliefs if they run contrary to one's own? E.g. religious belief can certainly affect a President's decisions, c.f. Bush.
I got no problem with what Cirno posted. He might have put a negative spin on some of his links, whereas the rest of the links I view as a good thing. I got no problem because at least he did his research and knows where RP stands. However, I do NOT like when people post stuff like, "I've never read Paul's economic policies, but I suspect its..etc. etc. etc." I got no problems with judging someone just by what you read about them, as long as you actually read about them.
So called "macro-evolution" is of a much lower importance to the actual advancement of science and industry than the so called "micro-evolution" ideas. I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the idea of ID.
EDIT: Also, about a president ordering certain concepts to be taught in school. I'd be more worried about from someone who pushes ideas of large federal government, over someone who pushes ideas of limited federal government. If Paul could toss No-Child-Left-Behind, that alone would get my vote.
Pres, the problem is that they are the same thing, there is no divide. If you do not understand how evolution by natural selection causes speciation, you don't understand Evolution by natural selection. Thinking that they are two distinct thing, means your understanding of the basic mechanics are so flawed as to be damned near useless in any role which makes use of the Principles. Given that industries from Biotech to engineering make use of techniques derived from evolution by natural selection, a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality could potentially be a major and long lasting blow to US industry.
|
|
Pres, the problem is that they are the same thing, there is no divide. If you do not understand how evolution by natural selection causes speciation, you don't understand Evolution by natural selection. Thinking that they are two distinct thing, means your understanding of the basic mechanics are so flawed as to be damned near useless in any role which makes use of the Principles. Given that industries from Biotech to engineering make use of techniques derived from evolution by natural selection, a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality could potentially be a major and long lasting blow to US industry.So called "macro-evolution" is of a much lower importance to the actual advancement of science and industry than the so called "micro-evolution" ideas. I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the idea of ID.
EDIT: Also, about a president ordering certain concepts to be taught in school. I'd be more worried about from someone who pushes ideas of large federal government, over someone who pushes ideas of limited federal government. If Paul could toss No-Child-Left-Behind, that alone would get my vote.
I don't see how the President's personal beliefs would cause any concern to US industry. In fact, Dr. Paul seems to have a very effective view of US industry in his espousal of Free Market principles. For more information on this, read The Revolution and Liberty Defined.
We could just as easily say that because Obama is a muslim, he has a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality in regards to receiving 40 virgins in the afterlife if he dies for his faith. The President's religion or philosophical viewpoint is only relevant if he intends to force that religion or philosophical viewpoint on others. And so far, the only philosophical viewpoint I have observed Ron Paul "forcing" (though I use the term loosely), is that of personal freedom (also called liberty) and responsibility.
That being said, I would be far more personally inclined to follow and support a person of consistent principled integrity if they held themselves accountable to some type of moral system. Of course, this is just my personal beliefs, but I find that individuals that support ID or Theist Evolution, are more likely to hold themselves to a moral system than those that support the non-Religious views of evolution.
Pres, the problem is that they are the same thing, there is no divide. If you do not understand how evolution by natural selection causes speciation, you don't understand Evolution by natural selection. Thinking that they are two distinct thing, means your understanding of the basic mechanics are so flawed as to be damned near useless in any role which makes use of the Principles. Given that industries from Biotech to engineering make use of techniques derived from evolution by natural selection, a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality could potentially be a major and long lasting blow to US industry.So called "macro-evolution" is of a much lower importance to the actual advancement of science and industry than the so called "micro-evolution" ideas. I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the idea of ID.
EDIT: Also, about a president ordering certain concepts to be taught in school. I'd be more worried about from someone who pushes ideas of large federal government, over someone who pushes ideas of limited federal government. If Paul could toss No-Child-Left-Behind, that alone would get my vote.
I don't see how the President's personal beliefs would cause any concern to US industry. In fact, Dr. Paul seems to have a very effective view of US industry in his espousal of Free Market principles. For more information on this, read The Revolution and Liberty Defined.
We could just as easily say that because Obama is a muslim, he has a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality in regards to receiving 40 virgins in the afterlife if he dies for his faith. The President's religion or philosophical viewpoint is only relevant if he intends to force that religion or philosophical viewpoint on others. And so far, the only philosophical viewpoint I have observed Ron Paul "forcing" (though I use the term loosely), is that of personal freedom (also called liberty) and responsibility.
That...
Ron Paul's has stated that he would support moves to teach ID in public school (2007 GOP values voter presidential debate. Sept 17, 2007)
Wasbhe lying or does he support the teaching of ID?
Judging by the number of people who didnt know what ID meant on this thread alone, (myself included. I always thought it meant what the Catholics say) why would teaching it be a bad thing? In my high school they taught us what communism and fascism were, and lo and behold, I'm neither one.
I'm sure you realize that Professorcirno's comments about the links were biased. Not to say that anything is not these days, but I'll allow you to judge for yourself.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
Hnn. I've heard this type of philosophy before and I'm still not buying it.
Judging by the number of people who didnt know what ID meant on this thread alone, (myself included. I always thought it meant what the Catholics say) why would teaching it be a bad thing? In my high school they taught us what communism and fascism were, and lo and behold, I'm neither one.
I think it's a matter of what form of each are taught too. There are multiple forms of communism -- I'm not so sure about fascism, and I know there are multiple forms of intelligent Design.
I don't mind intelligent design being taught in humanities, civic, or mythology classes (not to imply religion is a myth, simply I'm comfortable about it there) -- I kind of wish there was a 'religion 101' available to high school students that objectively (as much as possible) taught the basics of various religions as part of a civic learning function.
Though I easily recognize why this would be next to impossible to do in the current public school system (not a dig at the public schooling system either -- people always forget you get out what you put in -- I am a product of public education and am proud of that fact -- I know others that put in less and got out less, and still others that didn't put in and really didn't get out).
For the newer members of these boards, you might want to visit some of the archived election vitriol from years past. It might help to recognize how 'difficult' it is to discuss these things in this format. Might save you some grief.
Judging by the number of people who didnt know what ID meant on this thread alone, (myself included. I always thought it meant what the Catholics say) why would teaching it be a bad thing? In my high school they taught us what communism and fascism were, and lo and behold, I'm neither one.
1.It is just creationism repackaged thing and so is unconstitutional to teach in a science class room.
2. Given that USA has only the 14th highest Scientific literacy rate (OECD, 2000) it would seem something of a waste of class room time tobe teaching something that isn't science don't you think. I mean yet again the 'only a theory' line has been pulled out in this thread. Wouldn't it be better to get to a point where children get out of school understanding what a scientific theory is, and how it is not the same thing as the common usage term theory, rather than filling their heads up with religious pseudo-science.
I personally don't think that Evolution should be taught as factual, when it is a theory (that cannot be proven given our current science). I personally feel that if we must study Origin sciences in school, we should have Comparative Origin Studies: Biblical Creationism, Intelligent Design, Vedic Creationism, Evolution, Cthulhu Mythos, and whatever it is that Scientologists believe.
I missed this the first time around. Thank you LazarX for catching it.
Stardust...please, just spend a little time finding out what a scientific theory actually is, okay, because my diplomacy dike is wearing thin. Every time this, or similar topics comes up, have to explain to someone who the education system failed in the manner that it has failed you what a between the common usage term theory and a scientific theory. It is getting really old!
(Okay, you can be honest guys, what was the pool on how long it would be before I had this rant in the thread ;) )
|
Judging by the number of people who didnt know what ID meant on this thread alone, (myself included. I always thought it meant what the Catholics say) why would teaching it be a bad thing? In my high school they taught us what communism and fascism were, and lo and behold, I'm neither one.I think it's a matter of what form of each are taught too. There are multiple forms of communism -- I'm not so sure about fascism, and I know there are multiple forms of intelligent Design.
I don't mind intelligent design being taught in humanities, civic, or mythology classes (not to imply religion is a myth, simply I'm comfortable about it there) -- I kind of wish there was a 'religion 101' available to high school students that objectively (as much as possible) taught the basics of various religions as part of a civic learning function.
Though I easily recognize why this would be next to impossible to do in the current public school system (not a dig at the public schooling system either -- people always forget you get out what you put in -- I am a product of public education and am proud of that fact -- I know others that put in less and got out less, and still others that didn't put in and really didn't get out).
The problem with ID is that it hasn't received the approval that evolution has. Our scientific method has a very rigorous way of finding out which theory will be excepted or not, ID has not passed that test, therefore it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I agree it could be in a philosophy of Science class or even a history of Science. But not in an actual Biology class lesson.
|
|
I personally don't think that Evolution should be taught as factual, when it is a theory (that cannot be proven given our current science). I personally feel that if we must study Origin sciences in school, we should have Comparative Origin Studies: Biblical Creationism, Intelligent Design, Vedic Creationism, Evolution, Cthulhu Mythos, and whatever it is that Scientologists believe.I missed this the first time around. Thank you LazarX for catching it.
Stardust...please, just spend a little time finding out what a scientific theory actually is, okay, because my diplomacy dike is wearing thin. Every time this, or similar topics comes up, have to explain to someone who the education system failed in the manner that it has failed you what a between the common usage term theory and a scientific theory. It is getting really old!
(Okay, you can be honest guys, what was the pool on how long it would be before I had this rant in the thread ;) )
Please allow me
Theory- (common usage)- A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion
Theory- (scientific usage)- A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
...Pres, the problem is that they are the same thing, there is no divide. If you do not understand how evolution by natural selection causes speciation, you don't understand Evolution by natural selection. Thinking that they are two distinct thing, means your understanding of the basic mechanics are so flawed as to be damned near useless in any role which makes use of the Principles. Given that industries from Biotech to engineering make use of techniques derived from evolution by natural selection, a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality could potentially be a major and long lasting blow to US industry.So called "macro-evolution" is of a much lower importance to the actual advancement of science and industry than the so called "micro-evolution" ideas. I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to the idea of ID.
EDIT: Also, about a president ordering certain concepts to be taught in school. I'd be more worried about from someone who pushes ideas of large federal government, over someone who pushes ideas of limited federal government. If Paul could toss No-Child-Left-Behind, that alone would get my vote.
I don't see how the President's personal beliefs would cause any concern to US industry. In fact, Dr. Paul seems to have a very effective view of US industry in his espousal of Free Market principles. For more information on this, read The Revolution and Liberty Defined.
We could just as easily say that because Obama is a muslim, he has a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality in regards to receiving 40 virgins in the afterlife if he dies for his faith. The President's religion or philosophical viewpoint is only relevant if he intends to force that religion or philosophical viewpoint on others. And so far, the only philosophical viewpoint I have observed Ron Paul "forcing" (though I use the term loosely), is that of personal freedom (also called liberty) and
I believe the issue is one of local control of curriculum rather than a federal mandate to teach any viewpoint.
I'm not sure I accept that from a 1st and 14th amendment standpoint though. I take an expansive view of the 14 amendment so I also take issue with some of the bills Paul has sponsored.
|
|
Is this what you're referring to:
"Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" And because Dr. Paul said yes, you think he wants to indoctrinate Intelligent Design in the public school system? (Which he doesn't want to control any part of, since he doesn't believe education can be regulated at the federal level)
Laughing hysterically here. That's a huge jump in logic.
|
|
Hnn. I've heard this type of...I'm sure you realize that Professorcirno's comments about the links were biased. Not to say that anything is not these days, but I'll allow you to judge for yourself.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
What, specifically, aren't you buying? When I first read this, I didn't need to buy anything, as it was what I already believed, although I could never word is so effectively.