|
Germany Bans Scientology (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
Like I've said countless times before - the vehement "non-believers" and the devout alike seem far more similar to me than different: they both not only want, but absolutely NEED to convince of how right they are because anything that conflicts where their perspective on the world threatens their personal security.
I guess it doesn't surprise me that so many people respond so passionately, but frankly - it's become so tired a debate between such a small group of people (both here and in the "real world" respectively) that I can feel my apathy grow stronger day by day. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
All you do is bitch bitch bitch about it. Well why don't you go out and take some action and come up with some solutions instead?? |
Because that would be called terrorism.
And you know what's even worse than those who participate in endless debate and the hashing out of ideas they've already expressed several times over but cannot gain any significant insight from others on?
Those who sit on the sidelines jeering, calling out the plays and stroking themselves in the hope that maybe people will regard their near-prophetic predictions with reverent praise. It doesn't take Nostradamus to see a stalemate coming a goddamned mile away.
I extract plenty from these discussions, as TA is one of the only places I can do so with somewhat intelligent people and in a [pseudo]civilised manner. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Oh gawd, people relying on knowledge! Run for the hills! :nervous: |
What people actually "know" is a highly debated matter - it isn't as if there is one kind of "knowledge" and we should all seek that because that's how you live right and know truth. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Because that would be called terrorism.
And you know what's even worse than those who participate in endless debate and the hashing out of ideas they've already expressed several times over but cannot gain any significant insight from others on?
Those who sit on the sidelines jeering, calling out the plays and stroking themselves in the hope that maybe people will regard their near-prophetic predictions with reverent praise. It doesn't take Nostradamus to see a stalemate coming a goddamned mile away.
I extract plenty from these discussions, as TA is one of the only places I can do so with somewhat intelligent people and in a [pseudo]civilised manner. |
Funny, because I don't anymore. Reading people's posts that get to Spirit5 proportions and say little more than "Show me proof" time and time again gets tiring. Really ing tiring. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
they both not only want, but absolutely NEED to convince of how right they are because anything that conflicts where their perspective on the world threatens their personal security. |
Or perhaps they say their piece fully expecting somebody to disseminate it, allowing them to take a different perspective upon their own views or ideas. I bet I fakepost more than anyone in this forum.
But by all means, keep it up. Everyone posts for the exact same reasons you do. You're right. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Please. None of you ever say anything different on the matter. Why don't you start coming up with some new ideas, instead of regurgitating the same old over and over and over again?
All you do is bitch bitch bitch about it. Well why don't you go out and take some action and come up with some solutions instead?? |
Yeah, and all you guys do when the topic comes up is bitch bitch bitch about us bitch bitch bitching. :p |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Like I've said countless times before - the vehement "non-believers" and the devout alike seem far more similar to me than different: they both not only want, but absolutely NEED to convince of how right they are because anything that conflicts where their perspective on the world threatens their personal security.
I guess it doesn't surprise me that so many people respond so passionately, but frankly - it's become so tired a debate between such a small group of people (both here and in the "real world" respectively) that I can feel my apathy grow stronger day by day. |
So, essentially, you think there's no right or wrong here, so arguing about it is pointless?
I think when the president quotes the bible in his speeches and the state of Texas bans an educator for wanting to "remain neutral" on intelligent design, people have a right to feel "threatened by belief systems that differ from their own".
| quote: | Official Leaves Post as Texas Prepares to Debate Science Education Standards
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: December 3, 2007
HOUSTON, Dec. 2 — After 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer said she did not think she had to remain “neutral” about teaching the theory of evolution.
Erich Schlegel for The New York Times
Christine Comer, the former director of science in Texas.
“It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law,” said Ms. Comer, citing the state’s science curriculum.
But now Ms. Comer, 56, of Austin, is out of a job, after forwarding an e-mail message on a talk about evolution and creationism — “a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” according to a dismissal letter last month that accused her of various instances of “misconduct and insubordination” and of siding against creationism and the doctrine that life is the product of “intelligent design.”
Her departure, which has stirred dismay among science professionals since it became public last week, is a prelude to an expected battle early next year over rewriting the state’s science education standards, which include the teaching of evolution.
Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the state’s education agency in Austin, said Ms. Comer “resigned. She wasn’t fired.”
“Our job,” Ms. Ratcliffe added, “is to enact laws and regulations that are passed by the Legislature or the State Board of Education and not to inject personal opinions and beliefs.”
Ms. Comer disputed that characterization in a series of interviews, her first extensive comments. She acknowledged forwarding to a local online community an e-mail message from the National Center for Science Education, a pro-evolution group, about a talk in Austin on Nov. 2 by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, a co-author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” and an expert witness in the landmark 2005 case that ruled against the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., schools.
“I don’t see how I took a position by F.Y.I.-ing on a lecture like I F.Y.I. on global warming or stem-cell research,” Ms. Comer said. “I send around all kinds of stuff, and I’m not accused of endorsing it.” But she said that as a career science educator, “I’m for good science,” and that when it came to teaching evolution, “I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination where I stand.”
Ms. Comer said state education officials seemed uneasy lately over the required evolution curriculum. It had always been part of her job to answer letter-writers inquiring about evolution instruction, she said, and she always replied that the State Board of Education supported the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.
But several months ago, in response to an inquiry letter, Ms. Comer said she was instructed to strike her usual statement about the board’s support for teaching evolution and to quote instead the exact language of the high school biology standards as formulated for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills test.
“The student knows the theory of biological evolution,” the standards read, and is expected to “identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities and embryology,” as well as to “illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior and extinction.”
The standards, adopted in 1998, are due for a 10-year review and possible revision after the 15-member elected State Board of Education meets in February, with particular ramifications for the multibillion-dollar textbook industry. The chairman of the panel, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist and Sunday School teacher at Grace Bible Church in College Station, has lectured favorably in the past about intelligent design.
Ms. Ratcliffe, of the Texas Education Agency, said Dr. McLeroy played no part in Ms. Comer’s departure.
Ms. Comer said that barely an hour after forwarding the e-mail message about Dr. Forrest’s talk, she was called in and informed that Lizzette Reynolds, deputy commissioner for statewide policy and programs, had seen a copy and complained, calling it “an offense that calls for termination.” Ms. Comer said she had no idea how Ms. Reynolds, a former federal education official who served as an adviser to George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas, had seen the message so quickly, and remembered thinking, “What is this, the thought police or what?”
Under pressure, Ms. Comer said, she sent out a retraction, advising recipients to disregard the message.
But Ms. Comer, the divorced mother of a grown son and daughter and the supporter of an ailing father, was still forced out of the $60,000-a-year job, she said, submitting her resignation on Nov. 7. She and the agency said nothing about her departure until The Austin American-Statesman obtained a copy of the “proposed disciplinary action” and her resignation letter.
Ms. Comer said that Tom Shindell, director for organizational development, had told her to resign or be terminated for a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and other reported transgressions.
“Tom,” Ms. Comer said she asked, “am I getting fired over evolution?” |
Put it this way, I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want so long as those beliefs do not interfere with my own. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
I think that a lot of the left-right Dem-Repub politics debates are as highly annoying as some of you see this debate.
But I don't go into those kinds of threads and say, "Omigawd, this is so pointless, talk about something more interesting to me!" Why waste the keystrokes? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Because that would be called terrorism.
And you know what's even worse than those who participate in endless debate and the hashing out of ideas they've already expressed several times over but cannot gain any significant insight from others on?
Those who sit on the sidelines jeering, calling out the plays and stroking themselves in the hope that maybe people will regard their near-prophetic predictions with reverent praise. It doesn't take Nostradamus to see a stalemate coming a goddamned mile away.
I extract plenty from these discussions, as TA is one of the only places I can do so with somewhat intelligent people and in a [pseudo]civilised manner. |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I think that a lot of the left-right Dem-Repub politics debates are as highly annoying as some of you see this debate.
But I don't go into those kinds of threads and say, "Omigawd, this is so pointless, talk about something more interesting to me!" Why waste the keystrokes? |
I just figured that intelligent people would have actually progressed somewhere by now. ;) |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Or perhaps they say their piece fully expecting somebody to disseminate it, allowing them to take a different perspective upon their own views or ideas. I bet I fakepost more than anyone in this forum.
But by all means, keep it up. Everyone posts for the exact same reasons you do. You're right. |
How many times have we done exactly that before? And where does it end up, each and every time?
I'll concede you this - you're right, not everyone posts for the same reasons I do. If this exercise in pointlessness is something you actually find merit in, by all means - continue.
I, on the other hand, know full well any answer I give to any of the questions that arise in threads like these will be met with the standard responses from those of you who play your roles exceedingly consistently (something I pride myself on as well) - yet I foolishly hope that one day, maybe something will change.
Of course, it never does.
And Clovis - you're changing the subject, bringing politics into this, but to answer your question, no - I don't think there is a right and wrong in this debate, and believe even if there was we'll never know what it is.
As far as your inclusion of Bush nonsense - what was the relevance of it to this thread? You think somehow my position supports his blatant disregard for the separation between church and state?
Please. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
What people actually "know" is a highly debated matter - it isn't as if there is one kind of "knowledge" and we should all seek that because that's how you live right and know truth. |
Well thats an easy way to discount the last 2,000 years of science and discovery. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Of course, it never does. |
Exactly. If you guys want to keep on calling yourselves intelligent, lets see some ing results. You have all the answers in theory, don't you?? Come on then, step it up and put all your tolerance and willingness to see other people's perspectives to use. Or I call bull. |
|
|
|
|
