|
United States22883 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:53 Derez wrote:
Using contraceptives is immoral according to Paul or did I just imagine that?
He said immoral people use contraceptives.
|
On February 23 2012 10:50 Jibba wrote:
Birth control lowers the number of children born out of wedlock, you fucking idiot.
glad you're a mod here.... maybe you can temp ban yourself?
|
On February 23 2012 10:53 Derez wrote:
Using contraceptives is immoral according to Paul or did I just imagine that?
Sadly, you did not.
|
On February 23 2012 10:53 Derez wrote:
Using contraceptives is immoral according to Paul or did I just imagine that?
Nah, he said that immorality (whatever that may be?) leads to the use of contraception.
|
Are we going to have a nation that addresses women's issues? Five old white men discussing issues about women's genitals. I think I dislike Ron Paul the most on this issue. As conservatives, they are expected to be chauvinistic, especially someone like Gingrich. I thought Ron Paul, as a former OBGYN, would understand the importance of this issue to women.
|
Santorum gave the exact answer that I said he probably would. Also, you all are missing the most important part: the part where he says that these social issues are not an area on which the federal government should be involved.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:55 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:50 Jibba wrote:
Birth control lowers the number of children born out of wedlock, you fucking idiot. glad you're a mod here.... maybe you can temp ban yourself?
Glad you're a member here.
|
On February 23 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 03:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 23 2012 01:40 stokes17 wrote:On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. On February 22 2012 10:45 Probulous wrote:On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote:
Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really. Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards? I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better. 2016 will actually have a very deep field. Unless they all choose to sit out for personal reasons, it's likely to have many more moderate front runners: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, maybe Jindal rises from the dead. Yea A lot of people don't realize this election (2012 rep primary) is basically made up of people who don't actually expect to win the presidency. I believe a running incumbent has lost 5 out of 19 races he's ran in (and I'd say Ford and Carter basically had their fate sealed before the election even began.) And A GOP candidate who lost the presidency has never been allowed to run again. SO, if I am Palin, or Christie, or Daniels, or Huckabee I'm sitting watching while these 2012 morons ruin each others careers trying to get a chance to go against the Osama Killer, waiting for my chance to win an open election in 2016. So yea the GOP will for sure give a better primary showing in 2016 (like seriously this 2012 field was Disgusting in the funniest way possible.) A field made up of the 4 you mentioned is still a pretty sad field. Palin is kind of a joke after she sold herself to Fox, and even if she spends the next four years "smarting" herself up, she's going to have to deal with the media portrayal and ingrained public opinion. I imagine by 2016 LGBT rights will have made significant progress, and Chris Christie will be remembered as that governor who vetoed gay marriage. Huckabee... is like Santorum. Come on, the guy said homosexuality was a public health risk. He doesn't believe in evolution either. Daniels could make a good candidate though. Jindal is a smart guy, but he needs to figure out how to run Louisiana properly before he tries the US. I mean I basically agree with you. But I am pretty sure if you compare those guys to Cain, Perry, Bauchman, santorium, Gingrich and Romney- you have to agree the GOP's best guys are on the sidelines in 2012. Which was my basic point; the GOP will be much stronger in 2016 than they are in 2012.
Yup, but most likely its going to be people we've never heard of. Plus, if Hillary runs, I bet she'll win ezpz.
The Republican party is in trouble right now. Unless something dramatic happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they went the way of the Whigs or Federalists. They're too fragmented, and each candidate/division appeals only to a small part of America, or to a something-that's-not-quite-America.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:56 xDaunt wrote:
Santorum gave the exact answer that I said he probably would. Also, you all are missing the most important part: the part where he says that these social issues are not an area on which the federal government should be involved.
If it were the case he wouldn't spend so much time arguing against Romney's state run programs.
|
Abstinence only programs are scientifically proven less effective then 'comprehensive' programs, which are also more effective then 'no programs'. Just because someone wishes it works doesn't make it work. At times you wish the moderators would intervene and simply call them on this crap.
|
On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney.
Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT.
I'm going to break it down for you:
Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION.
That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications.
Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved.
Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved.
TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence.
|
I swear if I had a dime for everytime Ron Paul says "...border between Pakistan and Afghanistan..." I would have more money then Mittens Romney.
|
On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney. Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST. Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT. I'm going to break it down for you: Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION. That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications. Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved. Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved. TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence.
I don't think you read anything I said
EDIT: Admittedly I'm more of a economics guy and not a science guy so you're going to outclass me in that respect. I never said that intelligent design conforms to the scientific method, it can't by definition. I said there's science behind it.
|
Ah. Solving illegal immigration by shooting them when they tresspass after crossing the border. Now that's government deregulation for you.
And magical 90% cost reductions on private offerings by better streamlining of the government. If Newt took over Greece this week, they'd be out of trouble end of the weekend.
|
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window.
Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney. Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST. Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT. I'm going to break it down for you: Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION. That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications. Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved. Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved. TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. I don't think you read anything I said
there is no positive evidence for a deity creating anything. there is no science.
|
United States22883 Posts
It's amusing that some of the answers they target for Arizona are going to hurt them in the rest of the country, especially with the auto industry and immigration. They really need to have less debates in Arizona.
|
On February 23 2012 11:11 Jibba wrote:
It's amusing that some of the answers they target for Arizona are going to hurt them in the rest of the country, especially with the auto industry and immigration. They really need to have less debates in Arizona.
I think you mean, "No debates in Arizona."
|
|
|
I think that chair is too small for Gringrich <.<
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney.
I never said intelligent design is a religion, I said it is part of religion, and is religious in nature. The concept of the hypothesis requires a belief in a deity for the hypothesis to be accepted, therefore it is religious. Teaching it is teaching the existence of a deity. There is no science behind intelligent design, and anything that doesn't not precisely follow the scientific method is by definition not science. I cannot stress this enough. If it does not follow the scientific method, following every step rigorously, it is not science. This goes for anything. I can tell you honestly that I've never had a scientific class that taught anything that didn't follow the scientific method, and more importantly, I can tell you that no science class should teach anything that doesn't follow the scientific method. We are talking about whether or not Santorum's position regarding intelligent design in schools is a good thing right? Well then, we're discussing what should and should not be taught, and only actual science should be taught.
It's not about censoring religion from schools: it's about respecting the rights of the parents to teach their own kids about religion, and the state staying out of it. Either you teach every religion in schools equally (which is completely 100% infeasible, probably impossible as well), or you teach no religion. Anything other than that is government sponsorship of a particular religion or series of religions and is wrong (particularly because there's no evidence to support those religions, but that's not the most pressing issue). The government has no business here, at all. I should point out also, that I never once said that Santorum actually follows the teachings of his own religion, he clearly doesn't (his positions differ considerably on some things from the Pope's instructions regarding them, and he claims to be Roman Catholic), so what is christian and what isn't simply is not relevant, what is relevant is what he thinks is right and what he wants to force everyone to conform to.
Regarding the quote, if you're arguing that's not what he meant, then he should learn to be more careful with his phrasing, because that is precisely what he said. He said, quite literally, that values should not change over time, regardless of what else occurs during that time. He also, quite literally said, that the bible is truth, and these are the values everyone should hold. I don't know what's ambiguous about this. Putting 2 and 2 together you get: The bible is true and will always be true, and everyone should always hold the bible as true, period. And no, he wasn't generalizing, , and in the context of this speech he wasn't generalizing. He was saying that the entire country is based on these values, period. And what the most widespread religion is simply isn't relevant: there are people in this country that aren't (the fact that they are minorities isn't relevant, unless you feel that minorities don't deserve their civil right to have their own religion) christian, and they have the right to reject Christianity an d Christian values if they want to, they should not have it forced upon them. Anyone who wants to force it upon them is unconscionable.
And what other legislation is proposed is also not relevant: we are discussing what is wrong with Santorum as a candidate, and why he's a nutcase, we weren't discussing what's wrong with other legislation or ideas. Simply because I'm not pointing out everything I have an issue with does not mean that there's nothing else I take issue with.
And I never said this issue is more important to me than the government spending all our money, I simply said it is important. Truth be told, I can't stand any of the candidates, but when push comes to shove, if I have to choose between civil rights and a balanced budget, I'm going to side with civil rights. Economies rise and fall over time, but once you open pandora's box with legal precedent of enforcing religion, it's not going to be closed. And I'm an economist (got the degree and everything!), so yes, I care a lot about the economy and understand it fairly well, and recognize the importance of economic issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
