Serious question related to ID...
-
All kidding aside, how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children? This question occured to me the other night when I was watching a program on the Science/Discovery channel pertaining to human evolution. This program had a lot of very interesting special affects and costumes, etc, which made it appear that this was all based upon very well established scientific conconclusions, when in reality, much of it could not have been more hypothetical (an early man crying over his dead sister only to see her return to life - because she had actually only been unconcsious - and superstitiously associating that miracle with coincidental environmental phenomena and hence inventing religion) As interesting as such speculation might be, should it be taught to children, or to anyone, as science? Series such as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', and others, are of the same type. I never miss such programs, but in reality they are not much more than modern day fairy tails only loosely based on science and about as likely to be accurate as any story one might read in the bible. As much as I am opposed to teaching ID to children as some form of science, I don't know that many teachers are qualified, or even undertand how, to distinquish between pure speculation and true scientific conclusions. So, given this kind of popularization of science, I think students are as likely to come away from a typical lecture on evolutionary biology with as screwed up an understanding of the subject as if they had been taught ID. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 10:23 Saturday 12th November, 2005
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
-
All kidding aside, how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children? This question occured to me the other night when I was watching a program on the Science/Discovery channel pertaining to human evolution. This program had a lot of very interesting special affects and costumes, etc, which made it appear that this was all based upon very well established scientific conconclusions, when in reality, much of it could not have been more hypothetical (an early man crying over his dead sister only to see her return to life - because she had actually only been unconcsious - and superstitiously associating that miracle with coincidental environmental phenomena and hence inventing religion) As interesting as such speculation might be, should it be taught to children, or to anyone, as science? Series such as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', and others, are of the same type. I never miss such programs, but in reality they are not much more than modern day fairy tails only loosely based on science and about as likely to be accurate as any story one might read in the bible. As much as I am opposed to teaching ID to children as some form of science, I don't know that many teachers are qualified, or even undertand how, to distinquish between pure speculation and true scientific conclusions. So, given this kind of popularization of science, I think students are as likely to come away from a typical lecture on evolutionary biology with as screwed up an understanding of the subject as if they had been taught ID. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 10:23 Saturday 12th November, 2005
I think you guys maybe put too much emphasis on the relationship between high school curricula and what someone actually decides to do in life. I went to a rural public high school where the education was generally poor and so were the students. In fact they actually dropped the entire CP curricula a few years after I graduated. It did not stop me or my sister or a number of other students that I knew from going to college. Similarly, a kid who excels in calculus may decide to study theology. And being reared or schooled in any given religious faith probably never caused a kid to fail calculus either. I think a much more disturbing trend is the idolatry and exorbitant salaries being lavished on someone whose only obvious skill and knowledge revolve around handling some kind of fucking ball, but yet I don't see a great public outcry about the lack of meaningful public role models for kids today... -- modified at 19:12 Saturday 12th November, 2005
-
I saw the show you're referring to. It was low on real explanation and as you said and really didn't emphasize what was fact and what was speculation. I suppose part can be blamed on how much time they had to present the material, Well over 200,000 years of human development crammed into an hour. Another argument the film maker might use is that he wants to get people interested in the subject so they'll did deeper on their own and find more clarification, hence the drama. One thing I think would be important to the teaching of science is to teach just what the philosophy of science is and the methodology one employs to do science. Generally, observations are made or general experiments are done. With that data, speculation and hypothesis are used as to how those observations might be explained. Arguments go back and forth until a consensus is reached that a certain theory reasonably explains what is going on. However, more importantly, theories are never just accepted as holy and everyone puts big check mark beside it and moves on to greener pastures. Theories are always open to test and reevalution based on new evidence or even new insight. People think evoution theory stopped at Darwin and the current work going on to come up with a more complete and detailed theory mean Darwin was wrong. Of course, most of these people want to distort this to insert their own religiously biased view into the mix. The most telling reason that ID is NOT science is that it is not open to refinement. In fact, if it was applied to all areas of science, no progress would ever have been made. At the first tough part of the problem, ID would be introduced and that would be that. We can't understand this, therefore (a) god (wink, nod) did it and end of story. The second thing different about science in my opinion is that scientists are comfortable saying what they don't know. They'll say what is observable and what is hypothesis. They will spend the time and effort to try to find answers. While the ID people like to say, it's just a theory, they minimize what a real scientific theory embodies. As far as teaching anything about ID in science classes, it might be valuable as a prime example of what crackpot ideas charlatans try to foist off as science for their own gain.
Tim Craig wrote:
The most telling reason that ID is NOT science is that it is not open to refinement. In fact, if it was applied to all areas of science, no progress would ever have been made. At the first tough part of the problem, ID would be introduced and that would be that. We can't understand this, therefore (a) god (wink, nod) did it and end of story.
I suppose my arguement is that a lot of what is presented as science is no more science than ID is. And what bothers me is that, even if it is taught correctly in all schools all the time, with television and movies, etc, 'disneyfying' even the most thinly supported (but otherwise interesting) scientific conjecture into full blown dramas of one sort or another, is there really any hope that the average child will develop a true appreciation for the real principles of science? And if science is presented in the same basic way that religious stories are, can one really blame a person of strong religious sentiment for entertaining a significant disdain for having their beliefs marginalized by the educational system while another is roundly promoted? BTW, did you see the program concerning the theory that Ice Age Europeans might well have been in North America 17,000 years ago? I thought they turned a fascinting scientific investigation into a rediculous and sappy soap opera. I think it would have been far more interesting had they explored the far more probable idea that generations of Ice Age hunters gradually increased their ocean going technolgies to exploit the abundent resources of the Atlantic Ice Sheet. Over the course of several hundred years of going a little further out as time past, and becoming ever more comfortable spending longer and longer time at sea, they would have finally worked their way across the Atlantic to North America. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
You don't have to convince me of that. Hell, before I turned ten years old (in a dusty little cow town as deep in the heart of the bible belt as you can get), I was already having doubts about the stuff I was being taught in sunday school. I found a book on dinosaurs in the town library which introduced me to the concept of evolution. That made a lot more sense to me. I spent the rest of my childhood as a happy little heretic pissing off my parents and our pious neighbors. :-D (However, after I grew up and discovered what liberalism was really all about, I began to long for their kind and patient Christian tolerance :sigh: But, on the bright side, liberals are a lot more fun to piss off! ). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
All kidding aside, how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children? This question occured to me the other night when I was watching a program on the Science/Discovery channel pertaining to human evolution. This program had a lot of very interesting special affects and costumes, etc, which made it appear that this was all based upon very well established scientific conconclusions, when in reality, much of it could not have been more hypothetical (an early man crying over his dead sister only to see her return to life - because she had actually only been unconcsious - and superstitiously associating that miracle with coincidental environmental phenomena and hence inventing religion) As interesting as such speculation might be, should it be taught to children, or to anyone, as science? Series such as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', and others, are of the same type. I never miss such programs, but in reality they are not much more than modern day fairy tails only loosely based on science and about as likely to be accurate as any story one might read in the bible. As much as I am opposed to teaching ID to children as some form of science, I don't know that many teachers are qualified, or even undertand how, to distinquish between pure speculation and true scientific conclusions. So, given this kind of popularization of science, I think students are as likely to come away from a typical lecture on evolutionary biology with as screwed up an understanding of the subject as if they had been taught ID. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 10:23 Saturday 12th November, 2005
Most of the stuff on the Discovery channel is crap. They take one controversial point of view and stretch it out into an hour show using fancy graphics. It presents many theories as fact without going into the minimal supporting evidence if any. They definitely don't bring up any of the competing interpretations. That's one of the reasons my wife has gotten into documentary film making. She just had a documentary on excavations in Shiloh accepted to a film festival BTW. The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else. To explain the difference between a scientific theory and unscientific religious belief, you have to assume the student is capable of thought. This whole debate just highlights the larger problems with the education system. If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Tim Craig wrote:
The most telling reason that ID is NOT science is that it is not open to refinement. In fact, if it was applied to all areas of science, no progress would ever have been made. At the first tough part of the problem, ID would be introduced and that would be that. We can't understand this, therefore (a) god (wink, nod) did it and end of story.
I suppose my arguement is that a lot of what is presented as science is no more science than ID is. And what bothers me is that, even if it is taught correctly in all schools all the time, with television and movies, etc, 'disneyfying' even the most thinly supported (but otherwise interesting) scientific conjecture into full blown dramas of one sort or another, is there really any hope that the average child will develop a true appreciation for the real principles of science? And if science is presented in the same basic way that religious stories are, can one really blame a person of strong religious sentiment for entertaining a significant disdain for having their beliefs marginalized by the educational system while another is roundly promoted? BTW, did you see the program concerning the theory that Ice Age Europeans might well have been in North America 17,000 years ago? I thought they turned a fascinting scientific investigation into a rediculous and sappy soap opera. I think it would have been far more interesting had they explored the far more probable idea that generations of Ice Age hunters gradually increased their ocean going technolgies to exploit the abundent resources of the Atlantic Ice Sheet. Over the course of several hundred years of going a little further out as time past, and becoming ever more comfortable spending longer and longer time at sea, they would have finally worked their way across the Atlantic to North America. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote:
BTW, did you see the program concerning the theory that Ice Age Europeans might well have been in North America 17,000 years ago?
I saw something about that on PBS. Maybe not the same thing that Discovery did since the only thing I remember was that it was really pushing what evidence they had. I think even in the conclusions it stated that it was unlikely. But this is also how science works. You look at the facts and fit a hypothesis to it and see if it will fly. Maybe you aren't right but you get someone else thinking just a little differently and things fall better into place. What you can't do is ignore evidence to make your hypothesis work and that generally what the pseudoscientists do. If something clearly is going to throw a wrench in their thinking, it gets hidden. And a lot of scientific hypotheses are thrown out there, I think, with the intent "prove me wrong". They stimulate additional research and thinking. 100 years after being postulated, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still being tested as is Quantum Mechanics. The day that someone produces clear, repeatable evidence either theory doesn't work in a certain situation will be the end of it as "the" theory. However, that doesn't necessarily signal that the theory is worthless. We've known Newtonian mechanics are "wrong" for 100 years but they're still taught in schools and they're great if you know when to apply them.
-
Most of the stuff on the Discovery channel is crap. They take one controversial point of view and stretch it out into an hour show using fancy graphics. It presents many theories as fact without going into the minimal supporting evidence if any. They definitely don't bring up any of the competing interpretations. That's one of the reasons my wife has gotten into documentary film making. She just had a documentary on excavations in Shiloh accepted to a film festival BTW. The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else. To explain the difference between a scientific theory and unscientific religious belief, you have to assume the student is capable of thought. This whole debate just highlights the larger problems with the education system. If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still
Yes, sit still, shut up, basically stuff parents are supposed to be teaching their children but don't.
-
All kidding aside, how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children? This question occured to me the other night when I was watching a program on the Science/Discovery channel pertaining to human evolution. This program had a lot of very interesting special affects and costumes, etc, which made it appear that this was all based upon very well established scientific conconclusions, when in reality, much of it could not have been more hypothetical (an early man crying over his dead sister only to see her return to life - because she had actually only been unconcsious - and superstitiously associating that miracle with coincidental environmental phenomena and hence inventing religion) As interesting as such speculation might be, should it be taught to children, or to anyone, as science? Series such as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', and others, are of the same type. I never miss such programs, but in reality they are not much more than modern day fairy tails only loosely based on science and about as likely to be accurate as any story one might read in the bible. As much as I am opposed to teaching ID to children as some form of science, I don't know that many teachers are qualified, or even undertand how, to distinquish between pure speculation and true scientific conclusions. So, given this kind of popularization of science, I think students are as likely to come away from a typical lecture on evolutionary biology with as screwed up an understanding of the subject as if they had been taught ID. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 10:23 Saturday 12th November, 2005
Ideally, evolution should be tought the same way it was explained to the scientific comunity: first as a conclusion derivated from the facts and later as something observed in experiments (like the observations of Ernst Mayr and Dobhzansky on speciation, etc). It should be shown why it is the best explanation to the fact that there are no known rabits in the Cambrian, the layering of fossils and then the experiments with biodiversity like the gopi fishes in Costa Rica, etc, etc. Basically I see as an oportunity to give not just the final cake (the theory) but to show how the cake is prepared (the scientific method, drawing conclusions from observations). Yes, I agree this is a huge 'if'. Most teachers are unprepared to teach at such a level of detail and you just can't imagine how obtuse they are in the 3rd world. But what else can we wish besides aiming at good standards? I remember that, when I studied molecular biology in university, every conclusion was based in some famous classical experiment and we had to study all the classical experiments conduced in this field in the 20th century. It would be nice if not only biology, but all the other sciences could be taught that way. And to finish: I wouldn't expect information from television. It's purpose is entertainment, not enlightment. If enlightment happens is just a side effect. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see. -
There would go half the history lessons I ever had. One of the courses in history that I had was to attempt to find the truthe from the "evidence" from a murder trial in Edinburgh that was found to be incorrectly judged. It happened around a hundred years previously, and the police officers involved made some pretty stupid errors in collecting evidence, even by the standards of the day. Anyway, the class was presented with the "evidence" and told to come to a conclusion. For the first part we came to pretty much the same conclusion as the judge - a descision which hanged the poor woman who was accused. Then we were presented with evidence that was uncovered 20 years after her death that pretty much changed everyones opinion. So, the lesson is that we must all seek to find the truth rather than accepting blindly the evidence presented before us. Had capital punishment not been in place the woman could have been release from prison. However, false evidence caused her death.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
false evidence caused her death
According to the proponents of capital punishment, it's never been proved that anyone was incorrectly put to death. Of course, that's nonsense and I'm sure more than one has.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
You don't have to convince me of that. Hell, before I turned ten years old (in a dusty little cow town as deep in the heart of the bible belt as you can get), I was already having doubts about the stuff I was being taught in sunday school. I found a book on dinosaurs in the town library which introduced me to the concept of evolution. That made a lot more sense to me. I spent the rest of my childhood as a happy little heretic pissing off my parents and our pious neighbors. :-D (However, after I grew up and discovered what liberalism was really all about, I began to long for their kind and patient Christian tolerance :sigh: But, on the bright side, liberals are a lot more fun to piss off! ). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote:
discovered what liberalism was really all about
It's funny, Stan, but the liberals you seem to have discovered are nothing at all like the liberals I know. Most liberals epitomize tolerance while many "Christians" practice intolerance. Just read some of the posts in this forum about "ragheads".
-
I think you guys maybe put too much emphasis on the relationship between high school curricula and what someone actually decides to do in life. I went to a rural public high school where the education was generally poor and so were the students. In fact they actually dropped the entire CP curricula a few years after I graduated. It did not stop me or my sister or a number of other students that I knew from going to college. Similarly, a kid who excels in calculus may decide to study theology. And being reared or schooled in any given religious faith probably never caused a kid to fail calculus either. I think a much more disturbing trend is the idolatry and exorbitant salaries being lavished on someone whose only obvious skill and knowledge revolve around handling some kind of fucking ball, but yet I don't see a great public outcry about the lack of meaningful public role models for kids today... -- modified at 19:12 Saturday 12th November, 2005
rwestgraham wrote:
I don't see a great public outcry about the lack of meaningful public role models for kids today
Far more kids want to grow up to be ARod than AEinstein.
-
Most of the stuff on the Discovery channel is crap. They take one controversial point of view and stretch it out into an hour show using fancy graphics. It presents many theories as fact without going into the minimal supporting evidence if any. They definitely don't bring up any of the competing interpretations. That's one of the reasons my wife has gotten into documentary film making. She just had a documentary on excavations in Shiloh accepted to a film festival BTW. The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else. To explain the difference between a scientific theory and unscientific religious belief, you have to assume the student is capable of thought. This whole debate just highlights the larger problems with the education system. If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
andy brummer wrote:
If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
The student is as important as the education. Simply providing a good overall education does nothing for students who cannot or will not master the material presented.
-
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. From the linked page: The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. Evolution isn't random. It follows rules. Certainly, sometimes apparently random things happen, genetic mutation, but the rules ensure whether that mutation can be passed on or not. After reading the first page I came to the conculsion that it is a load of twaddle that is aimed at people who see themselves as athiests but want to find an explanation. I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. "Any technology that is sufficiently advanced would appear to us to be magic" - Arthur C. Clarke (I think) But if this was true there would be more evidence for it that we could detect. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. Oh come on, what's not to trust about this guy? :laugh: (I always love how every kooky cult leader implements some type of "The great one/alien/orb/etc has informed me that as your leader, I must sleep with 10 women a night" clause in their doctrine) I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. I like the theory that states we're some type of discarded alien experiment that went wrong. What a blow to the human ego that would be. The 8-Track Tape of spacekind. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy. I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average". We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up". "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
-
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still
Yes, sit still, shut up, basically stuff parents are supposed to be teaching their children but don't.
Yes, many parents don't teach their children proper respect for others, and school should reinforce that. Everyone needs that to function properly in society. However, most US public schools put students in an artificial mind numbingly boring environment. School should give students the skills they need to excel at life. This involves at a minimum: 1. Reading, writing, math, learning and reasoning skills. You can't do this by making 30+ students do endless worksheets day after day. 2. Behavior. Students should be taught by both teachers and other students, they should also teach other students and learn how to lead. 3. Practical experience. Students should have experience running a real business by the time they graduate. Not only is this the point of their education, it shows them why they need everyting they've learned.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
andy brummer wrote:
If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
The student is as important as the education. Simply providing a good overall education does nothing for students who cannot or will not master the material presented.
Definitely. Apparently there is genetic and environmental variation in any population. Not everyone has the ability or desire to learn everything. However, there is a bare minimum that people should know to function properly in society, and I'd say that figuring out the difference between science and religion is below that minimum.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
There would go half the history lessons I ever had. One of the courses in history that I had was to attempt to find the truthe from the "evidence" from a murder trial in Edinburgh that was found to be incorrectly judged. It happened around a hundred years previously, and the police officers involved made some pretty stupid errors in collecting evidence, even by the standards of the day. Anyway, the class was presented with the "evidence" and told to come to a conclusion. For the first part we came to pretty much the same conclusion as the judge - a descision which hanged the poor woman who was accused. Then we were presented with evidence that was uncovered 20 years after her death that pretty much changed everyones opinion. So, the lesson is that we must all seek to find the truth rather than accepting blindly the evidence presented before us. Had capital punishment not been in place the woman could have been release from prison. However, false evidence caused her death.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Yes, oddly enough I feel secure on a train full of Swiss Army regulars toting around loaded assault weapons. Most of them are usually drunk too when they do it. It's strange, but I don't feel threatened....
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax,
Where do you want the government to get their money from? Capital gains taxes? Consumption tax? Pure sales tax? A combination of the three? The money has to come from somewhere...