Author Topic: Politics  (Read 511140 times)

maņana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #330 on: August 30, 2008, 10:21:58 PM »
She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

Considering Obama's inexperience, you're right that Democrats need to be careful when it comes to attacking Palin's. However, do you mean to imply that an executive role on one's resume is necessary? All of Kennedy experience was legislative.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #331 on: August 30, 2008, 10:37:32 PM »
OAD - you can't possibly deny evolution and embrace Genesis/Intelligent Design (or anything like that) as a substitute for science?

I don't think that those that embrace Genesis/ID do uniformly a) deny evolution of every kind nor do they b) substitute it for science. I think my problem, particularly with the article about Palin was the assumption that everyone who is willing to consider some kind of deity as some part of the world making process is anti-scientific or is someone who cannot do good or respectable science. Wouldn't that assumption  necessitate that only atheists could be good scientists?

I'm all for the separation of church and state, but I don't want people (or school children) who are religious to be made to feel that their religion automatically makes them a) idiots or b) anti-scientific.

I don't know enough about proponents of ID to know exactly what they want in the school system, so I can't really answer about whether they're trying to be sneaky or not.  :)  If I'm reading you right(?), you're concerned about the ID propenents' theistic (specifically Christian) presupposition undergirding ID being taught to your children while I'm guessing ID proponents are not so much concerned about evolution in itself as they are about the atheistic presupposition that usually undergirds evolution being taught to their children. Both sides seem to be concerned with the other's worldview/presupposition and whether that's being taught to their children.

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #332 on: August 30, 2008, 10:38:36 PM »
She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

Considering Obama's inexperience, you're right that Democrats need to be careful when it comes to attacking Palin's. However, do you mean to imply that an executive role on one's resume is necessary? All of Kennedy experience was legislative.

So was Lincoln's and even that was minimal and yet he managed to keep the country together through one of its darkest times.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:42:43 PM by St. Martin the Bald »
Hey, nice marmot!

lise

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #333 on: August 30, 2008, 11:03:09 PM »
the problem with putting 'intellegent design'/creationism in public schools is that it assumes a belief in a higher power which is out of line with the separation of church and state... if you want your children to be introduced to god in school the best choice is either a private school or teaching those values outside of school as a framework for the information they gain within a public school. There is no scientific justification for the intelligent design viewpoint so to introduce it in a science class should not even be a question. Evolution and all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic, but to propose that evolution should not be taught in school because it doesn't have a higher power as it's basis is a blow to all science everywhere as there would be arguments from different religions about almost all science. Further the very introduction of a "higher power" in a public school science classroom will serve as a tacit approval of a certain religion by the state and therefore a disapproval of those students who are in fact raised as atheists.

My problem with public officials who see no problem with the teaching of ID/C in schools is that they obviously: 1)don't understand why the separation of church and state exists 2) have an obvious lack of understanding of what science is and will thereby make decisions in office based on a lack of understanding or what someone else tells them they should think

While I do not particularly like the idea of intelligent design (putting it lightly)... many of the scientists who support it are in fields that do not involve evolution, or use it to rationalize there scientific minds and their religious beliefs. When they battle to put it in schools my respect for them goes down to 0 as scientists should understand the use of observations in a scientific curriculum. If you want to teach ID/C in school then any 'system' of beliefs with quasi scientific sounding backing should be taught (ie flying spaghetti monster).
Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist.  Throw some ground balls.  More democratic.

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #334 on: August 31, 2008, 12:27:01 AM »
OK, so I can't stay away.  From Alaska for your perusal:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/510705.html

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-has-much-prove/?opinion

From her Wikipedia page:
"According to her spokeswoman, Palin has traveled abroad twice: once to Ireland, and in 2007 to Germany and Kuwait, where she met with members of the Alaska National Guard."

Personally, I want a VP who has traveled to more countries than I have and met a few politicians and leaders while she/he was there.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 12:33:56 AM by philip918 »

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #335 on: August 31, 2008, 12:39:30 AM »
all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic

Given the scientists down through history who have been religious, scientists who have made break through scientific discoveries, I do not see how this statement could possibly be true? Science presupposes that natural events have natural causes, but I do not see that a theistic belief necessarily disturbs that presupposition. (Some theistic systems seem to disturb it, yes, but certainly not all.)



(ie flying spaghetti monster).

I honestly don't have the energy tonight to address your excellent concerns with ID in the school system, but your reference to Henderson's flying spaghetti monster (also so gleefully and popularly referred to by Dawkins) gets us back to the concern I really wanted to address - the one I initially wrote about in responding to the Palin article, that is, my concern with calling people who don't agree with us idiots. To respond as Henderson did to proponents of ID with a flying spaghetti monster theory is, at heart, to mock and ridicule those supporting ID, or, if I read Henderson (and certainly Dawkins) right, to mock any theistic ideas about the world's beginnings. I simply do not see the usefulness of that kind of interaction. To mock others and to name call closes down respect and useful interaction. That was my main problem with the Palin article. And to make clear, I'm not implying that you're mocking religion, lise, with your referral to the noodle monster; your reference just reminded me of my primary concern. Something I love so much about the Filmspotting message boards is the fact that we disagree with each other so often and yet the general tone is one of respect and kindness. This politics thread is difficult for me (so I probably should stay out of it  :) ) since it somehow seems so much more the tendency here to revert to name-calling.  :(  Politics (and religion!) are more upsetting than film, I guess, but still, I long for a way we can show respect for all viewpoints, even political and religious ones, and thus have a useful discussion that brings about sympathy and understanding with those with whom we disagree.


lise

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #336 on: August 31, 2008, 12:40:54 AM »
I didn't think it was possible in this day and age for a candidate for president of VP to have less international travel experience than bush did... granted his was more willful as he arguably had more opportunity.

My use of the flying spaghetti monster was to indicate that statistics can be biased to say anything, that at there heart that is not science... and I stand by my statement that science has no religious basis. There are scientists who are guided by there religious viewpoint, but the goal of science is to test a hypothesis, not to change the results to fit a hypothesis. This means that regardless of your personal wishes or viewpoints how you want an experiment to turn out you don't control it.

I am not hiding my distaste for ID, but it is not this distaste that is at the heart of my objection. I'm fine with people who chose to follow that school of thought as it is not in the school system. Just as people can opt out of sex ed. opt out of evolution, but don't try to cover religion with pseudo-science in a science class. There is enough misunderstanding of science as it is.

... as for misunderstanding... mccain parroted the argument that there is a vaccine/autism link. If you don't understand the studies involved in testing the mercury and other theories then you won't understand that there is no greater chance of autism with vaccines as without. When our elected officials help spread misinformation because they don't understand the science than that becomes a serious issue for me. My cousin was born deaf because my aunt was exposed to german measles before he was born. The spread of misinformation of vaccines and the like scares people into distrusting the vaccines themselves. This will result in more cases like my cousins.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 12:54:32 AM by lise »
Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist.  Throw some ground balls.  More democratic.

maņana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #337 on: August 31, 2008, 12:47:07 AM »
Evolution and all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic

That is not really true, Newton was very religious, and Einstein was an agnostic.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

lise

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #338 on: August 31, 2008, 12:55:59 AM »
einstein is famously quoted as disbelieving quantum theory because god doesn't roll dice. I am in no way saying scientists are not religious... I am saying that pure science does not itself have a religious agenda.

along that line... newton's laws do not contain references to god they are formulated based on the observation not what he saw or didn't see as the cause.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 12:57:32 AM by lise »
Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist.  Throw some ground balls.  More democratic.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #339 on: August 31, 2008, 01:16:32 AM »
I am saying that pure science does not itself have a religious agenda.

Yes, I agree. I think though that people like Richard Dawkins have confused the issue in that he insists that religion/the religious is/are absolutely incompatible with true science.

Here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould as evdience of an atheist who disagrees with Dawkins on that point: "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs-and equally compatible with atheism."

 

love