Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: 'Alan Gutierrez' [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Use a false argument such as "teach the controversy" to get
>> political action for an issue in which there is only one side.
> Political arguments are not true or false, they just are.
Wrong. Political arguments are designed to get people to do
or not do something they would not do or do otherwise. In this
case, create unity among those who get up every morning scared
to death of the God they are told created them 1000 years ago
by telling them He is really an intelligent old fellow and told
Noah to load two of the dinosaurs on the Ark with the rest of
his incest-ridden family.
>> It's boobery.
> It's working. They Creationists have framed the debate in such
> a way that the debate can be had. That's a coup.
It's boobery. That 45% of the American voters are scared and
easily made more scared is proof of the depth of the damage done
by the boobs.
> I'm not arguing in favor of Intelligent Design, I'm saying that
> it's benign.
NO. It'w wrong. It puts superstition in the place of the scientific
method. It asks us to surrender inquiry to belief because the problem
is tooo hard. It scales for the same reason as presented for the web:
it is easy. But this isn't a technology; it is surrendering the education
of our children and the future of our nation to self-optimizing,
undereducated, over-monied boobs who are sending our sons and daughters
to the ends of the earth to kill and maim others in the name of their
booby leaders. But worst of all, it uses God as the excuse. WWJD?
The rough short stocky Jewish carpenter would take a board and ram
it up their collective asses and then push them into the business end
of a fully-engaged 757 turbine engine so the blades could dispose of
their boobery and boobisms post haste.
Is that clear? This isn't benign. This is a fight for children
who cannot be made to bow down to these hideously perverse people
and their agenda to mask grabs for power with piety.
> My point was, that the 'democratization' of information is a
> process that is already alive and well, does not require Web 2.0.
There is no issue of democracy here. You don't get to vote on the
design of the 757 engine and you don't get to vote on the means
and processes of evolution. You can investigate, hypothesise,
experiment, observe, record, publish and repeat, but otherwise,
take your faith to your church, synagogue, mosque or temple and
I am with you, but push it into a science curriculum, and I am
here with the carpenter, board in hand to ram it up your collection
> The argument that democracy is nothing more than mob-rule is
> old, tired. Enhancing the process of 'democratization' will only
> make that argument older, ever more tired.
That is an insidious message from pathetic liars whose
faith is so weak that they want to rob science and democracy of its
real strength to beggar a failing religion.
No compromise. No controversy. No bloody way.