This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Republican? Just scream and lie.

1157158160162163315

Comments

  • I think the important part is that it is encouraging teachers to teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses. That means that creationism is not a valid criticism as it is not a scientific weakness.

    Also this makes it seem like politicians understand that critical thinking is an important skill to have. That is good.
  • The problem is that creationists THINK that they're using valid science.

    I will reserve judgment until I see how this law is applied. It seems like it could be misused, but the text itself is not problematic.
  • It sets up a strawman argument that there is a controversy in scientific circles regarding evolution. It attempts to manufacture an artificial lack of consensus.
  • It sets up a strawman argument that there is a controversy in scientific circles regarding evolution. It attempts to manufacture an artificial lack of consensus.
    Well, it enables the creation of that situation. A teacher could manufacture that artificial lack of consensus, and the state will not have the power to stop them.

    It's a law that would be great if stupid people didn't exist.
  • edited March 2012
    The state could also dictate a curriculum that manufactures that artificial lack of consensus and force teachers to teach it as truth.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • You can get lack of consensus on anything. Lack of consensus seems to be more true than death and taxes. It doesn't help anyone's argument.

    As a proponent of always remembering that there is "some doubt", I'm also obligated to inform people that "that shouldn't stop you from trying to make the best decision you can".
  • While there might always be some doubt, there is not always reasonable doubt. Science is subject to the same rules of preponderance of evidence as a courtroom.
  • That's great, once you get a person past the difference between colloquial science, indoctrinated science, and into science. And then come to an agreement upon reasonable.
  • Right Wing super journalist Jason Mattera uses basic shoeleather journalism to NAIL hypocritical Left Wing recording artist Bono... impersonator.
  • That's funny. Honestly, I do feel bad for Mattera. There are some really good impersonators out there and it feels like the guy honestly thought he was talking to Bono at an event and place that the real Bono would be at. It was a mistake that he owned up to and it really salutes to the quality of the impersonator.

    What I'm really surprised about is that Ebaumsworld.com still exists.
  • Gingrich plays the race card. It's not very effective.

    Seriously, how incredibly arrogant do you have to be to think that line would actually work?
  • First issue of The Conservative Teen. Good for a laugh, and amazingly enough it's free! Highlights include: Why Abstinence Works, and Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?
  • What the fuck is with their hard on for Reagan. Seriously, it's creepy.
  • What the fuck is with their hard on for Reagan. Seriously, it's creepy.
    Yeah, especially since Reagan couldn't get past a GOP primary these days.
  • First issue of The Conservative Teen. Good for a laugh, and amazingly enough it's free! Highlights include: Why Abstinence Works, and Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?
    Well, technically, abstinence does work... but convincing people to use abstinence as the primary method of birth/STD control doesn't...

  • edited March 2012
    Foxnews has an article about how "The Hunger Games" was bad for kids today. Fun times.

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/26/psychological-truth-behind-hunger-games/

    I like how a psychiatrist calls some kids "already lost". Great attitude.

    Edit: Apparently there are a few more examples of people tilting at windmills (IMHO, YMMV). http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/hunger-games-finds-conservative-liberal-fans-flocking-movie-message-article-1.1051097
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • A very interesting read: What Are Conservatives Trying To Conserve? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser/election-2012-gop_b_1377280.html

    Not sure how true it is, but still, an intriguing premiss.
  • What Are Conservatives Trying To Conserve?
    Maybe they're all made of Jam.
  • He gets the "change happens because the old conservatives die" part right. The parallels are interesting, but I think we aren't far enough into this reactionary cycle to be celebrating its imminent closure just yet.
  • edited March 2012
    What Are Conservatives Trying To Conserve?
    Individualist Straight White Christian Male Privilage.

    ISWCMs, aka the "Real Americans", are supposed to be the protagonists of history; everyone else is defined by how they aren't Individualist, White, Straight, Christain or Male. That's why ISWCMs are the only group that isn't a special interest group.

    If facism ever makes a comeback in the future, I don't think it'll be a suprise if the mythical Real American takes the place the Aryan as the so called "lost ideal".
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • What Are Conservatives Trying To Conserve?
    Maybe they're all made of Jam.
    You mean preserve, perhaps?
    Also, this is why I keep referring to them as regressives. They don't want to save anything, they preach that they want to turn everything back to the way is was in the 40's. Although an argument can be made that they are just saying whatever they need to in order to spook or enrage their base enough to vote them into power. In the end, it's really only a power game to all of these morons and they don't care a shred about what actually happens to voters.
    First issue of The Conservative Teen. Good for a laugh, and amazingly enough it's free! Highlights include: Why Abstinence Works, and Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?
    Well, technically, abstinence does work... but convincing people to use abstinence as the primary method of birth/STD control doesn't...
    Some of the articles in there stick more than a toe into the pool of fascism, including but not limited too the article "Why the US is better than everyone else".
  • First issue of The Conservative Teen. Good for a laugh, and amazingly enough it's free! Highlights include: Why Abstinence Works, and Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?
    Ahaha I literally just came here to post that. That Reagan headline hoooly shit
  • Also, this is why I keep referring to them as regressives. They don't want to save anything, they preach that they want to turn everything back to the way is was in the 40's. Although an argument can be made that they are just saying whatever they need to in order to spook or enrage their base enough to vote them into power. In the end, it's really only a power game to all of these morons and they don't care a shred about what actually happens to voters.
    By the 40's, you mean the 1840's, I assume. Some of the programs that they want to eliminate, such as Social Security, do date back to the 1930's and 1940's. It seems like the Republicans completely want to wipe out any trace of the New Deal and anything that came afterwards.
    Some of the articles in there stick more than a toe into the pool of fascism, including but not limited too the article "Why the US is better than everyone else".
    Well, one could make an argument that the US is better than everyone else and, if done right, it could be a legitimate compelling argument, provided it stays well-reasoned and academic and doesn't fall down the path of nationalism. I mean, every country does things differently and it's certainly legitimate to argue whether one country does things better than another country, of course. Then again, knowing these guys, they are going down the nationalism path.
  • edited March 2012
    You mean preserve, perhaps?
    Funnily enough, I was discussing this with Grey just yesterday, so we went and looked it up, turns out that Preserves is a wide category, covering everything from Jam to fruit butters and chutney, but Conserves(what I was trying to pun about) are a type of preserve, also known as Whole fruit Jam.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Although an argument can be made that they are just saying whatever they need to in order to spook or enrage their base enough to vote them into power. In the end, it's really only a power game to all of these morons and they don't care a shred about what actually happens to voters.
    Yepp, and I think that's hoenstly even more messed up. Worse than actually believing the terrible shit conservative politicians spew is not actually believing it, but furthering the message for political gain.

    As far as I can tell, that's why the abortion issue has come back around hardcore over this past year. Theres an election coming up, and its by far one of the most polarizing social stances. You could believe in everything the democrats say theyre all about, but if you equate abortion to the literal murder of babies, you usually aren't going to vote for a candidate that supports pro-choice legislation.
  • The conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if abortion and birth control is suddenly making a comeback now because the conservatives are trying to artificially create another baby boom. If nothing changes, 20 years from now (if not sooner) we will be in desperate critical need of oil, and by golly won't it be lucky that we have all of these young people ready to join in the fight to acquire all the oilfree the world's nations.
  • edited March 2012
    Id honestly say it's not much more than a tool to polarize voters. There really is no party or candidate who advocates anything other than "have a family, make babies." Pro-lifers aren't wholly all about having as many kids as possible, as its often coupled with principles like abstinence-only sex education and no sex before marriage. In the same way, Pro-choice isn't about reducing baby output as it's paired with the concept of smarter family planning. Interestingly enough, both stances sort of support a kind of more thoughtful and cautious approach to making humans, and support procreation in their own ways.

    That being said, Id also believe our culture is pushed by the plutocracy (whether intentionally or emergently) towards procreation and population growth, as it results in an ever growing base of consumers and workers; something that will always benefit capitalism.
    Post edited by johndis on
  • I'm sure I've said all this before, and I'm sure I'll say it all again. But now seems like an appropriate time to rehash:

    Growing up in an evangelical household, I saw the cultivation of the "American Christians are being persecuted by the secular world" rallying call. It was predicated on Revalatory fears; I remember church members admonishing each other to watch for signs of the mark of the beast. "When the Antichrist comes, he'll round us up in the night," was the message.

    These hate-filled ramblings would intensify every four years, always implicating the current liberal candidate with a Harold Camping-ian lack of evidence for the present and blind eye for the past.

    It was nothing but an artificial enemy, an Emmanuel Goldstein drummed up to scare the cultists into line. Creating an "us-against-them" situation is a sure way to consolidate power. Fear will keep the planets in line.

    That's what the Right is doing now. The GOP is using the same quasi-religious, culturally ingrained talking points it has nurtured for four generations. It's been very successful in conflating spiritual life with political life, effectively making bloodthirsty defense of Republican ideals a religious experience. It's a Church of Conservatism.

    The problem with any Church, whether it worships a deity or ideology, is that its values are fixed, entrenched, intractable. It uses appeals to authority and ignorance. And worst of all, those ideals are always wielded by the haves in order to maintain control over the have-nots.
  • The problem with any Church, whether it worships a deity or ideology, is that its values are fixed, entrenched, intractable. It uses appeals to authority and ignorance. And worst of all, those ideals are always wielded by the haves in order to maintain control over the have-nots.
    To be fair I take issue with this generalization. There are churches and religions that are more open to change than others. Hell, they're all open to some change over the years, it's just not necessarily commonly understood by everyone involved how and when things change.
  • By dint of being a codified belief system, religion necessarily lags behind the impetus of social progress. Organized religion opposed women's rights, minority rights, and now gay rights. And that's just scratching the surface. Religion is inherently conservative; and conservation is a freezing of the status quo. Religion can't be anything but regressive.
Sign In or Register to comment.