Stupidity Spreading

8:00 AM -- The State.com ("South Carolina's Home Page") reports on another Great Leap Forward for American education:

    A proponent of teaching various theories of human origin, which include creationism, gained support Monday from the state’s public school reform oversight panel.

    At the urging of Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, the Education Oversight Committee voted 8-7 to strike from high school biology standards wording that tied schools to teaching only evolution.

    Fair wants schools to go beyond Darwinism...
To... Medievalism? Crackerism? Pastafarianism? Dumbasafuckingpostism?

Strom Thurmond is spinning in his... uh... wait. No. No, he's not.

— Larry, Attack Monkey, Light Reading

Page 1 / 26   >   >>
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 4:10:31 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading http://print.firstthings.com/f...

The above URL points to an exposition for the evolutionary origin of morality and provides more commentary on rival evolutionary theories for morality and politics.

Implicit in the arguments and descriptions of the article is that the consideration of evolution will inevitably bring up political and moral issues. This is the is-ought issue. Certain practices (e.g. female infancticide) have evolved (i.e. "is") in certain cultures. Sicne these practices are considered morally reprehensible in western culture, the question naturally arises if they are moral (i.e. "ought"). This touches on the current questions of moral relativism etc.
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 4:10:31 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading http://print.firstthings.com/f...

The URL above points to an essay that explores the moral impliccations of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Its primary concentration is on the moral and political implications that Darwin expounded in his book Descent of Man but there is also reference to the contrasting views of other scholars such as Dawkins and Pinker.

The proposition that evolutionary theory is devoid of moral and political implications, as is implied by many people here and in the recent Dover schoolboard decision, can be seen by the evidence of the above essay to not be cognisant the reality of it or any other scientific theory.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 4:10:13 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading What the "Radical Republican" of the 39th Congress did...

Background, for over 20 years prior to the Civil War the Southern States had prevented the terrotories from becoming states because the North wanted to enact law that the new states would not have slavery. Much of the politics were motivated by morality in the North, but also by power and control of the nation. The politicians in the South saw that the nation in had been in political balance since the constituion was formed and were appropriately fearful that over the long term that their way of life would be on a trajectory to extinction if the balance shifted.

Lincoln understood both sides of this argument and was willing to compromise to heal the nation.
He, Grant and Johnson viewed the civil war as an insurrection, and with the surrender in 1865 that the south was to be rehabilitated quickly. Civil state governments in the South were reinstituted on the direction of Lincoln and these governments were recognized by the 39th Congress for the enactment of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

Subsequent to the enactment of the 13th, the "Radical Republicans" were aware that Lincoln and Johnson after him were wanting to have the Southern States to decide for themselves how to protect the rights of their citizens and Lincoln and Johnson that the constitution had not give the federal government the authority.

The radical republicans were upset at Lincoln and even more upset at Johnson. After the Senators from the Southern states indicated they were against the proposed 14th amendment, the Republicans that were in a majority kicked them all out of congress. This gave the Republicans close to a 2/3 majority that would be necessary to override an expected Johnson veto.

Based on the Congressional Globe of the 39th:

The 39th congress on March 23rd voted to keep John Stockton in the Senate. Two highly unusual things happened during that vote. First, a note of pairing: Pairing was the practice of two senators agreeing their votes would cancel out if they were both in the chamber and thus allowing either member to leave chamber and if it came to a vote with only one of the two senators in attendence that the other member would not vote.
The other uncontested Senator from NJ was sick and had a pairing arrangement with a Republican.
That Republican decided to vote against alowing Stockton on March 23rd even though the telegram to request being released from his pairing was delivered less than 1.5 days notice. He never received a telegram saying this request was accepted. After this repubican decided to vote, John Stockton case the deciding vote for him to stay in the Senate. The vote was recorded and became official in the Senate record.

Congress worked on Saturday 24th and it was now even more clear that they would not get a 2/3 majority in the Senate without getting rid of Stockton.

On Monday, the republicans asked to "undue" the record of the 23rd. By Senate rules, the Senate is not allowed to take a new vote on the same question. Stockton was accused to impropriety by voting for himself even though he was a senator and he stated the only reason he voted was a pairing had been breached. A different republican (LANE, Kansas) who had voted for Stockton on the 23th, reversed his vote on the 26th (Somewhat conflicted, he also happened to commit suicide only 6 months later).

Stockton asked to remove his vote for the record which would have left it a tie and on a tie, he would have remained a Senator. But the now majority republicans were not to accept that or to postpone the vote at least a couple days to meet the request of the sick senator from NJ, they basically voted him out because they wanted to, not because they believed the NJ legislature had done anything outside their rights.

So basically do you think if the current majority Republican Congress has the constitutional right to unseat each of the Democratic Senators by simple majority vote in order to achieve 2/3 of the Senate? You can call it constitional but it clearly is a "vulnerability" that was never intended or expected that a simple majority could or would act in such a manner.
optodoofus 12/5/2012 | 2:50:30 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading WWFSMD?
JohnsonThomas 12/5/2012 | 2:50:29 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading In the last several months of reading the Light Reading website, I have detected a distinct increase in the hostility toward Christians and what traditionally may be viewed as conservative ideas. This posting is the latest in a string of blogs taking such a hostile tact? Why are you pursuing this path?
JohnsonThomas 12/5/2012 | 2:50:28 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading As part of a company that has promoted products on Light Reading, I hardly see the entertainment value here. I agree, however, with your suggestion that they should focus on their audience rather than bashing Christians and people from Kansas. I just don't get where they are coming from.
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 2:50:28 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading Those who can do and those who can't join the liberal media conspiracy to complain about those that are doing.

The liberal slant is outweighed by the entertainment value. I would personally prefer that they focus on the main theme of the light reading audience instead of being one of Satan's Little Helpers. :-)


It's all entertainment and anyone that takes any of it too seriously should just tune out.

No Harm No Fowl. Are we having fun yet?

turing 12/5/2012 | 2:50:27 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading This has nothing to do with being Christian. If you think it does then that should be self-evident proof enough to you that it does not belong in a science class. It also implies there are no Jews/Muslims who believe in Creationism, which is clearly not true (it is after all the Old Testament we all have in common). Further, there are many Chrisitans in the world who believe in the scientific principles (a majority of Christians, I would bet).

Proponents of Creationism/ID are usually clever enough to know you never mention Christianity or even God in the debate, and have to separate them from ID otherwise people will see it for what it is. That's one of the reasons it's now called ID instead of Creationism.
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 2:50:27 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading

There are 2 or 3 things at work here.

First this author and Red Panda have a feeling of superiority and bash away on many topics that are not related to Telecom.

Second this author and Red Panda are trying to be humorous. Receiving humor is in the eye of the beholder. Interestingly enough, if these same sentiments were said openly in the workplace, they could be considered "creation of a hostile workplace".

Third people are putting stock in people that are trying to be too funny and too smart by half. Just realize that these folks are generally young and smarter than the rest of us (Sure, they are - wink, wink).

Stevery 12/5/2012 | 2:50:27 AM
re: Stupidity Spreading I just don't get where they are coming from.

And you think somebody here is going to explain it to you?
Page 1 / 26   >   >>
Sign In