Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:53 am

Darielle wrote:I feel like I just read an Onion article.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11201442

She admitted stabbing her husband through his heart during the early hours of February 10 last year had fatal consequences but she denied meaning to kill him.

....

Her defence claimed she only wanted to somehow shake her deeply depressed 48-year-old husband out of his funk and make him realise just how "desperate'' their lives had become.

The only issue for the jury was whether she had any murderous intent when she picked up the large kitchen knife and plunged it into his chest.



Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9432
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:40 pm

You know how "possession is nine tenths of the law" applie sin the US ? well for a lot of other western countries (even the ones in the far east O.o), "intent is nine tenths of the law" applies in regards to criminal cases.
Establishing the facts is merely the first part of the process, and in the referred case the facts were not in dispute, so the only (and normally most important) thing for the jury to decide was what she was/is guilty of, and therefore how long a sentence she would/will get.
Was she merely criminally stupid, or did she perpetrate a murder (and if so, was it a premeditated crime or a crime of the moment?)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:52 pm

Nooska wrote:You know how "possession is nine tenths of the law" applie sin the US ? well for a lot of other western countries (even the ones in the far east O.o), "intent is nine tenths of the law" applies in regards to criminal cases.
Establishing the facts is merely the first part of the process, and in the referred case the facts were not in dispute, so the only (and normally most important) thing for the jury to decide was what she was/is guilty of, and therefore how long a sentence she would/will get.
Was she merely criminally stupid, or did she perpetrate a murder (and if so, was it a premeditated crime or a crime of the moment?)

Well, she is from Canterbury, so criminally stupid is a legitimate possibility.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:29 pm

Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools
http://io9.com/teaching-creationism-as- ... 1592549647
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9432
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:00 pm

Koatanga wrote:From the same author, relevant to why people thank them in the form of what what they were actually fighting for:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/absolutely-nothing.html


Stonekettle wrote:This post has been removed.

Seems people were using his article to gain viewers/make money without his permission... hooray for having to access a third party site just to read the article! -.-
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:46 am

Klaudandus wrote:Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools
http://io9.com/teaching-creationism-as- ... 1592549647

yeah, thats going to last a few years, then be struck down by the ECHR, as being in contradiction to article 9 of the european convention on human rights, as abridging the religious rights of the founders of free schools (at least, I'm not sure about academies, not THAT into the UK school system), as well as the schools themselves.
It has previously been established that islamic schools that teach mores and values and knowledge based on the Quran are protected, so actually teaching what the bible says as literal truth (when people actually believe this, and they do), can only be protected as well.
Besides the UK has a habit of losing cases before the ECHR in regards to abridging the freedoms they have been party to setting forth.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:30 am

Considering the jurisprudence you mentionned, and after a quick read of the mentionned article - what is exactly protected? That Quran values and knowledge may be taught as Science, or may be taught at all? I didn't manage to home in on the ruling you mentionned. Problem is, as read, your example remains fairly nebulous.

After all, teaching Quran values and mores during Religion or even History makes a ton of sense in schools that are supposed to provide context to children's experiences. Actually, adding mores and values to the statement only further muddies the issue, while the real meat of the ruling - Knowledge - only implies without stating outright the "knowledge" is similar to creationism.

In other words, from what I'm seeing from here, you could simply point out that creationism is banned from Science classes, but remains permitted in Religion classes and weasel out scott-free. Because while it wouldn't make sense to completely forbid creationism (the Bible does remain a seminal work for Western Society, after all), it makes a lot more sense that it happens during Religion classes, and that it does not fall under Biology.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:10 pm

Well the whole religious freedom IS rather nebulous, and while I don't agree with creationism, it being taught in a class on the beginning of the earth as a planet, cannot be barred without infringing on religious freedom (it is their religious belief that that is indeed how it happened).

What we call science is also often based on belief - belief based on observation and what evidence we have, but for instance, some of the things I learned in school in science classes have since been proved wrong, because new evidence was found; the issue, for me, in princple, is that even science is based on belief, first and foremost, the belief in "science" as a concept. This is most often a fallacy of the non-scientists, science is not truth, and the theory of evolution IS a theory (a theory is something other than what most people assume, of course), and while creationism cannot be credited as a theory in a scientific sense, that is not the issue in this case - in this case it is legislation barring the teaching of subject matter based on it being religious in a free school (which is the kind of school that anyone can start to teach in accordance with their beliefs (religious, philosophically, psychological, pedagogical or whatever). And within the Free School system, there is only a requirement of what the kids must know, not how the classes be ordered, nor what the scientific truth is.
In this case they deny funding (which is something thats absolutely needed for a school to function), thus abrdging the rights under article 9, namely paragraph 2, which requires that limitations be "prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the righst and freedoms of others.", it is prescribed by law, but I dont' see any way for the british government to demonstrate that the abridgement is necessary in a democratic society for any of the mentioned reasons (public safety, public order, public health, public morals or the rights and freedoms of others)

If this was a barring of it in public schools, no issue, the legislative have the power (and responsibility) to regulate how the public school system works.

(The whole mention of islamic schools was only to draw in the fact that the court has already ruled in favor of religious freedom in regards to curriculum in private schools).

*This post cut short by repeated hanging in FF - attempting to resolve*
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:37 pm

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:43 pm

Fivelives wrote:"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin

Popquotes aside, that sort-of just proved my point in why it will be struck down if brought before the ECHR (also, ID is an adjusted view on creationism, no? *devils advocate*)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:43 pm

So the plan for the GOP to help the working families is to have them put a crib in their home office.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/0 ... -families/

*facedesk*
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9432
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:13 pm

Nooska wrote:
Fivelives wrote:"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin

Popquotes aside, that sort-of just proved my point in why it will be struck down if brought before the ECHR (also, ID is an adjusted view on creationism, no? *devils advocate*)


No. ID is an adjustment to what legal arguments proved unsuccessful in the courts, NOT an adjustment to the scientific evidence.

ID still has to disregard massive swathes of scientific evidence to even remain coherent.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:48 pm

The pop quote I prefer is "Science is true whether you believe in it or not". Creationism doesn't pass that test. Creationism is predicated on a belief in god; for those who don't believe, it makes no sense.

Prevailing scientific theory - that being the formal theory as opposed to the colloquial hunch - is not predicated on any belief. Everyone from every religion is governed by the same universal laws that have existed since the big bang.

I oppose Christian/Judean creationism being taught in schools on two fronts:

1: If you allow the religious beliefs of one religion, you should allow all religions, and there simply isn't time for so many fairy tales to be told in science class.

2: There are avenues outside of school where kids can learn the creation story of their religion. It's not like a Christian child will go through life not hearing about Christian creationism if he's "deprived" of hearing about it in public schools. The reason to include creationism is to cram it down the throats of people who don't follow the Christian god.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:05 am

Brekkie wrote:
Nooska wrote:
Fivelives wrote:"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin

Popquotes aside, that sort-of just proved my point in why it will be struck down if brought before the ECHR (also, ID is an adjusted view on creationism, no? *devils advocate*)


No. ID is an adjustment to what legal arguments proved unsuccessful in the courts, NOT an adjustment to the scientific evidence.

ID still has to disregard massive swathes of scientific evidence to even remain coherent.

Ooh, I agree, but it is sitll an adjusted view of creationism based on what was observed in the legal system (yeah, thats a silly adjustment, and I'll agree invalid - I wasn'tactually trying to pass off ID as science, just a cheap point on the simplified definition of science vs faith.

Koatanga wrote:The pop quote I prefer is "Science is true whether you believe in it or not". Creationism doesn't pass that test. Creationism is predicated on a belief in god; for those who don't believe, it makes no sense.

Prevailing scientific theory - that being the formal theory as opposed to the colloquial hunch - is not predicated on any belief. Everyone from every religion is governed by the same universal laws that have existed since the big bang.

I oppose Christian/Judean creationism being taught in schools on two fronts:

1: If you allow the religious beliefs of one religion, you should allow all religions, and there simply isn't time for so many fairy tales to be told in science class.

2: There are avenues outside of school where kids can learn the creation story of their religion. It's not like a Christian child will go through life not hearing about Christian creationism if he's "deprived" of hearing about it in public schools. The reason to include creationism is to cram it down the throats of people who don't follow the Christian god.


Well, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven true (so the true whether you believe it or not quote fails, also, that many people believe it doesn't make it true (Bandwagon fallacy)

As to 1; no, we are NOT talking public schools here, we are talking FREE schools, that anyone can establish to teach in accordance with their values and mores. (For PS I agree, and am miffed that we have "Christianity" as a s subject in PS in denmark -æ sure they cover a little of other religions, but it isn't religion being taught, its Christianity - the argument is that our society is based on Christian mores, I disagree, as does anyone who looks a bit past the last 40 years of history).

As to 2: yes, there is, but that doesn't preclude it from being taught in school - again we are talking about it being barred from FREE SCHOOOLS, not public schools - there we are in agreement.

As to the pop quote, I can turn that completely around without even trying, and its equally true, since it is sitll predicated on belief; "God exists whether you believe it or not" - I can't disprove yours and you can't disprove the one I just made.
As to everyone being governed by the same universal laws (of physics etc, I assume you aren't talking about philosophical laws) that is true*, but we are nowhere near being able to prove or disprove (either way) whether they "just exist" or some"one" (or some"ones", multiple) instituted them.

I will say, it is darned convenient to propose an existance which doesn't interfere directly/physically, so as to be, by definition, undetectable, unless you argue that the very observed physcial laws is that existance's direct 'manipultation'.


*as far as we know today, statements's truth subject to change pending observations to the contrary
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:33 am

Nooska wrote:Well, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven true (so the true whether you believe it or not quote fails, also, that many people believe it doesn't make it true (Bandwagon fallacy)

As to 1; no, we are NOT talking public schools here, we are talking FREE schools, that anyone can establish to teach in accordance with their values and mores. (For PS I agree, and am miffed that we have "Christianity" as a s subject in PS in denmark -æ sure they cover a little of other religions, but it isn't religion being taught, its Christianity - the argument is that our society is based on Christian mores, I disagree, as does anyone who looks a bit past the last 40 years of history).

As to 2: yes, there is, but that doesn't preclude it from being taught in school - again we are talking about it being barred from FREE SCHOOOLS, not public schools - there we are in agreement.

As to the pop quote, I can turn that completely around without even trying, and its equally true, since it is sitll predicated on belief; "God exists whether you believe it or not" - I can't disprove yours and you can't disprove the one I just made.
As to everyone being governed by the same universal laws (of physics etc, I assume you aren't talking about philosophical laws) that is true*, but we are nowhere near being able to prove or disprove (either way) whether they "just exist" or some"one" (or some"ones", multiple) instituted them.

I will say, it is darned convenient to propose an existance which doesn't interfere directly/physically, so as to be, by definition, undetectable, unless you argue that the very observed physcial laws is that existance's direct 'manipultation'.


*as far as we know today, statements's truth subject to change pending observations to the contrary


Just a couple points to entertain that "devil's advocate" thing you've got going. Saying evolution isn't proven would be a blatant demonstration of ignorance. It has been proven as is countless times in eugenics, genetics, and countless experiments. It is being continuously proven by our current problem with pesticides and antibiotics resistance.

Trying to pretend evolution is "just a theory" is trying to chop down the first tree that birthed a forest hoping the forest will dissapear - even if one point is contradicted, the greater truth remains.

On the topic of God, I'd like to send you back to "burden of proof reversal". If someone wants to prove God exists, it's their job to prove it. Science doesn't give two shits about God's existence or not. It just keeps on keeping on regardless, so it has no burden of proof in the matter.

So yeah, until creationism can be reliably proven a couple thousand times, and improves the life of billion of people with its applications, it can stay right at home in Religion lessons and stay (emphasis) THE. FUCK. OUT. of sciences classes. Thank you very much.

Noos', you're a pretty smart guy, you've proven that to me enough times. So, if you want to entertain creationist concept to play devil's advocate, I suggest you avoid the most assinine and basic arguments creationists put forth. Those don't challenge much, and typically make the debator look like a complete idiot (see Bill Nye vs Ken Ham)
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:51 am

Sorry, but it IS kind of hard to defend creationism, as I think its a load of BS (to put it mildly) (and probably the reason I don't have any real arguments for creationism, even when playing DA)

I'm not quite sure how I got turned down that road here, as what I'm trying to defend, is basically the right of a free school to be stupid about what they want to believe in, and wanting the goverment to stay out of legislating what can and can't be taught in a free school (which by definition is the thing that you can establish to teach what you believe, while only meeting certain measurable standards to comply with it actually educating).

As to the burden of truthreversal, I would argue its a matter of perspective - gods (plural) have been around in belief for millenia, in current days there is a trend to say that they don't exist, and that the believers must prove this - this is an argument that just doesn't make sense in context, first off its the argument that gods don't exist that are new (and thus must be proven - while remaining aware of the bandwagon fallacy of course).

Now, anyone claiming science doesn't exist (to make it comparable) or a specific theory is wrong ALSO has the onus of proof, this is what makes a deadlock, because belief in (a) god(s) includes a belief in the potence of the god(s), and if that potence includes anything that disagree with science we have a conflict, and who has the burden of proof is not easily determined, as each "side" will maintain that it is the other.

I will maintain that believing in origin myths is not opposed to science, if they are taken, not as literal fact, but as a myth; an explanation in understandable human terms at the time they were given, as to what happened, and with an understanding of limited scope of knowledge.

So, with that, lets turn away from actually discussing creationism (I haven't seen anyone on this board that stood for it), and return to the political implications.

Now I would love to see the british government figth a case legally proving that creationism can't be taught because it is false*, in the very moderate courts of europe, especially in regards to the very strong religious freedom vibe in both the ECHR (both court and document) - it would be a very interesting case and very interesting to see how it would translate in the US if won by the UK govt.

*which is the case they must lift, for it to not be an infringement of rights, since onus of proof is legally on the government abridging or infringing a right under the ECHR.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:27 am

Nooska wrote:Sorry, but it IS kind of hard to defend creationism, as I think its a load of BS (to put it mildly) (and probably the reason I don't have any real arguments for creationism, even when playing DA)

I'm not quite sure how I got turned down that road here, as what I'm trying to defend, is basically the right of a free school to be stupid about what they want to believe in, and wanting the goverment to stay out of legislating what can and can't be taught in a free school (which by definition is the thing that you can establish to teach what you believe, while only meeting certain measurable standards to comply with it actually educating).


I guess this is where I believe things went wrong. No matter how "free" a school is, it remains one of the cornerstones of every society. To even consider that schools would have free reign in what it teaches to people too young to question authority is disgusting beyond belief.

Nooska wrote:As to the burden of truthreversal, I would argue its a matter of perspective - gods (plural) have been around in belief for millenia, in current days there is a trend to say that they don't exist, and that the believers must prove this - this is an argument that just doesn't make sense in context, first off its the argument that gods don't exist that are new (and thus must be proven - while remaining aware of the bandwagon fallacy of course).

Now, anyone claiming science doesn't exist (to make it comparable) or a specific theory is wrong ALSO has the onus of proof, this is what makes a deadlock, because belief in (a) god(s) includes a belief in the potence of the god(s), and if that potence includes anything that disagree with science we have a conflict, and who has the burden of proof is not easily determined, as each "side" will maintain that it is the other.


This is a false dichotomy, via a distortion of the scientific method here: Science has proven evolution time and again. If someone wants to disprove evolution, it's their burden to bring something to the table that can dwarf (once again) the entire body of work on eugenics and genetics. Meanwhile, Science doesn't have ANY burden of proof in regards to God, because there is no theory on the existence or not of God that is accepted as the "golden standart". So yes, science can say evolution exists and at the same time say it doesn't know wether God exists. Because science does not consider both statements to be linked to one another.

Nooska wrote:Now I would love to see the british government figth a case legally proving that creationism can't be taught because it is false*, in the very moderate courts of europe, especially in regards to the very strong religious freedom vibe in both the ECHR (both court and document) - it would be a very interesting case and very interesting to see how it would translate in the US if won by the UK govt.

*which is the case they must lift, for it to not be an infringement of rights, since onus of proof is legally on the government abridging or infringing a right under the ECHR.


Thing is, it's not hard to prove creationism as false. Hell, thousand of people have been working at it for a hundred years without actually meaning to. Creationism has nothing to stand on but bogus, unrepeatable research, and endorsment from quacks.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:19 am

Sagara wrote:
Nooska wrote:Sorry, but it IS kind of hard to defend creationism, as I think its a load of BS (to put it mildly) (and probably the reason I don't have any real arguments for creationism, even when playing DA)

I'm not quite sure how I got turned down that road here, as what I'm trying to defend, is basically the right of a free school to be stupid about what they want to believe in, and wanting the goverment to stay out of legislating what can and can't be taught in a free school (which by definition is the thing that you can establish to teach what you believe, while only meeting certain measurable standards to comply with it actually educating).


I guess this is where I believe things went wrong. No matter how "free" a school is, it remains one of the cornerstones of every society. To even consider that schools would have free reign in what it teaches to people too young to question authority is disgusting beyond belief.


Well, I agree with the last part, but I also accept and respect that as a parent, you have the absolute power to decide what constitutes the right thing for your children (thats article 8 excepting the parts covered by art. 9, exceptions being "national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of rights and freedoms of others").
Looking a bit more at the ECHR, its actually more an article 10 question than an article 9; freedom of expression (I think teaching things that (I think) are stupid is covered by freedom of expression, when it happens with the explicit consent of the parents/guardians) or article 11, freedom of assembly and association (being that free schools are an assembly or association).

Anyway

Sagara wrote:
Nooska wrote:As to the burden of truthreversal, I would argue its a matter of perspective - gods (plural) have been around in belief for millenia, in current days there is a trend to say that they don't exist, and that the believers must prove this - this is an argument that just doesn't make sense in context, first off its the argument that gods don't exist that are new (and thus must be proven - while remaining aware of the bandwagon fallacy of course).

Now, anyone claiming science doesn't exist (to make it comparable) or a specific theory is wrong ALSO has the onus of proof, this is what makes a deadlock, because belief in (a) god(s) includes a belief in the potence of the god(s), and if that potence includes anything that disagree with science we have a conflict, and who has the burden of proof is not easily determined, as each "side" will maintain that it is the other.


This is a false dichotomy, via a distortion of the scientific method here: Science has proven evolution time and again. If someone wants to disprove evolution, it's their burden to bring something to the table that can dwarf (once again) the entire body of work on eugenics and genetics. Meanwhile, Science doesn't have ANY burden of proof in regards to God, because there is no theory on the existence or not of God that is accepted as the "golden standart". So yes, science can say evolution exists and at the same time say it doesn't know wether God exists. Because science does not consider both statements to be linked to one another.


I agree that science does not have any problems in regards to burden of proof - as I also said, faith and science aren't opposed. I stated that anyone wanting to say God (or gods) don't exist, has the burden of proof, since the held position in almost all of human culture for millenia is that god(s) DO exist.

Sagara wrote:
Nooska wrote:Now I would love to see the british government figth a case legally proving that creationism can't be taught because it is false*, in the very moderate courts of europe, especially in regards to the very strong religious freedom vibe in both the ECHR (both court and document) - it would be a very interesting case and very interesting to see how it would translate in the US if won by the UK govt.

*which is the case they must lift, for it to not be an infringement of rights, since onus of proof is legally on the government abridging or infringing a right under the ECHR.


Thing is, it's not hard to prove creationism as false. Hell, thousand of people have been working at it for a hundred years without actually meaning to. Creationism has nothing to stand on but bogus, unrepeatable research, and endorsment from quacks.


But it hasn't been proven in a legal sense - that means it has to be proven to not only be implausible, but impossible, since the govt wants to abridge a right to teach it, scientifically being able to cast it aside is not enough when it comes to a freedom right (that seems to be exactly the problem in the US - you can't stop it because there is a right of freedom to teach (by extension).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Ironshield » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:34 pm

Couple of things. Firstly I'm pretty sure a free school in the UK isn't really as free as you seem to be implying they are. They're just a name for a type of school not administered by the local authority but they're still given big wadges of cash from the government on the condition that they adhere to certain conditions. This prohibition on teaching Creationism as Science (that's an important distinction) is not new, it's been in place since 2012 (and no one seems to have cared) for any new free schools or academies that were created, this change just expands that ruling to ALL government funded schools. Since the government is paying, they're entirely entitled to dictate terms. They already have a whole bunch of other ones, I don't see this as some sort of massive departure from any of that. The government is also allowed to force you to educate your kids. There are all sorts of truancy rules and stuff here in the UK, so forcing someone to learn that 10 comes after 9 is no different that forcing them to learn that the earth is more than 6000 years old and evolution is the mechanism by which species change to fit their environments.
Image
Ironshield
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:15 am

Objectively, scientifically, no..
But there is no right to freedom of belief in mathematics - there is a right to not believe in evolution (however stupid that may be from the perspective of anyone here).

I won't say for certain, but from what I've been able to read up on, free schools in the UK is the same sort of thing as free schools in denmark. Here we also have compulsive tutoring (it isn't compulsive school, due to the wording of the constitution), though truancy as such isn't something you can get into legislating (due to there being no compulsion to go to school, just to be taught).

Also, lets be clear, there is a massive legal difference between compulsory teaching of a subject, and forbidding a subject from being taught.

As to it not being new - well it is in one regard, it now covers all the schools that already exist - I don't imaginge a school wanting to teach creationism in science happens very often, but it must exist (otherwise its just legislation to legislate, which is silly), now someone gets swatted, where it was okay previously (which is legally worse than never have been allowed to exercise a right).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:39 am

Nooska wrote:Objectively, scientifically, no..
But there is no right to freedom of belief in mathematics - there is a right to not believe in evolution (however stupid that may be from the perspective of anyone here).


You'd be surprised.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/e ... 04934.html
One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid ... AG20120601
At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.
"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.
Other schools approved for state-funded vouchers use social studies texts warning that liberals threaten global prosperity; Bible-based math books that don't cover modern concepts such as set theory; and biology texts built around refuting evolution.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9432
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:53 pm

Wow...

Just...

Wow...

Howc can you be philosophically opposed to a defined science like math, it has absolutely no connection to anything godly, its is a pure construct of humans to be used by humans. (Granted it is pretty basic, so it is not only concievable, but plausible that it would also be constructed by any alien races with a high enough culture/sophistication/intelligence that might exist elsewhere)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:52 pm

Just to clarify, the ban on teaching creationism in the UK is with regard to state-funded schools, not "free schools". Any non-government-funded free school can teach anything it likes.

I'm a big fan that government should not espouse or promote the teachings of any specific religion, whether that be teaching creationism in schools or banning same-sex marriage, if based solely on religious grounds. It's not the business of government to save people's souls - that's what churches are for. People can go to their church and be taught what their church believes, so they are in no way deprived of such teaching.

Also, evolution has been proven in that the theory (formal sense) is supported by evidence and has passed extensive peer review. The same cannot be said for creationism, leaving it in the dustbin of history along with such concepts as the sun revolving around the earth.

Not only has evolution been proven, but it is also necessary to understand evolutionary processes currently in progress. There is no point taking measures to guard against the promotion and spread of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria if you believe they are spontaneously created by god instead of being selected for by man.

Like the sun revolving around the earth, creationism is an archaic belief that serves no purpose except to confuse the young and become a barrier to teaching proper science.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:40 pm

Image
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:34 am

Koatanga wrote:Just to clarify, the ban on teaching creationism in the UK is with regard to state-funded schools, not "free schools". Any non-government-funded free school can teach anything it likes.

Sorry, but no.

...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.


Yes it is part of a funding agreement, but the way free schools work, is that they are in large part state funded, and free to teach on any basis they like.
Also, this is a bit too specific for legislation to be "free and clear" - so its okay to teach asatru creation myth as evidence based theory (hey, it works as a metaphor for the big bang if you think about it...), or intelligent design, or any other creation myth, just not creationism.

It's not just infrigning on the rights according to the ECHR (the paper), its targetting one specific belief and not others.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest