Here’s my question:
If the right wants to teach “both sides of the controversy”, insisting that ***Creationism ***be taught in science classes, where they already teach Evolution, how the fuck is the left supposed to frame it except ***Creationism ***v ***Evolution ***when they argue against it?
Well, creationism v. Godless atheism, of course! Derpduh.
Teach the controversy! Astrology vs. astronomy, alchemy vs. chemistry, creationism vs. fact.
Well, i have only myself to blame. I keep promising that i will not engage with Starving Artist as if he were an honest debater, because every time i do it, it proves futile.
And yet, every now and again, i am suckered in by my fundamental belief in the underlying rationality of human beings, and by a hope that, in this particular case, SA might actually drop the dishonesty and the misrepresentation for just a moment and debate like a rational, considered human being.
These two paragraphs constitute a perfect example of Starving Artist duplicity and hubris.
[ul]
[li]When asked for evidence of a straightforward assertion, he refuses on the grounds that everyone knows its true. This is truly “My post is my cite” in action.[/li][li]He also argues that “copying and pasting” the evidence would be too time consuming, yet he has the time to make this long, 7-point post, and has had the time to “contribute” 16 posts to this thread, more posts than almost anyone else involved.[/li][li]And finally, in the ultimate piece of egomania, he insists on being paid for doing something that everyone else on the boards does as a simple matter of course. [/li][/ul]
Coward, dunce, and prevaricator.
I said nothing of the kind. What special reality do you inhabit? I think you are one of the top five stupidest people I have ever seen on this message board.
I promise you, the first person who asks who the other four are is going to regret it. Stifle!
If your assessment of my intellect is as on-mark as the rest of your opinions I’ll take that as a compliment.
What the FUCK? You blithering idiot. Can you really not understand this? Are you really this stupid?
How many conservatives believe in evolution or not is immaterial to the discussion.
In order for your argument to make sense you need to impute some kind of causal relationship wherein being conservative impedes one’s ability to believe in evolution.
You understand that even if 100% of conservatives deny evolution and 100% of liberals believe in evolution, that still makes no logical statement that conservatism makes you deny evolution.
Correlation is not causation.
I mean think of it! For all the fucking possible reasons your FIL suddenly stopped believing in evolution, you just jumped out of the blue and blamed conservatism. Why? Why select that? Why not blame black people? It would be just as fucking stupid. What percentage of black people believe in evolution? Did you look up that statistic?
If you were a cracker, probably you would blame blacks. You see, that’s what a bigot does. They have an unreasonable aversion to a certain group, and they attribute all sorts of ills to it because it’s simple for their stupid minds to just assign one random scapegoat to everything they think is wrong.
Here’s a whole bunch of other reasons your FIL might have gone wiggy:
-As Elucidator mentioned, maybe he’s getting senile
-maybe he’s getting old and taking a renewed interest in religion to assuage his mortality fears and accepting fundamentalist doctrine.
-maybe he went to a different church or got a different preacher
-maybe you and your wife piss him off and he’s being contrary for spite
-maybe he always believed in creationism, but in the past he didn’t voice it out of fear of ridicule but now that he’s old and retired he doesn’t give a shit.
But no! You blame conservatism! Why? Because you are an idiot one trick pony dumbass. You’re a piano that plays one note.
You are like the Grand Wizard of the liberal Ku Klux Klan who blames all the ill on the world on conservatives, because he’s too stupid to comprehend that the world is a complex place and he has only enough room in his brain for a single concept, a single cause for all that he dislikes; who thinks he can shield himself and hide his own inadequacy and stupidity by looking down on another group.
God, I remember when there only used to be a few of you.
This is true. The problem that Darwin deniers have has very little to do with the bible (not one person in the entire world follows that book completely) and everything to do with needing to feel special.
Sorry retard. You’re wrong. Repeat after me, “I, Scylla, am the oddball. I find some mainstream conservative ideas to be repugnant, but I’m the one that isn’t typical of 21st century American conservatism. They are the standard, I, Scylla, am the outlier. The leaders of the conservative movement and the rank and file push denial of evolution.”
It’s amazing how utterly without thought you are. You’re a poster-child for ignorant, vapid, conservatism.
I voted for Obama, you idiot.
Even an idiot could see that McCain was a train-wreck. 
You were going somewhere, until the last line. I think Scylla is probably similar to the people who, if asked to name their favorite apple, would reflexively name the Red Delicious, without realizing that the Red Delicious they knew doesn’t really exist anymore. My guess is that Scylla’s ideas of a good conservative candidate would be people like (correct me if I’m wrong here, Scylla): Ike Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Ronnie Reagan, George HW Bush, and Mitt Romney. People who wouldn’t have a fart’s chance in a blizzard of sneaking through a primary these days.
If the problem were simply those few conservatives (for want of a better word) who actually don’t accept evolution et. al., it wouldn’t be so bad. One can only wonder if it is a lack of education, intelligence, or a gargantuan capacity for denial. But sincerely held ignorance has at least that scrap of dignity, that it is sincere.
The other problem is those conservatives of a more cynical bent, those willing to ally with ignorance to benefit their political persuasion. Or who just ho lack the stones to defy ignorance in face of electoral consequences. If the party that most commonly indulges in conservative posturing, the Republicans, had forthrightly and unreservedly rejected any such alliance, or even tacit tolerance of such ignorance, they would have lost the last several crucial elections, their dominance depended on that alliance. As the record shows, they did not.
Personally, I find it easier to forgive ignorance than cynicism, but that’s just me.
I was thinking about cutting it actually. But he was so mean I felt I had to lash out. [/touchy_feely]
Yeah, even St. Ronnie would be blasted as a RINO today.
I long for the return of intelligent conservatism. I remember actual debates with conservatives, back when Newt was sane.
hahahahahhahahahhahah!
That is bar none, the funniest thing I’ve read all week. You’re trying to see if a massive ball of neutronium can somehow be made to float like a balloon!
[quote=“Cisco, post:273, topic:555977”]
I didn’t know that about the red delicious. It is my favorite. Fresh crunchy ones are still absolutely delicious, IMO. I don’t share your lament for 'em. Sure, I liked Ronnie, and Barry, and George, but I don’t think you’re right about them being unelectable today.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but my recollection over my life is that the current opposition is always the worst ever, stupidest, evilest, most dishonest, etc. And can never hold a candle to the politicians of old. This effect seems to hold true whether it’s republicans talking about democrats or vice versa.
For example, Clinton is enjoying comparative popularity and nostalgia compared to the all pervasive evil and socialism that is Obama. Back in the day, though Clinton was the worst thing that ever happened.
Similarly, I lived through Reagan’s terms. Remember that he was an evil senile madmen intent on leading us into ww3 and destroying the world when he wasn’t in bed with corporate America or trying to feed the poor to the rich?
I do.
He was intensely reviled, and hated.
Ten years from now you guys will be all nostalgic about what a swell and honest guy W was compared to the lunatic the Republicans just elected, and four years after that the Republicans will be longing for the good old days of Obama.
The one constant in politics seems to be that the opposition will always attempt to add credible to it’s objection to the current man in power claiming they thought the previous one wasn’t so bad.
Even Nixon got some nostalgia.
So, no. Good point, but I don’t think it holds water
To be clear, I wasn’t saying that I like those guys; I was saying I figured you did.
I was still in the womb when ol’ Ronnie Raygun took his oath of office, so I can’t really say I was much into politics during his two terms, but I’ve studied his presidency, and I’m only nostalgic for it in the context of people like Sharron Angle. Outside of that, I wouldn’t piss on the old fucker’s corpse if it was on fire.
I do. The again, I thought the Clinton Presidency was a good one.
Right. :rolleyes: And you attempt to begin this rational, considered debate by saying:
And now that your self-professed attempt at bonhomie and debate through goodwill and rationality with a longstanding opponent who has continually frustrated your attempts to do so have been exposed as pure horseshit, so fraught with duplicity and dishonesty and apparent intellectual contempt for the posters on this board whom you apparently consider to be on your side, let me ask you this:
Have you - in your capacity as a teacher and quasi-intellectual - truly found yourself so insulated from the national dialog that you genuinely don’t believe me when I say that the left has been presenting the issue as being one of evolution vs. creationism?
If you are really and truly willing to confess to being that ignorant, and that isolated from the realities of the national dialog, I will post links to at least fifteen instances of someone on the left with a national forum doing just that. (And I’ll merely be scratching the surface, at that.)
So, ball’s in your court. Are you willing to confess to being an utter ignoramus on this issue simply in order to cause me to have to do the work of proving myself right, or do you want to just admit you’re full of shit on both this issue and in your so-called attempt at rational, considered dialog with me and just slink off under a rock somewhere and pretend all this never happened?