For Fred's Sake, Bluelancer. As a moderator you should know better. Take a look at your post, and take a look at the original post of the topic.

 

 

 

Evolution...PETA. Not exactly a good match. And all parties talking about evolution or debating it are in the wrong. Stay on topic!

 

 

 

Considering that the origional post was pretty much stating that teachers should not teach bias, and then someone popped in saying that evolution should not be taught because of the bias as well.

 

 

 

 

 

It's within the topic still. He was trying to say that evolution should be taught because it doesn't contain bias, considering it is a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, I know you wouldn't have responded to Blue that way if it was about any other topic that happened to go off topic, Bari.

Not necessarily, if you buy a fur coat somewhere down the line, yes, the animal was killed, now lets say we all decided not to buy those fur coats, would anyone have any reason to continue to kill the animals. That fact is that if we stopped buying fur coats the companies would stop making them and the foxes/wolves/cats/dogs would stop being killed to make those coats, its much more complex then "if its already dead I didn't kill it."

 

 

 

This is probably the best thing animal activists always say in defense of what they do. Now, lets assume that -- yes, no one buys fur coats or meat products anymore. What happens? A few things:

 

 

 

First, overpopulation. Animals will easily start to over populate the world because they aren't being steadily killed off.

 

 

 

Second, many, many people will be out of a job. Imagine -- anyone who works with meat and/or the fur trade for a living is now simply SOL because of this. Farmers (IMO) would make less money than they currently do because all they will have to rely on is their crops.

 

 

 

Third, it's already been stated but you know all the stuff that is currently causing global warming? Well, now imagine this process going a lot faster with all of the extra methane being produced from animals. What would start as an eco-friendly idea will soon turn against the environment for us. Good job.

 

 

 

Of course this is all on that big, and I mean big, assumption that you could get everyone (or a majority) of people in the world to stop eating meat or using animal products. It's impossible to do so and, as you can see above, a waste of time.

 

 

 

How naive you are, animals would not overpopulate the world because the animals that are used for food are raised purposely for killing, in nature animals aren't forced to reproduce so quickly and in nature there are other animals called natural predators that are totally carnivorous and eat the cows. (Notice the bold, basically many people say that if other animals can eat the cows why can't we, how about we're omnivores and are capable for digesting plants.)

 

 

 

I have no sympathy for anyone that works killing/exploiting animals, they can go find jobs somewhere else.

 

 

 

Now in my first point I stated how the animal population would not increase as rapidly in a nature situation, well there you go. Oh and one more thing when they compare the methane production of cows to cars they are talking about cows that are breed for food, not cows in the wild, cows naturally have a very diffrent diet and produce less methane, the diet they eat on farms is specifically so they grow larger and produce more meat.

 

 

 

And of course it's possible to get large masses of people bring about change, ever heard of the Civil Rights movement or the feminist movement, those where both movements that changed things, why can't we make a change for the better (as shown above).

I have no sympathy for anyone that works killing/exploiting animals, they can go find jobs somewhere else.

 

 

 

Seriously? You would not mind for hundreds of thousands (IIRC millions maybe) of hard working individuals to be without a job just because you think that we shouldn't eat meat?

 

 

 

Wow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as your other comments, what about other omnivore animals? Should they not eat meat too just because 'they can eat plants'?

I am not debating if evolution is or is not a theory but I am stating that educators should not blindly put it across as 100% as that does upset many people. You have your views on the beginning of life I have mine, that is not what I am here to discuss. As stated somewhere above this is not a topic for debating this 'life' question rather one to discuss teachers enforcing bias on others.

I am not debating if evolution is or is not a theory but I am stating that educators should not blindly put it across as 100% as that does upset many people. You have your views on the beginning of life I have mine, that is not what I am here to discuss. As stated somewhere above this is not a topic for debating this 'life' question rather one to discuss teachers enforcing bias on others.

 

 

 

Science class is there to teach science -- simple as.

 

 

 

 

 

And you clearly stated that it was a theory, especially considering you don't 'believe' in it.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution has no bias behind it, as does any other scientific discovery.

For Fred's Sake, Bluelancer. As a moderator you should know better. Take a look at your post, and take a look at the original post of the topic.

 

 

 

Evolution...PETA. Not exactly a good match. And all parties talking about evolution or debating it are in the wrong. Stay on topic!

 

 

 

Considering that the origional post was pretty much stating that teachers should not teach bias, and then someone popped in saying that evolution should not be taught because of the bias as well.

 

 

 

 

 

It's within the topic still. He was trying to say that evolution should be taught because it doesn't contain bias, considering it is a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, I know you wouldn't have responded to Blue that way if it was about any other topic that happened to go off topic, Bari.

 

 

 

Sorry, I come from a school district and state where origins are simply not taught. Survival of the Fittest, yes, but not total evolution. To be honest, high school kids are not old enough to maturely debate such things. Same goes for abortion or gay rights. Believe it or not, you aren't fully grown up. Neither am I. I still have three years to go before I get a bloody decrease on my car insurance, because they still consider me a kid.

 

 

 

However, Bluelancer's post went a little beyond talking about Evolution in the classroom, and more into religion and politics.

 

 

 

And about your last comment. I've always said that when it's off-topic. I, for one, am sick of every other post becoming religion flaming. It seems to happen in many topics, and we've thankfully had a drought.

For Fred's Sake, Bluelancer. As a moderator you should know better. Take a look at your post, and take a look at the original post of the topic.

 

 

 

Evolution...PETA. Not exactly a good match. And all parties talking about evolution or debating it are in the wrong. Stay on topic!

 

 

 

Considering that the origional post was pretty much stating that teachers should not teach bias, and then someone popped in saying that evolution should not be taught because of the bias as well.

 

 

 

 

 

It's within the topic still. He was trying to say that evolution should be taught because it doesn't contain bias, considering it is a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, I know you wouldn't have responded to Blue that way if it was about any other topic that happened to go off topic, Bari.

 

 

 

Sorry, I come from a school district and state where origins are simply not taught. Survival of the Fittest, yes, but not total evolution. To be honest, high school kids are not old enough to maturely debate such things. Same goes for abortion or gay rights. Believe it or not, you aren't fully grown up. Neither am I. I still have three years to go before I get a bloody decrease on my car insurance, because they still consider me a kid.

 

 

 

However, Bluelancer's post went a little beyond talking about Evolution in the classroom, and more into religion and politics.

 

 

 

And about your last comment. I've always said that when it's off-topic. I, for one, am sick of every other post becoming religion flaming. It seems to happen in many topics, and we've thankfully had a drought.

 

 

 

Not old enough to maturely debate such issues? Good point any many would agree, these are delicate issues. If you honestly believe that then you'd endorse never bringing your children up to believe a creation story from a religious text is true yet leave that decision to them when they are old enough to choose what to believe for themselves.

 

 

 

On the 'religious flaming' point, I've never been able to fully understand this. People often claim it, yet not one foul word has been thrown around here and people have only thus far talked about evolution being a fact/theory. This seems to be exactly the kind of victim mentality seen in another topic - I question something about a posters view of why he believes in god and I'm instantly accused of trying to convert people to atheism.

Forgive me. Perhaps "persecution" is a better word than "flaming."

 

 

 

Coming from a man who has been raised in the Church his entire life, I was never explicitly told the Creation story by parents or a teacher until adolescence, at an age where I can form my own opinions.

 

 

 

yet leave that decision to them when they are old enough to choose what to believe for themselves.

 

 

 

Which is what my parents did, and what I plan to do.

 

 

 

People often claim it, yet not one foul word has been thrown around here

 

 

 

It happens often enough. "Ignorant" is the most common insult thrown. Even when insults aren't given, passages are often worded to insinuate it.

 

 

 

I question something about a posters view of why he believes in god and I'm instantly accused of trying to convert people to atheism.

 

 

 

Vis-a-Vis, I talk about religion and I am accused of being a backwards bigot.

Forgive me. Perhaps "persecution" is a better word than "flaming."

 

 

 

Coming from a man who has been raised in the Church his entire life, I was never explicitly told the Creation story by parents or a teacher until adolescence, at an age where I can form my own opinions.

 

 

 

yet leave that decision to them when they are old enough to choose what to believe for themselves.

 

 

 

Which is what my parents did, and what I plan to do.

 

 

 

People often claim it, yet not one foul word has been thrown around here

 

 

 

It happens often enough. "Ignorant" is the most common insult thrown. Even when insults aren't given, passages are often worded to insinuate it.

 

 

 

I question something about a posters view of why he believes in god and I'm instantly accused of trying to convert people to atheism.

 

 

 

Vis-a-Vis, I talk about religion and I am accused of being a backwards bigot.

 

 

 

Firstly, good to hear that you plan to let your kids form those opinions themselves. It's something that I really value as well.

 

 

 

On using 'ignorant' as an insult, I know the connotations but I don't think learning what the word actually means (directed at basically the whole posting community here) would go astray. I've got no qualms with being called ignorant if I in fact am, which I am. I'm as ignorant as can be about economics, for example.

 

 

 

Finally, on yourself being called a backwards bigot upon mentioning religion, I think that's obviously way too harsh and that's the kind of flaming people should avoid. I can't actually remember the last time I saw such a harshly framed insult but hey, it's probably just my own ignorance. :wink:

You think that, but this is the internet. You can draw a line and say "this is the bottom of the barrel" and people will find a way to go lower. Thank places like 4chan and the like.

 

It happens often enough. "Ignorant" is the most common insult thrown. Even when insults aren't given, passages are often worded to insinuate it.

 

 

 

No one has actually said anyone is 'Ignorant' here. Stop trying to act like you're a victim here.

 

 

 

 

 

Vis-a-Vis, I talk about religion and I am accused of being a backwards bigot.

 

 

 

what now? Where in the world did he even imply that?

 

It happens often enough. "Ignorant" is the most common insult thrown. Even when insults aren't given, passages are often worded to insinuate it.

 

 

 

No one has actually said anyone is 'Ignorant' here. Stop trying to act like you're a victim here.

 

 

 

 

 

Vis-a-Vis, I talk about religion and I am accused of being a backwards bigot.

 

 

 

what now? Where in the world did he even imply that?

 

 

 

He's talking more about the general community when it comes to religious topics, not just this topic.

Nadril, I'd love to go look through the dozens of threads that have dozens of pages of holy war to satisfy you, but why bother. You don't even read the ones in this topic. My comments were directed to the off-topic forum in general, not this specific thread.

 

 

 

What now? Where in the world did he even imply that?

 

 

 

What now? Where in the world did I ever state that Warrior was the brunt of that comment?

I disagree with extremists as a policy. Even if their extreme about something I belive in becasue being fanatical rrely if ever leads to anything good.

 

 

 

I also resent people who try to impose their values on my life. Im not talkign things like not murdering someone, im talking about religon and dont eat meat.

 

 

 

PETA can love animals till pigs fly for all I care. But imposing their belifs on me, they can go [bleep] themselves. And I wouldnt be against a citizes arrest either (in Canada thats where someone jumps on someone whos breaking the law preventing a getaway while the cops arrive). Say it was a fur coat, they coujld at least expect to be charged the price of the coat, the legal fees, and maybe another couple hundred as emotional compensation. Willfull damage of another persones property can be considered vandalisim, probably wouldnt be hard to apply that to a garment, or just go teh easy way and use a small claims court.

Nadril, I'd love to go look through the dozens of threads that have dozens of pages of holy war to satisfy you, but why bother. You don't even read the ones in this topic. My comments were directed to the off-topic forum in general, not this specific thread.

 

 

 

What now? Where in the world did he even imply that?

 

 

 

What now? Where in the world did I ever state that Warrior was the brunt of that comment?

 

 

 

Sorry, I was specificly talking about this thread -- considering it is kind of the entire reason why we got into this discussion in the first place.

They can teach as long as the acknowledge it as a theory and that there are others, because there is still a large majority of people who hold to the creation belief and religious debate is never a good thing.

 

You know, you might be surprised at how many Christians believe in the evolution theory; my dad, the Christian, included. :wink:

I have no sympathy for anyone that works killing/exploiting animals, they can go find jobs somewhere else.

 

 

 

Seriously? You would not mind for hundreds of thousands (IIRC millions maybe) of hard working individuals to be without a job just because you think that we shouldn't eat meat?

 

 

 

Wow.

 

 

 

As far as your other comments, what about other omnivore animals? Should they not eat meat too just because 'they can eat plants'?

 

 

 

Sure, I believe they bring it upon themselves.

 

 

 

And as far as omnivorous animals, so far we're the only animals with an IQ high enough for sympathy for subordinate animals.

They can teach as long as the acknowledge it as a theory and that there are others, because there is still a large majority of people who hold to the creation belief and religious debate is never a good thing.

 

You know, you might be surprised at how many Christians believe in the evolution theory; my dad, the Christian, included. :wink:

 

 

 

I personally believe in Creation, but also in Survival of the Fittest. Many people just unfairly state that we abolish the thoughts of Evolution in general.

 

However, Bluelancer's post went a little beyond talking about Evolution in the classroom, and more into religion and politics.

 

 

 

And about your last comment. I've always said that when it's off-topic. I, for one, am sick of every other post becoming religion flaming. It seems to happen in many topics, and we've thankfully had a drought.

 

 

 

There wasn't any religion flaming on this thread, just that someone happened to add to the discussion on animal rights that "evolution should be taught as a theory amongst others such as creationism".

 

 

 

It's grossly inaccurate to teach creationism as fact and of real educational value in the world. As I said, everyone has the right to believe what they want. Just remember 25% of the world's population is christian, leaving 75% with all sorts of religions, values, beliefs, etc...

 

 

 

Evolution itself is an universal theory which crosses cultural or religious boundaries. It's taught in an Arab university just as it is in a British university or a Chinese one. Evolution has occurred amongst people of every possible culture.

 

 

 

I just find it funny when religious conservatives demand their myth should be taught as a fact rather than stories of greek, scandinavian, oriental, or other gods just because they 'believe' it's the truth. Evolution doesn't contain beliefs, it just observes and inteprets what happens in natural biology.

Which would be better fit for education?

 

A) "God created all living things and Earth in 7 days. Or, at least, we think he did, but there is no evidence whatsoever for it" or,

 

B) "Organisms evolved from other, previously existing organisms, as evidence by fossil records, etc."

 

 

 

Personally, I would go with option B. Of course, it's much more black-and-white here than it would be when actually taught, but you get the idea.

 

 

 

Also, coming back to PETA practices: Why do they throw paint on fur coats? the death of the animal is in vain because the product made of it is now worthless, unusable, and the owner will probably just buy another, which in turn kills more animals.

So, yeah. I'm pretty pissed. How do you deal with people like that?

 

 

 

Report them to the adminstration. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's illegal to just push things like that on your class. Along with the relgious profiling, that's not too happy. Presenting you with that kind of stuff and incorporating it into a lesson is different (like every history teacher I've ever had), but wasting time and tax dollars on something like that is morally and educationally reprehensible.

 

 

 

On a personal note, I would have torn her appart with my PETA hating attitude and ability to rebuke their propaganda and lies. Animal activism is one thing, PETA... well PETA is something completely different.

Well, there's been no more of it, I don't know if someone said something or what, but, whatever.

 

 

 

I'm still going to have to get revenge on her. Not really though, I've been looking for an excuse to prank somebody like this for a while now. I'm going to send her emails. From herself. From the future. I highly doubt she'll believe it, but it'll be fun to see someone who's not particularly tech-savvy stress out over someone "breaking into their email" or whatever she'll think. I've actually got this pretty good. I just wrote a simple script to send an email with fake headers, and am going to change the time on my server to like 2032 so sendmail thinks it's 2032, just to freak her out =)

I think what you did is brave and great! :mrgreen:

Well, there's been no more of it, I don't know if someone said something or what, but, whatever.

 

 

 

I'm still going to have to get revenge on her. Not really though, I've been looking for an excuse to prank somebody like this for a while now. I'm going to send her emails. From herself. From the future. I highly doubt she'll believe it, but it'll be fun to see someone who's not particularly tech-savvy stress out over someone "breaking into their email" or whatever she'll think. I've actually got this pretty good. I just wrote a simple script to send an email with fake headers, and am going to change the time on my server to like 2032 so sendmail thinks it's 2032, just to freak her out =)

 

 

 

Assuming your in the United States sending fake emails from someone your not is disorderedly internet conduct and is illegal. Its also very traceable if she gets a tech guy to look at it.

Well, there's been no more of it, I don't know if someone said something or what, but, whatever.

 

 

 

I'm still going to have to get revenge on her. Not really though, I've been looking for an excuse to prank somebody like this for a while now. I'm going to send her emails. From herself. From the future. I highly doubt she'll believe it, but it'll be fun to see someone who's not particularly tech-savvy stress out over someone "breaking into their email" or whatever she'll think. I've actually got this pretty good. I just wrote a simple script to send an email with fake headers, and am going to change the time on my server to like 2032 so sendmail thinks it's 2032, just to freak her out =)

 

 

 

Assuming your in the United States sending fake emails from someone your not is disorderedly internet conduct and is illegal. Its also very traceable if she gets a tech guy to look at it.

 

Yea, and that's exactly what tipit needs, another guy going to jail.