Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Abood
#1235327
WARNING: If you can't stand some offense, this thread isn't for you. GO AWAY!

Liberals are hypocrites. They're all like, "Conservatives want to enforce their stupid, archaic religions on everyone and make us slaves to God." But what do they do? They go and advocate banning religion in schools and whatnot and turn the schools into propaganda machines of the scientific consensus. "What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Well, what's wrong with it is obvious. Science is, and will always remain, a bunch (or more) of theories. Science might be right or wrong, and you never know. Scientists always find holes in their theories and change them, which makes previous scientific theories false. So why do we have to follow a scientific consensus like it's a religion? Yes, I said it! The reason liberals are against religion is because it indoctrinates bullshit and isn't real (or at least that's what they believe). But wait a second... doesn't science also indoctrinate potential bullshit? Like I said, scientists always disprove themselves (or other scientists), and what they disproved becomes "bullshit". So they're indoctrinating things that might be right or wrong.

Now, you might say that the burden of the proof lies on the person with the positive assertion, and if someone proves his/her point, then that point becomes science. And, well, liberals claim they're all about science. But hold on... Didn't the religious community already bring up the theory of Intelligent Design? So isn't that enough proof? I know what you're gonna say... "No." Well, why is it not? Because the scientific majority doesn't agree. And well, scientists are people, and whether we like it or not, everyone is biased. Most scientists believe in the Evolutionary Theory and would therefore be biased against anything that contradicts it. So what does that mean? It means that liberals want a tyranny of the majority (of scientists). They don't want anyone to believe in any dissenting scientific voice, and only in what the voices of godless, evolutionist scientists (which is the majority, right?) believe in. They want to ban dissenting voices from schools and want to indoctrinate everyone to believe in Evolutionary Theory and everything else the scientific majority agrees on. They want to create a scientific tyranny, believing that scientific theories are right (even though many have been proven wrong time and time again, by scientists themselves!)

Liberals are fuckin' hypocritical. Liberals aren't liberal. Liberalism is about allowing everyone to speak out, and that's exactly what liberals aren't. Liberals only want people they agree with to speak out. They're as bad as conservatives.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1235394
This is pretty senseless:
1) Teaching kids about evolution isn't indoctrination, it's about scientific fact. If some half-assed religion started claiming the Earth was flat it wouldn't be propaganda to point out otherwise.
2) Liberalism is so much broader than issues of secularism anyway, it's about the pursuit of freedom and the betterment of man, things conservatives and communists have always been opposed to.
User avatar
By Abood
#1235422
Teaching kids evolution isn't indoctrination, but teaching them only evolution is. Evolution is a theory, just like virtually everything in science. So teaching it as the one and only truth is indoctrination. Dissent should be allowed in education, and Liberals do not tolerate that. If they did, they wouldn't be fighting for banning Intelligent Design from schools. They might not agree with it and think it's "stupid", but that doesn't mean it's false. No one knows what the truth is.

Also, because Liberals are against dissenting scientific voices, they aren't for "the pursuit of freedom". Part of freedom is allowing dissenting voices.
User avatar
By Eauz
#1235438
The whole point to Liberal education is to create a uniform education policy for all living within a society, to give them the basics to grow from, if it means after high school, going to work, or continuing into post-secondary education or trade schools.

However, they are not opposed to people learning about other topics outside of school. It is your responsibility, if you choose so, to expand your area of interest.

I'm not sure how much we actually learn about evolution in school though. I don't remember watching any films about it, and probably only read it a few times in the text books of each science class. I think at that age, I was more excited to dissect the frog or squid, than whether or not they evolved or were created by intelligent design.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1235447
Was there a point buried somewhere in that rant? Because all I've been able to detect is an "agnostic" "anarchist" having a hissyfit because - horror! - some people would ban idiotic theories from schools.

No school I know of (and I strongly suspect this is the case in all western countries - but perhaps your beloved Emir has different ideas about education) teaches scientific facts and theories as if they were not overturnable. But this doesn't mean children should be taught things that are obviously untrue - this would be the educational system's equivalent of molestation.
User avatar
By Abood
#1235457
Theo, I'm not talking about the Western school system, or any school system for that matter. I'm talking about Liberal theory.

My point is that even if you believe some theories are "idiotic", you shouldn't ban them from school. Scientific theories have been proven wrong several times, and you don't know whether the Evolution is true or not. (By the way, I believe in the Evolutionary Theory. I'm taking this from an objective perspective.)

So basically, if the scientific majority believes in the evolution, partly because of faith (yes, there's faith in science, whether you like it or not), they'd be very sceptical of any theory that puts God in the picture. That'd make that theory "unscientific", and the Liberals would try to ban it from schools. But one of the reasons that theory was condemned as "unscientific" is because the scientific majority dismissed it... but you never know whether science is right or wrong, because faith plays a part in science, since there are only theories, and those theories might be right or wrong.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1235469
Abood wrote:Theo, I'm not talking about the Western school system, or any school system for that matter. I'm talking about Liberal theory.


I have a distinct feeling you don't know what you're talking about. What liberal theory?

Abood wrote:My point is that even if you believe some theories are "idiotic", you shouldn't ban them from school.


They should be banned if they're as obviously untrue as intelligent design is.

Abood wrote:Scientific theories have been proven wrong several times, and you don't know whether the Evolution is true or not.


For the time being it is the only theory that conforms to the evidence.

Abood wrote:So basically, if the scientific majority believes in the evolution, partly because of faith (yes, there's faith in science, whether you like it or not), they'd be very sceptical of any theory that puts God in the picture. That'd make that theory "unscientific", and the Liberals would try to ban it from schools. But one of the reasons that theory was condemned as "unscientific" is because the scientific majority dismissed it... but you never know whether science is right or wrong, because faith plays a part in science, since there are only theories, and those theories might be right or wrong.


First of all, anyone who tries to dismiss science by equating it with religion or by saying "it's all just a bunch of theories" should be bludgeoned to death with an elementary school textbook.

Second, you seriously overestimate the influence of the "scientific majority". History has shown that faulty theories are discarded no matter how many scientists believe in them, or even have vested interest in them. I realise a lot of obscurantists like to claim their theories are suppressed by "the scientific mainstream", but so far I haven't seen any proof of such a thing happening. Unpopular but sound scientific theories simply aren't on the same level as religious garbage.

Third, why does a great anarcho-agnostic like yourself use the adjective "godless"? It seems that someone still hasn’t broken free from the influence of his hoja.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1235525
Theo, I'm not talking about the Western school system, or any school system for that matter. I'm talking about Liberal theory.

Well you've constructed an imaginary liberal theory. Liberalism has at its heart today Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability. That is, a theory is scientific insofar as it can be disproved (at least in principle) by new evidence. I don't think this is the case with ID.

Potemkin - So long as the terms are as I defined the comment stands :P
User avatar
By Monkey Angst
#1235569
Teaching kids evolution isn't indoctrination, but teaching them only evolution is. Evolution is a theory, just like virtually everything in science. So teaching it as the one and only truth is indoctrination.

All right, fair enough. What alternate theories do you believe should be taught? The one where the universe was created in seven days and there was a fruit involved? How about the one where a god descended from the heavens on a rope with a plate of sand and a chicken, and how everywhere the chicken's scratching deposited sand, land formed? How much class time should be devoted to that one? Or the theory that the world is a flat disc held aloft on the back of a celestial tortoise?

I have no objection of any kind to religion being mentioned in school. But in our secular civil society, preference can't be given to any one faith. If you're gonna teach the myths (and I support teaching myths -- mythology was one of my favorite subjects), teach them all.

Now, if you're talking about alternative scientific theories of the origin of the species (or the world), then you can teach them in science class. All the other stuff, get back in Humanities where you belong.
User avatar
By NYYS
#1235602
Anarchy! Anarchy! Anar-

oh wait, Abood is right.

I'm not really in favor of of teaching intelligent design in schools, but this liberal idea that religion should be banned because its wrong is just retarded. Science has been wrong so many times before, it is just forcing ideas down people's throats that may or may not be correct, the very thing that liberals whine about religion doing.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1235603
Was there a point buried somewhere in that rant? Because all I've been able to detect is an "agnostic" "anarchist" having a hissyfit because - horror! - some people would ban idiotic theories from schools.


I lol'd so hard @ this.

No school I know of (and I strongly suspect this is the case in all western countries - but perhaps your beloved Emir has different ideas about education) teaches scientific facts and theories as if they were not overturnable. But this doesn't mean children should be taught things that are obviously untrue - this would be the educational system's equivalent of molestation.


School provides you with the information. It is your choice whether you wish to believe it or not. If you are interested in a given subject, you will learn more about it on your own.


I have no objection of any kind to religion being mentioned in school. But in our secular civil society, preference can't be given to any one faith. If you're gonna teach the myths (and I support teaching myths -- mythology was one of my favorite subjects), teach them all.


In our MSN discussion, I suggested that such theories should be discussed in philosophy class as the issue (i.e. "Intelligent" design) deals with god. This theory is only different from evolution aside from Darwin's probability vs. God's planing.

But Abood is not concerned with these petty facts, his problem is with liberal theory and I don't quite understand what he means by liberal theory.

Well you've constructed an imaginary liberal theory. Liberalism has at its heart today Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability. That is, a theory is scientific insofar as it can be disproved (at least in principle) by new evidence. I don't think this is the case with ID.

Ah ok.
User avatar
By Abood
#1235617
After re-considering the issue I have changed my stance... or so I think. :p

But I still have a question, although I think it's more appropriate in the Anarchism sub-forum.

But still, Theo, can you please provide examples of some popular scientific theories being discarded?

By the way, when I was said "Liberal theory" I meant the way Liberals believe society should be.
User avatar
By Monkey Angst
#1235631
By the way, when I was said "Liberal theory" I meant the way Liberals believe society should be.

Ah, you mean the Islamo-femini-multiculti-aborti-homotopia. Why didn't you say so?"
User avatar
By satan
#1235638
How do religious liberals fit in with this rant?
User avatar
By Theodore
#1235711
Abood wrote:But still, Theo, can you please provide examples of some popular scientific theories being discarded?


- that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones

- geocentrism

- creationism

- aether theories

- non-relativistic space and time

And so on.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1235718
creationism


"The world was created on 23rd of October 4004 B.C. at precisely 08:00 o'clock."
- Some religion dude from the 19th century

See? This is an irrefutable fact.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1235826
Ah, you mean the Islamo-femini-multiculti-aborti-homotopia.

:lol:

Beautiful. This where liberals go to when they die.
By Lux
#1235869
Actually, scientific methodology should be teached before science, since a lot of people (some creationists for example) seems to have a problem of grasping the differences between faith and science.

Science is based on empirical observations, experiments and constants questioning, whereas faith is based upon... well faith.
User avatar
By Kylie
#1235889
Be careful with this topic guys. Please try to stay within the confines of the OP and it's relation to liberalism. That's all!

With that being said, as far as the OP, Abood, I think you seem to be reacting to the Americanized definition of Liberalism and how today's liberals feel about Intelligent Design being taught in class. I think it's already been said before, I don't think it's a matter of it being taught that it's a problem, I think where you get into dicey territory is *where* it should be taught. Should Intelligent Design be taught in science classes or in a religion class? Those who are for Intelligent Design honestly believe evolution is just a *theory* and if it's just a *theory*, then Intelligent Design, as a scientific *theory* should be taught in science class.

I meant the way Liberals believe society should be.

IMO, what liberals think they should be today is a far cry of what they thought it should be years ago. Everything has gone a-muk and Monkey Angst put it the best way of all.
By Citizen J
#1236006
Edit: tl/dr

Kyle is right.

It's time to kick these 'Tory' jokers into the […]

Yesterday there was a series of suicide bombers in[…]

UK votes to exit EU

The UK can not expect a deal better than Norway o[…]

With or without Corbyn, the Labour Party seems to […]