|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/30/2007 : 07:45:22 [Permalink]
|
Public school is compulsory. The only way out is to spend a great deal of labor providing funds for an approved private school or an acceptable home program.
All three of these are infringements on individual rights. One can make the argument as to why these infringements are needed, but they are still trespass.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:10:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Public school is compulsory. The only way out is to spend a great deal of labor providing funds for an approved private school or an acceptable home program.
All three of these are infringements on individual rights. One can make the argument as to why these infringements are needed, but they are still trespass. |
"Trespasses" happen all the time, so ending your argument there does nothing. The real question is whether or not such "trespasses" are justifiable within our society or not, and you've just blown that discussion off. We're left with the idea that you think there should be no government interference with individual rights whatsoever, a position that can only be held by naive idealists who have little concept of human nature. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:30:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Okay, now I'm arguing with you (but only a little), because as far as a basic education goes, it's not a right or a privilege, it's an obligation that "pays for" the rights and privileges that come with citizenship. For each and every right "We, the people" grant ourselves, along with it comes at least one responsibility or obligation. Some people think that paying taxes is enough to meet those obligations, but it's not. |
I think you are right - I was stretching the semantics more than I should have been. You have made the point much more eloquently here. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:38:42 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | I am absolutely not trying to establish a comparison to use against anyone. I was testing a theory about our conversations; my hypothesis was correct. I am sorry you feel I was being sneaky. |
What theory were you testing? Er, wait, which hypothesis? Which is it, a theory or a hypothesis?
Were you predicting that the same people will draw a different line between infringing and non-infringing behavior (as matt put it) when circumstances and issues or completely different? To put it more simply, that SFN members' opinions on rights, privileges, and social responsibility are not narrow-minded and absolutist? Gee, how impressive of you to be testing and proving the obvious.
Four people in this discussion have called your actions and intentions in this discussion dishonest in one way or another. Obviously we did not appreciate you starting a conversation that seemed to be about eugenics, but was really about you proving that the people on this forum do in fact have limits on how much we think the State can infringe on peoples rights for the sake of social good. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/30/2007 08:39:20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 09:22:17 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if Ricky still thinks Jerome isn't a troll...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 18:53:44 [Permalink]
|
The theory was scientific authority would be accepted in the context of current socially popular ideas; and that scientific authority would be discarded in current socially unpopular ideas.
To test the hypothesis, I initiated a conversation that dealt with a currently socially unacceptable idea that had scientific authority behind it.
I honestly meant no offense, and am sorry any was taken.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 19:32:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
To test the hypothesis, I initiated a conversation that dealt with a currently socially unacceptable idea that had scientific authority behind it. |
There is no current "scientific authority" behind eugenics, so your test was ill-conceived at best.
It couldn't possibly actually test your stated hypothesis, even if there were some "scientific authority" currently promoting eugenics, because your OP was so poorly stated that many misunderstood it, thinking that you were making a claim, which you later said you weren't.
For something with current scientific backing and current social unacceptability, you should have gone with foetal stem-cell research. Had you done so, I'm sure you would have found the majority here arguing against societal norms (in other words, with the science), thus disproving your hypothesis.
You also could have picked evolutionary theory, which polls find the majority of society opposes in some way or another, either all-out or just "evolution occurs, but God created Man specially." The vast majority of us here would argue for the science and against society, but I'm sure you already knew that particular subject would falsify your hypothesis in a heartbeat. Thus, just thinking about your test could have saved you from actually having to perform it.
Then there's also the corollary: would we reject science in favor of socially-acceptable ideas? Numerous examples come to mind, including UFOs, bigfoot, angels, ghosts and even good old-fashioned religion. But again, one look around this website would have given you your answer without you having to type a single word.
And now it's too late for any of them. Every topic you start will now be examined by the wary here to see what sort of ill-advised test you've dreamt up next, thus ruining the results before you even get started.
And, of course, "I was just testing you" is a stereotypical response from an online troll, once he's been outed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 23:34:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I was not looking for societies views, I was looking for the extent of this forums views. I think this knowledge will further our discussions, as I will have a better understanding of the "forums" thought process. This is not to say all on the forum think alike. I only want to have insightful talks.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 03:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | The theory was scientific authority would be accepted in the context of current socially popular ideas; and that scientific authority would be discarded in current socially unpopular ideas. |
This doesn't make any sense. How does eugenics have "scientific authority"? Nobody here has said that a successful eugenics program isn't possible, only that it is unethical and rife with complex problems - and that is totally in agreement with scientific authority.
I'm starting to think that even you don't know what you were doing starting this thread. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 05:28:41 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, I was not looking for societies views, I was looking for the extent of this forums views. |
You could have spent a little time and looked through some of the different topics to determine this forums views. But of course that is not really what you are doing. You are starting threads with outlandish titles such as this one and then refusing to answer direct questions, misrepresenting responses, changing the subject when cornered and moving the goal posts when your point is disproven.
Just about every post you make reaffirms that you are nothing but an annoying troll.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 06:36:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, I was not looking for societies views, I was looking for the extent of this forums views. |
I knew that, and so that's what I said.| I think this knowledge will further our discussions, as I will have a better understanding of the "forums" thought process. This is not to say all on the forum think alike. I only want to have insightful talks. |
Utter nonsense, since you're unwilling to engage in honest discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 06:55:45 [Permalink]
|
I'd just like to say, besides all the BS.
In no way is evolution less valid, even if it is used as a tool for eugenics, Nazis, Commies, Dog Breeders or any other group of scumbags. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 07:12:35 [Permalink]
|
| Dog Breeders are scumbags? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 08:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Dog Breeders are scumbags?
|
Only the Dog Breeders who thought those little yapping overly groomed and high strung toy poodles were a good idea. Or more generally, any dog with a tiny cranial capacity...
Mostly, when people who love those creatures fawn over them and tell me how precious and cute they are, my comment is usually something along the lines of, "well, your dog is certainly life like..."  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 08:52:34 [Permalink]
|
| Dog Breeders are scumbags? |
Some are, especially the ones who are hobbyists who do it for extra income and really don't understand the complexity and seriousness of what they are doing. My friend worked at an Animal Protective League for a summer and saw several severely deformed puppies, all dropped off by hobbyist dog breeders. One died a day after being dropped on, and the autopsy revealed that it had extra organs! And aside extreme genetic mistakes, certain breeds have certain health problems that are only magnified with further in-breeding (such as lung cancer in German Shepards and bad allergies in many breeds). If someone doesn't really know what they are doing and taking precausions to prevent such genetic disadvantages and diseases, dog breeding can become a form of cruelty to animals. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
evolution is a tool of eugenics
