Feeding Frenzy

[Guest Steve_C]

PatRat

Do you have anything to substantiate that statement or is it just more of the delusion based drivel to be ecpected from you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think just the fact that a Muslim Congressman was sworn into office on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran, pretty much pre-empts any arguement he might incoherently cobble together.

[Guest Guest]

Superb post. Obviously you took considerable time with it, and thought it through carefully. Yours is a model to emulate.

I have two questions for you.

Is a more idealistic view appropriate: i.e., a view that says it's our civic duty to root out bigotry, not merely to say "well, that's how it is." That sets up conflict, but how else do we maintain democratic ideals?

Isn't content important? We do have a commitment to science and the Constitution. In a public school, don't those commitments trump competing private commitments? It's not like we're pulling these out of thin air. These commitments are what a public school is supposed to be about, no? An irony in this is that a few have accused us of being relativists, but obviously our position is far from the relativism that the right loves to criticize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your kind comments.

Please do not take my commentary on the state of affairs in Kearny as an endorsement of them. I have always hated the "well, that's how it is" comment as a response in an argument (it's fine as a call to arms).

Ideally, we would all be compelled by our very nature to respond to bigotry and prejudice. However (and I am choking on these words), I don't think tthat there is a civic duty to root out bigotry. In the Declaration of Independence, there is a phrase that references "a series of usurpation" in which this country's forefathers suggested that - when faced with a right that shoud be wronged - those that had the power to act also had the obligation. For whatever reason (perhaps because doing the right thing is easier than knowing what the right thing to do is), those sentiments were left out of the Constitution ... thereby leaving us to our right to sloth, apapthy, and insolence. As a result (and as it has always been in this country), the enthusiasm of the inspired, and the wisdom of the reasonable, must LEAD us to change.

I'm not sure if I understand your second question, but if you are asking whether Mr. P is required to keep his musings within the bounds of the state mandated curriculum, then yes, I would absolutely agree. He's being paid to do a job. And sure he's a preacher outside of the classroom (I sense the cynics lining up to say that he is also a preacher IN the classroom), but I don't care if you are a poet, preacher or politician ... when you are in the classroom, your obligations are to the school, the state mandated curriculum, and to the Constitution of the United States.

Here's a thought in respect of which I would greatly appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that Kearny's willingness to support Mr. P, and my assumed unwillingness of the citizenry to support an Islamic teacher's preachings, necessarily means that I think the people of Kearny are biggots. At first blush, it may seem as such. However, I think that it is the personalization of the issue. The fact that there was a PERCEIVED attack on a personal belief with many citizens was the motivating issue. Whereas, an attack on something that is not a closely held belief is unlikely to motivate someone to action. Of course, you can argue that failing to support beliefs which we do not share is a form of bigotry AND, of course, I'm not suggesting that there is no room for bigotry at all in this context. But I think that there may be a more sanguine motivation behind this issue. Your thoughts?

[Guest Paul]

Thank you for your kind comments.

Please do not take my commentary on the state of affairs in Kearny as an endorsement of them.  I have always hated the "well, that's how it is" comment as a response in an argument (it's fine as a call to arms). 

Ideally, we would all be compelled by our very nature to respond to bigotry and prejudice.  However (and I am choking on these words), I don't think tthat there is a civic duty to root out bigotry.  In the Declaration of Independence, there is a phrase that references "a series of usurpation" in which this country's forefathers suggested that - when faced with a right that shoud be wronged - those that had the power to act also had the obligation.  For whatever reason (perhaps because doing the right thing is easier than knowing what the right thing to do is), those sentiments were left out of the Constitution ... thereby leaving us to our right to sloth, apapthy, and insolence.  As a result (and as it has always been in this country), the enthusiasm of the inspired, and the wisdom of the reasonable, must LEAD us to change.

I'm not sure if I understand your second question, but if you are asking whether Mr. P is required to keep his musings within the bounds of the state mandated curriculum, then yes, I would absolutely agree.  He's being paid to do a job.  And sure he's a preacher outside of the classroom (I sense the cynics lining up to say that he is also a preacher IN the classroom), but I don't care if you are a poet, preacher or politician ... when you are in the classroom, your obligations are to the school, the state mandated curriculum, and to the Constitution of the United States.

Here's a thought in respect of which I would greatly appreciate your feedback.  I'm not sure that Kearny's willingness to support Mr. P, and my assumed unwillingness of the citizenry to support an Islamic teacher's preachings, necessarily means that I think the people of Kearny are biggots.  At first blush, it may seem as such.  However, I think that it is the personalization of the issue.  The fact that there was a PERCEIVED attack on a personal belief with many citizens was the motivating issue.  Whereas, an attack on something that is not a closely held belief is unlikely to motivate someone to action.  Of course, you can argue that failing to support beliefs which we do not share is a form of bigotry AND, of course, I'm not suggesting that there is no room for bigotry at all in this context.  But I think that there may be a more sanguine motivation behind this issue.  Your thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I knew who you were. There is no doubt from what you are writing that you have much to contribute to this dialogue, well beyond the boundaries of this forum. Maybe you're not in a position to make your identity known, but . . . well, you know who I am.

I am not convinced that the reaction we have seen in its various forms means that Kearny supports Mr. P., or that Kearny is full of bigots. It is obvious that there are bigots, hypocrites, etc., in Kearny, but I do not accept that they represent the majority. Perhaps more people would do well to speak out. And of course, I could be wrong, maybe the bigots and hyporcrites are in the majority --- but I don't think so. On the other hand, they form a practical majority because what we have seen so far is inaction and resistance in the face of a legally and morally obvious case.

There is no doubt that some people have couched this issue as an attack on Christianity. I don't know how much clearer I could have made it. This is not an attack on Christianity, I've said that explicitly several times. Instead, it is a defense of the Constitution, rule of law, science and education. The schools and others can educate, but no one can compel people to think, let alone to think rationally. No doubt the culture of television, instant gratification, constant entertainment and everything-for-appearance has diminished our culture and in particular our present ability to think clearly. In turn, that diminishes democracy, to the point that our politics has devolved to mud wrestling. To me, that is no excuse for any individual. The people who are irrationally defending Paszkiewicz are of normal intelligence, perfectly capable of thinking rationally. That means they are responsible to draw distinctions, and this isn't a hard one. The problem as I see it, is that their biases (and in particular a certain form of theological thinking) get in the way. So to that extent, I am highly critical of my-way-or-the-highway fundamentalism, which I think is a major part of the problem here.

As to my second question to you, I was referring not only to a teacher's responsibility in the classroom, but to every citizen's responsibilities in a democracy. Perhaps you could give me your thoughts in light of that clarification.

Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew, and I am gratified to know that not only was he listening, but that he appreciates the point and is able to express it in action far more effectively than I ever could. It cannot be forced on any citizen, but I do not see how a healthy democracy can be maintained without that kind of citizenship.

[Guest Guest]

I think just the fact that a Muslim Congressman was sworn into office on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran, pretty much pre-empts any arguement he might incoherently cobble together.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what PatRat's doing in this discussion anyway, he's needed on the political front to attempt one of his idiotic explanations of why his faborite arrogant cowboy now thinks it's OK to open people's mail.

[Guest Guest]

Does this mean I am not welcome in my own country?  I do not accept that Jesus is God.

Did I not read in American History that there were many Jews who were part of the founding of America?  I understand that they do not accept Jesus either.  Are they not welcome in their own country?

You are welcome to come to my store and purchase goods, and I am welcome at many stores to spend my money.  I do not ask my customers if they believe in Jesus, and they do not ask me if I believe in Jesus.

Thank you to all who have replied to help me understand.  This man Patriot is clearly not representative of the true spirit of America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I thought PatRat represented America's true spirit I'd move to Canada

[Guest Guest]

I think just the fact that a Muslim Congressman was sworn into office on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran, pretty much pre-empts any arguement he might incoherently cobble together.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that was such a great picture of who we are as a people. Mister Jefferson would've been proudQ

[Guest 2smart4u]

You can't prove a negative D**b a**. I.D. is a joke, a farce and a myth.

You can't prove that Pink Unicorns are not part of the process either.

You keep proving over and over that you don't understand evolution or the genetic process by which all life on the planet relies on.

What does an individual's DNA have to do with a designer? Their fingerprints? Nothing.

Happenstance has nothing to do with evolution.

From Wikipedia (not that you'll understand it)....

Natural selection is the biological theory that explains why living creatures seem to match their environmental niches so well – the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. Insofar as there is genetic variability for the trait under selection, the genotypes associated with the favored traits will increase in frequency in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process results in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).

Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species,[1] by analogy with artificial selection, by which a farmer selects his breeding stock.

Did you ever answer my 2 questions?

1. Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

2. Do you believe in Noah's Ark?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Natural selection is the biological "THEORY" that explains why living creatures "SEEM" to match their environmental nitches so well" ??? You'd never get a conviction in a courtroom based upon that much uncertainty.

And no, I don't believe in Adan & Eve, the Ark or Jonah's whale among other things in the bible. You have to understand that many things in the bible are written as parables and not to be taken literally.

The Darwiniacs don't have a convincing explanation for the evolution of the eye. Until a Darwiniac can explain how something as incredible complicated as the eye could have evolved from nothing by happenstance or natural selection WITHOUT I.D. , you have nothing.

[Guest Paul]

"Natural selection is the biological  "THEORY"  that explains why living creatures  "SEEM"  to match their environmental nitches so well" ???  You'd never get a conviction in a courtroom based upon that much uncertainty.

    And no, I don't believe in Adan & Eve, the Ark or Jonah's whale among other things in the bible. You have to understand that many things in the bible are written as parables and not to be taken literally.

    The Darwiniacs don't have a convincing explanation for the evolution of the eye. Until a Darwiniac can explain how something as incredible complicated as the eye could have evolved from nothing by happenstance or natural selection WITHOUT I.D. , you have nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of my favorite trial stories is about a lawyer who asked one too many questions. The accusation was that a man had bitten off another man's ear. (No, it wasn't Mike Tyson.) The witness testified that he saw it happen. The defense lawyer asked whether he actually saw him bite it off. The witness said no. Then the lawyer asked the question one-too-many: "Then how do you know he did it?" The answer shot back, "Because I saw him spit it out."

It was more than enough evidence to convict. As usual, 2smart doesn't know much.

[Guest Guest]

"Natural selection is the biological  "THEORY"  that explains why living creatures  "SEEM"  to match their environmental nitches so well" ???  You'd never get a conviction in a courtroom based upon that much uncertainty.

    And no, I don't believe in Adan & Eve, the Ark or Jonah's whale among other things in the bible. You have to understand that many things in the bible are written as parables and not to be taken literally.

    The Darwiniacs don't have a convincing explanation for the evolution of the eye. Until a Darwiniac can explain how something as incredible complicated as the eye could have evolved from nothing by happenstance or natural selection WITHOUT I.D. , you have nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give up with the eye thing! In the world right now are many examples of the development of the eye. From the primitive light gathering depressions of the limpet, to the nautilus' fluid filled deep depression, to the murex with its simple lens, to the octopus with iris and focusing lens the evolution of the eye is well documented. Get the November National Geographic. It explodes this bit of intelligent design nonsense very well. Not only is the explanation convincing it is exquisite.

In fact as wondrous as the human eye is it is quite flawed. The light gathering cells point inward not out, the optic nerve plunges through the center causing an unnecessary blind spot. The retina is attached dangerously loose. As a result of natural selection it is a very successful development.

As a result of intelligent design it would be a real f**k up.

[Guest Steve_C]

"Natural selection is the biological  "THEORY"  that explains why living creatures  "SEEM"  to match their environmental nitches so well" ???  You'd never get a conviction in a courtroom based upon that much uncertainty.

    And no, I don't believe in Adan & Eve, the Ark or Jonah's whale among other things in the bible. You have to understand that many things in the bible are written as parables and not to be taken literally.

    The Darwiniacs don't have a convincing explanation for the evolution of the eye. Until a Darwiniac can explain how something as incredible complicated as the eye could have evolved from nothing by happenstance or natural selection WITHOUT I.D. , you have nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I.D. IS NOTHING.

I gave you a link explaining the evolution of the eye. No designer necessary.

If you knew anything about the eye you would understand that infact if a designer had done it... he didn't do a very good job. Plus the human eye is inferior to many animals' eyes.

The image projected onto the back of the eye is upside down... the brain has to flip it.

[Guest Evolution of the Eye]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Of course Fundamentalists think PBS is a satanic organization anyway.

[Strife767]

The word "theory" as used in common everyday language differs from the scientific usage of the word.

Correct. The theory of evolution, for example, is a theory in scientific usage, but not one in the colloquial usage. A scientific theory does not imply uncertainty. So why does this matter?

For example, when I say I have a theory that ****** *** is a homosexual, in everyday language that would mean you're giving off clues that make me think that way.

Not really. In the colloquial usage, one can have a "theory" with zero evidence. A theory is equal to a guess outside of a scientific context.

Used in a scientific context, it would mean I caught you in the boy's room.  So tell me, what example better fits gravity.

The scientific one. We observe gravity constantly, and it is _quite_ thoroughly understood. If it wasn't, we wouldn't exactly be able to slingshot probes etc. around planets, using their gravitational fields to make it easier to propel them where we want them to go.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Out of curiosity I had to see if "darwiniac" was a clever named coined by 2smart4u.

Nope.

As defined with overwhelming accord by the Urban Dictionary:

"Darwiniac: Pejorative for "evolutionary biologist" made up Nazi witch and infamous gobshite Ann Coulter because she has got her head shoved so far up her own arse that she can't accept the evidence of evolution."

So 2smart4u...

Are you 2smart to think for yourself?

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew." Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs. I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention. Good luck on your quest.

[Guest A Christian]

Give up with the eye thing! In the world right now are many examples of the development of the eye. From the primitive light gathering depressions of the limpet, to the nautilus' fluid filled deep depression, to the murex with its simple lens, to the octopus with iris and focusing lens the evolution of the eye is well documented. Get the November National Geographic. It explodes this bit of intelligent design nonsense very well. Not only is the explanation convincing it is exquisite.

In fact as wondrous as the human eye is it is quite flawed. The light gathering cells point inward not out, the optic nerve plunges through the center causing an unnecessary blind spot. The retina is attached dangerously loose. As a result of natural selection it is a very successful development.

As a result of intelligent design it would be a real f**k up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saint Peter may put those last remarks on your resume.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Correct. The theory of evolution, for example, is a theory in scientific usage, but not one in the colloquial usage. A scientific theory does not imply uncertainty. So why does this matter?

Not really. In the colloquial usage, one can have a "theory" with zero evidence. A theory is equal to a guess outside of a scientific context.

The scientific one. We observe gravity constantly, and it is _quite_ thoroughly understood. If it wasn't, we wouldn't exactly be able to slingshot probes etc. around planets, using their gravitational fields to make it easier to propel them where we want them to go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, based upon your scientific analysis, I can assume you're gay.

[Guest Steve_C]

So, based upon your scientific analysis, I can assume you're gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can assume. But according to the scientific method you would have to prove it.

Also, not quite sure the relevance is.

[Guest Guest]

Saint Peter may put those last remarks on your resume.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait till he finds out how incompetent I think he is for forgetting to give us a "tylenol" gland

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew."  Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs.    I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

  1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

  2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention.  Good luck on your quest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's phrase: "those are the values in which we "trained" Matthew" are so telling. Paul's pompous smugness comes across loud and clear in all his postings, but especially in his "training" of Matthew. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Matthew is a victim here, a victim of his father's over-bearing, pompous attitude.

[Guest 2smart4u]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Of course Fundamentalists think PBS is a satanic organization anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A "scenario" of possible steps offered by a Darwiniac zoologist is your proof ?? You'd never get a conviction in a courtroom based on a "scenario".

[Guest Patriot]

"species evolve into new species" ??  Sort of like Strife767 having evolved from a jackass ??  Ok, that makes sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now here's a post we can all agree on. LMAO

[Guest Guest]

So, based upon your scientific analysis, I can assume you're gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who cares?

Based upon YOU'RE consistently ASININE postings we don't have to assume, we KNOW that you're an ASS!

[Strife767]

Yesterday Sunday Jan 7th at 11:48, when most people are doing thier religious beliefs. Paul was writing this: " Finally, I do believe that defense of the law and the Constitution is every citizen's duty. Those are the values in which we trained Matthew."  Let me just check most people raise their son's and daughters and "train" their dogs.    I am so very happy that you had Matthew trained. He certainly knows how to go on the paper now, no matter if its the Observer or New York Times. You never do stop, do you? He certainly knows how to do what you tell him to do.

train -

  1. to discipline and instruct (an animal), as in the performance of tasks or tricks.

  2. to treat or manipulate so as to bring into some desired form, position, direction

Good Job LaClairs. This is the direction we want our town going in. And those are your exact words. Thanks for all the media attention.  Good luck on your quest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, leave it to one of Mr. P.'s apologists to focus on a trivial detail of semantics while ignoring the actual issue. Right out of the fundie book.

Let's see:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=train

Let's start with the first verb definition on the right that doesn't use the word "train" in it (isn't it a bad idea for most words to exist in their own definitions?)

verb:  undergo training or instruction in preparation for a particular role, function, or profession (Example: "She is training to be a teacher")

Now, all child-raising can be defined with this definition of "train," so your babbling is already exposed for the idiocy it is at this point. Don't all parents instruct/teach stuff to their kids--isn't that exactly what it means to "raise a child?"

Even better, look, I found where you got your definition from, and found even more underhanded-ness. The definitions you gave are definitions #21 and #22 on dictionary.com, respectively. But let's see if there aren't more reasonable definitions _before_ that one, to eliminate any excuse of "I just wrote down the first one I saw."

Well, would you look at that. Definition #18, the very first verb definition for "train" on dictionary.com:

18. to develop or form the habits, thoughts, or behavior of (a child or other person) by discipline and instruction

The lengths to which you will go to try to make Paul look bad are appalling. Take this dishonest shit to your fundie/conspiracy theorist friends--they're a lot more gullible and willing to buy into garbage like this.

[Strife767]

So, based upon your scientific analysis, I can assume you're gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, first of all, scientific analysis never results in an assumption.

Second lol, no, my explanation does not mean you can interchange the definitions, you imbecile. An attempt to inject the "guess" colloquial meaning of "theory" into the scientific term "theory" in order to claim one has made a scientific conclusion is as retarded as concluding that a child is a goat because goat children are called "kids."

And third lol, it wouldn't be based on scientific analysis (obviously), but sure you can assume I'm gay, if you want to. Outside of science, a theory is just a guess: anyone can make one, and there is zero correlation between such a theory and its validity/factuality. In other words, sure, you can assume it--that doesn't mean it's right, though.

A scientific theory is a collection of related scientific facts (which in turn require evidence to become facts) that come together to provide an explanation of the mechanisms of something.

A colloquial theory is just a guess. No evidence, no experiments for testing. Just a hypothesis that never progresses. Generally worthless by itself.

[Guest Steve_C]

So, based upon your scientific analysis, I can assume you're gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good old Carl Sagan. I miss him.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667