Okay, to respond to a few of the arguments I've seen.

-(The FCC thing) The irony of that solution is that Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to the FCC, it is federal regulation therefore = bad.

-(Ron the anti-rich) I have no idea where people are getting the idea that Ron Paul is against the rich/or pro-poor. His policies would be extremely beneficial to the rich as far as I can see. Someone please explain how Ron Paul would less the rift between the rich and the poor instead of increasing it exponentially.

-(Civil Rights, States, and Ron Paul)I wouldn't go so far as to say most states are more progressive than the federal government. Again I think this is an issue on where you live. I firmly believe if not for federal intervention many a large portion of the south would still be working under the old Jim Crow system. People down here are still mad about the Supreme Court rulings on desegregation. (assuming he got his way) Ron Paul only thinks the federal government can prosecute matters of treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. This means the federal courts would not be there when civil liberties are trampled on. Maybe in the blue states things like affirmative action seem unfair, in most of the south it's a necessary evil. I'm not saying things haven't changed, the racism isn't overt at all (well in some places it is) but there seems to be an attitude among a large enough percentage of the population that African Americans, (and other minorities) are lesser as a people. And here is my point, Ron Paul's policies would be disastrous to minority populations living in those states, and there wouldn't be anything the federal government could do about it.

OK, you have my attention. What would you like me to read?

In reply to your comment:
“In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.”

In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.

I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

In reply to your comment:
“ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.

No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.

I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.

This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.”

ShakaUVM: I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

There is a difference. There are those that believe that homosexuality is a choice. Granted there have been observations of it occurring in nature, and it can be inferred that homosexuality is not a choice, but the exact "cause" has yet to be found. (Though I don't claim to follow such things closely, so I wouldn't know.) So some could consider it unnatural by pointing out that the purpose of intimate relationships is to propagate humanity, and that homosexuality doesn't accomplish this.

Now you clearly disagree with that, and that's fine. From there would stem discussion. You could point out reasons why homosexuality is not unnatural and debate would ensue. But there is a logical reason that someone could make a statement about homosexuality being unnatural. It's not a hateful statement, as can be seen by the way one could come to the conclusion.

However, such arguments as women being flighty, or black people being intellectually inferior have no basis for argument, as they are stereotypes. There is no logical precedent.

But in the end, my example was only an example. I could go back and change it to an example about minorities, or women, or any other subject for comparison. Homosexuality was the first that came to mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in a debate about whether homosexuality is a choice or not, etc. I'm just trying to point to a better way for VS to be a better community without censorship or killing off debate.

In reply to your comment:
“My point is that no, it is NOT ok to make a comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" anymore than it would be acceptable to say "I disapprove of women's suffrage because women are flighty and don't know anything about politics" or "i disapprove of desegregation because black students aren't as smart as whites"

Now, this is not to say you "must not say these things." Say what you think. But you're wrong, and don't be surprised when people get upset and want to argue you about it.

In reply to your comment:
“I think you're missing the point of my post. I was using homosexuality as an example of the difference between comments that stem debate, and comments that are personal attacks. A comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" is an example of a comment that could open up an interesting yet civil debate. (A perfect example is what you've done by sending this post to me.) However, the comment about homosexuals being AIDS-ridden and immoral is, as I pointed out, an impolite attack on someone who may be gay. Not all homosexuals have AIDS, and morality is subjective. Therefore a statement like that is an opinionated attack, which does not belong on a website such as Videosift. (Maybe Youtube, cause we all know the quality of the posts there . . .)

And so reverting this example back to religion, one can voice their thoughts on religion without saying anything insulting about the people involved. It's important to realize that in the end, even if you never come to agreement about the debate, you'll maintain mutual respect.

”

My point is that no, it is NOT ok to make a comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" anymore than it would be acceptable to say "I disapprove of women's suffrage because women are flighty and don't know anything about politics" or "i disapprove of desegregation because black students aren't as smart as whites"

Now, this is not to say you "must not say these things." Say what you think. But you're wrong, and don't be surprised when people get upset and want to argue you about it.

In reply to your comment:
“I think you're missing the point of my post. I was using homosexuality as an example of the difference between comments that stem debate, and comments that are personal attacks. A comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" is an example of a comment that could open up an interesting yet civil debate. (A perfect example is what you've done by sending this post to me.) However, the comment about homosexuals being AIDS-ridden and immoral is, as I pointed out, an impolite attack on someone who may be gay. Not all homosexuals have AIDS, and morality is subjective. Therefore a statement like that is an opinionated attack, which does not belong on a website such as Videosift. (Maybe Youtube, cause we all know the quality of the posts there . . .)

And so reverting this example back to religion, one can voice their thoughts on religion without saying anything insulting about the people involved. It's important to realize that in the end, even if you never come to agreement about the debate, you'll maintain mutual respect.

For my high-school literature class I was constructing an anthology with a wide range of different stories that I believed reflected the black girl’s experience. http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/6/a_girl_like_me/
The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie's master's degree thesis and yielded 3 papers between 1939 and 1940. They found that Black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black; that, asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate, and that they viewed white as good and pretty, but black as bad and ugly.[1] They viewed this as evidence of internalized racism caused by stigmatization.
The Clarks testified as expert witnesses in several school desegregation cases including Briggs v. Elliott, one of the cases that were later combined into the famous Brown v. Board of Education, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court officially overturned racial segregation in public education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Clark_%28doll_test%29