welcome to the cultural revolution (aka what the FUCK is wrong with the florida legislature?)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
you can't make this shit up. next thing may very well be dubya's (or jeb's) little red book.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:25 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

the bugs bunny option -- i.e., just sawing florida off from the rest of the country and letting it slam into cuba or south america -- is looking more and more inviting every day.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and we won't even mention the terri schiavo antics!

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

The idea of pro-litigation, pro-government intrusion conservatism is fucking weird. It's Bizarro world.

I guess this backs up that argument that rightwingers have been successfully appropriating traditionally leftist argumentative tactics- what's so weird is that pomo leftists in the high-theory 80s used relativist arguments to destabilize the foundationalist objectivity of science to further deconstructive critica ends- and now we have conservatives using dumbed down versions of the same moves (science isn't fact, it's just theory . . . . therefore claim X is "just as true as" claim Y). But where pomo critics of science did this in the name of abandoning truthclaims in favor of a skeptical paradise whose terms only a tiny cognoscenti could understand or care about, these folks are doing it in the name of a well-funded and ambitious program to remake society as a whole. And if it passes you had better believe it will have consequences. I have taught the Bible as a literary text to a room divided into believers and non-believers, and a lot of what we did was like at the scribal sources of Genesis. I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching such a class in Florida if this law passes, that's for sure . . .

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:53 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

critical not critica . . . look at not like at, sorry I'm typing fast because I am shocked

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

So what do intelligent design people say about the fossil record, or carbon dating, or accounts of the Big Bang in physics? I mean, science IS a theoretical discipline, but it uses theories in order to explain *evidence*, and presumably some theories win out over others because of their fitness to explain that evidence . . . evidence which we ought not to disregard just because 2000 year old fairy tales from the Middle East which some of us were unlucky enough to have been spoonfed as children say otherwise.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:58 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

oh my god.

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:59 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i'm kind of in shock too.

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

It's like we're living in the Anglican England of the 1630s, and there's this minority of very vocal Puritans who are denouncing all and sundry, and struggling to radicalize the country as a whole so that they can further their narrowly understood religious views, and even as they advocate for deeply absolutist doctrines they exploit the rhetoric of persecution as they wait to get the upper hand and they're already publically licking their chops as they foresee their imminent chance to viciously persecute those who don't share their agenda . . .

oh wait, our country was founded and created by those people.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Jeb also found a MD today that has diagnosed Schiavo as being slightly less vegetative than she is. The neurodoctor has never been in the same room as the woman, but nonetheless he feels they should reattach her feeding tube.

I'm perfectly willing to cede Florida to the Cubans...

andy --, Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i think that you have to understand the right-wing mentality to get this whole thing. luckily, because i went to fairly liberal schools i didn't get to see as much of it as i might have had i gone elsewhere. still, i do remember one time in my criminal procedure class -- the professor was pretty outspokenly left/liberal, very critical of rehnquist-/conservative-style criminal procedural jurisprudence (i.e., the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments) and quite willing to speak his mind wr2 same. that said, he was NOT a classroom tyrant -- people who disagreed with him were free to speak their minds in class. but one night in class, a bunch of conservative federalist society-type students confronted him in class claiming that he "silenced" and "censored" his views. which was, of course, bullshit. the prof was not terribly pleased about this (think about it -- would YOU like to be accused, in a public forum, of being close-minded and censorious? not to mention -- do YOU think it's very smart to belligerently challenge YOUR professor, in front of a full class?) the only thing i could figure out to rationalize their outburst was they just didn't like the fact that someone would so forcefully put forth views contrary to theirs (b/c as far as i was concerned, their specific allegations had no merit).

to make a long story short -- a lot of right-wingers really DO feel "persecuted."

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

for many current right-wingers, existence of contrary opinion = persecution (witness the "homosexual agenda", etc.)

Really what the left-wing should be doing is figuring out how to use these tactics/"reasoning" to their advantage, rather than whine about it. The right wing is being so successful at the moment precisely because they have co-opted successful tactics developed historically by the left.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

When I taught the BIble I bent over backwards to explain that I didn't regard what I was doing as an argument for or against any individual person's faith, that I was just looking historically at the state of the scholarship around the production of Genesis as a text, and attempting a literary analysis of the differences between the J text and the P text-- but I could easily see this getting thrown back at me as if my goal was to "silence" people who feel for spiritual/faith-based reasons that all five books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses etc. It also seems that there are a number of very odd assumptions about the nature of education and classroom discussion going on here, and it doesn't correspond to the kind of behaviour that I've seen in the classroom very well. Associate professors who actually bully and terrify students would get the kind of student evaluations and complaints that tend to sour tenure review. I have seen a tenured professor put forward biased personal opinions as if they were scientifically valid in only one case (extremely controversial Anthropology professor Vincent Sarish) and he was met with outspoken criticism and protests about this from students- they certainly weren't silent, or silenced, by him.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:54 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Sarich, not Sarish

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I wonder how this would work at Bob Jones Univ?... they would have to give free scholarships to alfafa-chewing deadhead ecohippies so that the classroom environment was enriched by "alternative views."

andy --, Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:56 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

tad's correct upthread.
progressive tend to protest of conservative moves go along the lines of "why should you care? what did they even do to you?". the kicker is that the mere EXISTENCE of certain things strike conservatives as offensive. e.g. two gay people court head to a civil court to get hitched(say, in portland, oregon), whereas just the mere FACT that this happened could drive some conservative folks(say, 2000 miles east in grand rapids, michigan) up the wall. why, the mere fact that those gays can get married is obviously an attack on what we consider marriage! since marriage legitamizes sex, if we allow gay marriage, we'll allow gay sex and this goes against what God had clearly & distincly commanded us not to do. also, since we base all our understanding of the family on the "traditional"(for only a coupla hundred years) 1-man-1-woman marriage, this attacks our views of the family! and since humans tend to use the metaphor of their country/community/neighborhood as a family, this attacks our society itself! we must pass legislation to prevent this from happening! we NEED a government order, an act, that defends our idea of marriage!


kingfish, Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:02 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

for many current right-wingers, existence of contrary opinion = persecution (witness the "homosexual agenda", etc.)


re the scenario that i described above: american law school is ALL ABOUT the socratic method -- that is, the professor challenging the students' pre-conceptions wr2 questions. it is part of the whole PROGRAM, and NOT targeted at "silencing" the right. and if these clowns felt so "persecuted" by a law school professor, how the HELL were they going to hold up under questions from a JUDGE, or in a deposition?!?

(though i should add that i'm not exactly enthused about the socratic method. not b/c it "silences" students through brutalist questioning -- but more so b/c i think that it's a largely pedagogically useless exercise in "hide the ball." which, of course, has a power dynamic all of its own -- but said power dynamic is NOT per se about "silencing the right.")

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:02 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.

“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”

I'm amused!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

xpost Eisbar OTM

This weird dynamic crops up all the time in grading related disputes- a huffy student who doesn't like their grade will say "it's just your OPINION that my paper is poorly written" with this look of triumph in their eye, as if they've somehow turned their shit into gold. So now instructors are much more prone to give out grading rubrics with a checklist of qualities and quantifiable, errors-per-page = grade B etc. tables of correlation (smoke and mirrors, as the decision about how to apply such rubrics still rests upon the instructor's judgement). As long as grades are given, there is a power dynamic in place, and people are going to grade grub and nurse grudges. Transpose this same dynamic onto class discussion and you've got a recipe for a disastrous series of frivolous lawsuits from inarticulate crybabies with an axe to grind who couldn't convince the teacher or their classmates but who can shrilly yelp about the injustice of it all to a lawyer who's only too happy to oblige. That's what our underfunded schools need- hefty settlement fees passed out by rightwing, fellow traveler judges. Hallelujah!

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:16 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Doesnt this smack of PC all over again?

If the democrats can find their fucking balls, the 2006 elections will be interesting. Its almost fun watching the republicans blow their tops when they dont get what they want, despite controlling all levers of government.

Dude, are you a 15 year old asian chick? (jingleberries), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Well, I think the key thing is to ask yourself how many voters actually care at this point. It might be depressingly low (he said understatedly).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

It seems like this cuts to the heart of how we teach in the humanities. Someone makes claim X without backing it up and you scribble in the margin of their paper "support with evidence"-- they revise the paper and they either support their ideas or they don't get a good grade. This process seems incompatible with the "whatever I believe when I walk into the classroom is sacred and you can't ask me to back any of it up or I'll sue you"

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Before Florida's severed and slams into Cuba like California will do into Alaska...could someone get me and a few lovely acquaintances and family members out of here first?

Jesus Christ, have these wankers stepped into a classroom? Admittedly, I'm not very fond of educational systems in general, but bloody...

What we want? Sex with T.V. stars! What you want? Ian Riese-Moraine! (Eastern Ma, Thursday, 24 March 2005 01:44 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

There's precedent for this in evangelical church politics. Colleges and universities funded by the Southern Baptist Convention have traditionally been autonomous; most of them have been more conservative than most private liberal arts schools, but still well within the mainstream, compared to somewhere like Bob Jones or Liberty. Some, like Baylor, have been surprisingly mainstream. In the last decade or so, though, the state conventions that they're linked to have tried to stack the boards of trustees with biblical literalists and right-wingers, or to make faculty members sign a confession of faith and adhere to teaching standards made up by religious-right bureaucrats. The alternative for the schools is to lose a source of funding, usually significant but still only a small percentage. The convention's argument is, we give them money so we can tell them what to do. Most of the schools, as far as I can tell, have told them to fuck themselves. The argument that state-funded universities and colleges need gubbmint oversight sounds similar, though in the far-fetched case that this actually becomes law, I don't see telling state legislatures to fuck off as a reasonable alternative.

mte22 (mte22), Thursday, 24 March 2005 05:03 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

So what do intelligent design people say about the fossil record, or carbon dating, or accounts of the Big Bang in physics?

Are you kidding? They have all sorts of shit to say about it. Don't get them started, they never fucking shut up. What they say has nothing to do with "science" as it's generally been practiced for the past many hundred years, but that doesn't bother them at all.

This bill won't pass, not in Florida after the Schiavo debacle. That wound is going to be fresh for a while. If it's going to pass, it'll be in Alabama or someplace. But most likely it won't pass anywhere, because when push comes to shove, the Chamber of Commerce concern about college grads not being able to spell "cat" or add 1+1 will continue to trump the roll-back-the-Renaissance brigade, if only because the Chamber has more money. The sad thing is that the bill doesn't have to pass in order to embolden self-identified "conservatives" into challenging every bad grade they get from any professor who doesn't seem sufficiently party-lined. One more pain in the ass for university profs to worry about, and one more reason for those of us who aren't university profs to be glad we're not.

My personal experience with this whole issue came from my high school history teacher, who was a self-identified Reagan Republican and was hands down the best teacher I ever had. He made me understand history in ways that nobody before or since ever managed. Sometimes after class, my liberal friends and I would hang around and argue contemporary issues with him, which he was more than happy to do. I feel sorry for people who think they can only learn from people who think the same way they do.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 24 March 2005 07:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

one my favorite undergrad profs ... the one who supervised my senior thesis, in fact ... was a died-in-the-wool, clinton-hatin' republican. he was also one of the best profs i ever had -- and i am grateful for the fact that he eschewed po-mo lit-crit, emphasized READING literature and ANALYZING whether it worked AS LITERATURE.

and though upthread i took a swipe at the federalist society, one of my best friends in law school was the president of my school's fed. society chapter. he is also one of the most brilliant and decent people i've been fortunate to know ... even though his politics suck :-)

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 24 March 2005 07:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and while i made a pretty nasty swipe at FL (though i'm not necessary sorry that i did since they kinda deserve scorn), i should also point out that this sorta fundy-xtian craziness is NOT confined to the south -- ohio had a similar bill introduced in its state legislature, and there's a big stink in pennsylvania over a local district that is trying to sneak "intelligent design" onto the science curriculum.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 24 March 2005 07:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

It's political correctness gone mad.

Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 24 March 2005 09:17 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Relativism swings right.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 March 2005 09:37 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

That's a good essay, Momus. The first link in the comments is also probably interesting, Meera Nanda writes well about it.

My anthro professor said a couple weeks ago that he teaches evolution as the discipline of anthropology views it, with the evidence it considers valid. He doesn't care what kids believe, their responsibility when taking his classes is to know what anthropology says about evolution, and if they object to it, they shouldn't take anthropology classes. You can't argue with that unless you're a loony...too bad you can't say "this is how the discipline of literary criticism views X." Baaaah.

Maria (Maria), Thursday, 24 March 2005 15:37 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the link, and those connections to Terry Eagleton's thoughts on the topic are interesting- it reminds me of the return to "the concrete universal" that the Zizek circle are calling for lately- at first I thought they were just being perverse and staying one step ahead of their fanbase but now I see the political stakes differently and it's more serious than that- it's not just that there's a deconstructive hangover or a sense that the skeptical / anti-foundationalist move is "boring" or "tired"- it's that relativism is now being used to genuinely destructive ends. Yikes.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:17 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

One of my econ professors in grad school was a Communist from Russia. Yep, a Commie in business school. A pretty smart Commie at that, and certainly not afraid to bring the econ to that Hannitized Republican who sat in the front and tried to spin any issue of the day into conflict. I still email the Commie to this day, not only to pinch his worldview but to ask questions about economic matters. He's like Brad DeLong but without a zealous asshole streak.

Meanwhile, one of the most colorful political conversation I've had in ages was at an Xmas party this year. An neighbor of mine was going to town about Georgia's recent shenanigans in the evolution arena, and I got an earful about the accuracy of the Bible. Something along the lines of, "If it's in the Bible, God said it. And if God said it, it's the Truth." Thank god he doesn't live next door.

don weiner, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"If it's in the Bible, God said it. And if God said it, it's the Truth."

kicker is, many people, not just conservative assholes agree somewhat with this. of course, the majority of the louder types that claim this as proof their moral authority/rightousness only feel the need to quote certain bits.

kingfish, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

a text sanitised by early mediaeval popes and whose most popular translation into english was born out of the need for a politically expedient text in a country on the brink of civil war. That's some real truth.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:59 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

se most popular translation into english was born out of the need for a politically expedient text in a country on the brink of civil war.

which translation is revered by american xtian fundamentalists, and yet it was commissioned by a homosexual english monarch (a point that i NEVER tire of pointing out).

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Add the King James Bible to Gerald Allen's Little List!

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:11 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

When I worked for a church (briefly) i got into a few dumb debates with people who broadcast that very twisted logic. One woman who was shocked I didn't believe in the bible kept repeating "They found wood in the desert! The ark was real. The bible is 100% fact, heretic!" I got sick of stupid debates like that when i was in high school but I got a kick out of making her look totally silly in front of her poor daughter - who I'm sure has been force fed all her mom's mumbo-jumbo her entire life. But really these people have their predetermined beliefs and work diligently to find any scrap of evidence to support it. Debating with them is nothing short of a gigantic waste of time.

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:12 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"So what do intelligent design people say about the fossil record, or carbon dating, or accounts of the Big Bang in physics?"

the thing is, there is a difference between classic 'young-earth' creationism and the new-school 'Intelligent Design' folks. Both are despicable, but the 'intelligent design' people dress their tired arguments up in more sophisticated trappings (i.e. they don't deny that the earth is billions of years old and they dont deny the existence of natural selection, though they weaken its power to just being something that eliminates unfit phenotypes). This allows them to be reach more educated people (yet who are not familiar with the literature on evolution).

the 'Intelligent Design' movement gained momentum in the 90's with the book Darwin on Trial, by Philip Johnson (a lawyer!), and Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, a molecular biologist who claimed that the biology of cells is TOO COMPLEX OMGWTFLOL to be created step-by-step by natural selection (an old, old argument that has been refuted many times). Of course neither of them really suggest a viable alternative except for "Intelligent Design", which of course is not an workable explanation for anything.

yeah, this shit is tiring.

latebloomer: damn cheapskate satanists (latebloomer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:49 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

of course, debating them is pointless. but they'll still keep screaming: "we're being persecuted, the scientific establishment is shutting us out yada yada yada, etc."

no shit!

latebloomer: damn cheapskate satanists (latebloomer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Ed OTM. And try having a discussion of the Vatican's influence on the Bible with a modern day Womb Goon.

There are plenty of examples of intellectuals who cling to pseudo-science or other forms of dogma. We just don't tend to lump the "intelligent design" phoneys in the same group as the doom-and-gloom crowd who've predicted another Ice Age, the end of the oil supply, or a 36,000 NYSE.

don weiner, Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

so you believe in a straight warming, no stopping of the atlantic conveyor and gulf stream then?

Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

not too surprising.

again, their system of values, their morality, is completely dependent on having the moral authority, of them being unquestionably right. things must be literal, that there must be an Absolute Standard(one that's unarguable) since any interpretation of it seen as questioning it, which is seen as an attack on its legitimacy. every single word of the Bible has to be literally true, for how else can they claim their moral authority on it. This is the true Literal Word of God, they say, and we're merely following what God said. Anyone who questions this must be against us, which is therefore against God, which is therefore Evil and must be never be tolerated ever and stamped out whever it could possibly rear its ugly head.

Also, a central value is continually supporting and propagating their view of morality. this is part of while they're better at organizing that most progressives tend to be. despite which subgenre of conservativism you subscribe to, you know that a main part of it(as well as a main part of any other flavor of conservatism) is reaffirming and propagating conservativism.

the Narcissism of Small Differences hasn't seemed to play as much as a role in conservative organinizing efforts in the last 30+ years as it has say, in the many strands of progressive movements.


kingfish, Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what you're asking me Ed.

don weiner, Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"the end of the oil supply"

wtf? you think oil is never gonna run out? or are you referring to people making specific predictions...?

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Scientists have underestimated the extractable oil supply for decades.

don weiner, Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:01 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I was merely responding to your wind up with a wind up.

The whole new ice age thing is a fairly localised effect of global warming. Melting of the greenland icecap floods the north atlantic with cold water stopping the north atlantic sink which drives the gulf stream. Without the gulf stream, the temperature in europe drops giving a little ice age. This has happened before in the 16th an 17th centuries.

This is a competing adjunct to the general global warming story.

They may have underestimated supply, but no one was really factoring the big increase in demand that china's boom has caused.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:08 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Ideally, the left would use these same tactics against conservative professors and challenge the dangerous hogwash that runs rampant in the field of economics. But of course the FBI did their best in the '60s and '70s to insure that there will never be an organized leftist student movement in the US, so I'm not holding my breath.

Here's a very interesting article about the movement for a post-autistic economics.

Unfortunately, like most progressive movements this one has a terrible name. While the right wing crusades under banners like "educational freedom" or "student rights" the left comes up with the predictably cumbersome "post-autistic economics."

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:27 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

By the way, the driving force behind the whole right-wing student movement hasn't been mentioned yet. Google David Horowitz and his "Students for Academic Freedom" and "Academic Bill of Rights." This Florida story is just one facet of a war they've been waging for years.

walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

don't forget lynne cheney, author of "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It" (PDF link) .. more info on her "interests" here

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

classrooms aren't generally meant to be open-forum discussions, all as equals: when did conservatives starts arguing THIS!!?

(the last bit's rhetorical) (though a date wd be entertaining)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:25 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Mark S, my analysis is oversimplified. And "high culture" on the whole, the academy included, has grown more egalitarian since the miraculous 60s. But still, there's a way higher percentage of people engaged in graduate studies whose parents have the means to buy them houses while they get their PhDs than there are in our armed forces. Students notice, too, believe it or not.

Professor Pushover, Friday, 25 March 2005 02:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

yeah pp otm there

j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:27 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I just want to hear all these right wing X-tian teachers that are getting harrassed for expressing their opinions

um, there's an article about "jesus in the classroom" from last week's new yorker about this guy in silicon valley...

does it bother any so-called christians, biblical or otherwise, that using a word like "persecution" in regards to having one's belief challenge completely debases the term? like, y'know, how having a professor challenge your beliefs is NOTHING like being set ablaze, gored by lions, or crucified?

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

gored by lions? don't you mean unicorns?

mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:30 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

they didn't exist, noahmark s.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and yeah, i'm specifically referring to the persecution of early xians by the romans, which makes the complaints of a nairn and his ilk look like the whiny bullshit it is.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

thus proving evolution, though true, sucks

mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:33 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Students notice, too, believe it or not.

ergo, this thread ----> Trustafarianism ... and THIS thread ----> defend the indefensible: THE IVY LEAGUE

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

proving devolution maybe? devo was right!

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:35 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

bow down to your new god:


hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

it wz an x-post really (i wz mourning the unicorn) but it worked even better as a devo ref!!

mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

devo trumps unicorns every time, mark.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:38 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

only bcz they exist :(

mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

hstencil wins

j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink


"just a bit of fun. let's all be cool."

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

we use our coliseums for a different kind of torture now:

60,000+ Hispanic Christians to “Rock” at LA Coliseum

Three days of inspirational music and messages

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) February 19, 2005 -- ActionHouse presents Festival Bajo el Sol, three days of inspirational music and messages at the Los Angeles Coliseum for the Hispanic Christian community with performances from the best Christian entertainers and speakers.

Who: Internationally renowned Speaker Luis Palau. Performances by Marcos Witt, El Trio De Hoy, Annette Moreno, Joshua Chavez and many more!

When: Concert July 16th 5:00 – 9:30 pm. followed by Youth After Party On the Infield till 12:00 am - Carnival July 15 – 17, 2005

Where: Los Angeles Coliseum - 3939 S Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037

Tickets: $19.00 General Admission, $35.00 Infield (ages 2 and under enter free!) tickets will be available thru Ticketmaster, Christian bookstores and at the Coliseum box office. Discounted Group tickets available 1-800-872-7002

Located in the heart of the city and the Hispanic community, Festival Bajo el Sol is expected to draw between 60,000 – 80,000 people with carnival rides, booth merchants and family festivities.

"Last year's event at the LA Sports Arena was so successful," states producer, Benny Colon of ActionHouse, "that we were asked to do it again!"

ActionHouse is located at the Los Angeles Dream Center in the heart of Los Angeles, California. Mentoring the youth and inspiring artists of all nationalities, ActionHouse is helping to develop the next generation of inspired artists, actors, and producers. Their facility includes dance studios, private editing suites, student lounge, and a computer lab with state-of-the-art workstations for video editing and production. Through internships and mentoring programs, ActionHouse is making a way for the next generation. www.actionhouse.net

More information on Festival Bajo el Sol, performing talent, or merchant and sponsorship opportunities visit www.festivalbajoelsol.com

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I read this as:

Tickets: $19.00 General Admission, $35.00 Infidel

Matt Chesnut, Friday, 25 March 2005 02:53 (fourteen years ago) Permalink


hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink


tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Friday, 25 March 2005 03:50 (fourteen years ago) Permalink


Matt Chesnut, Friday, 25 March 2005 04:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

“a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

BAHAHAHAHA yay bullshit strawman conservative talking point!

prof #1: "Goddammit, Kingfish, you will BELIEVE that carbon nanotubes are the way of the future, and have a Young's modulus such to make a space elevator VIABLE!"


prof #2: "You will SWEAR on the name of all that you believe is holy in your so-called 'Christendom' that correctly-sized NMOS transistors can properly bias the input stage of a monolithic-amplifier circuit requiring FAR less surface area than if you were to use actual resistors OR YOU WILL NOT PASS THIS CLASS and you will be BANNED from my classroom!"

kingfish: "NEVER!"

kingfish van pickles (Kingfish), Friday, 25 March 2005 04:54 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

'kicking them out of the class, publicly humiliating them, and not accepting their beliefs. These all result in the student not even having the opputunity to challenge their beliefs.'

What place does belief have in an intellectually rigorous education, or discipline? None whatsoever, either back yourself up with evidence and a rigorous argument, or shut up. This doesn't meant that there has to be agreement on what is true or even agreement on what constitutes valid evidence, but something as insubstantial as belief has no place at all in a rigorous education.

Ed (dali), Friday, 25 March 2005 09:15 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

How about early morning runs?

i don't consider "relativism" a problem: wrestling fact from the power politics of life is as hard now as it wz yesterday, 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago)

After seeing The Life Of Galileo recently, I did think that at least now that this pope is dying, scientists aren't terrified about the sucession. I know, for Pope read US President + Congress + Senate + Supreme Court in three years time, but that's progress of a sort.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 25 March 2005 09:46 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"What place does belief have in an intellectually rigorous education, or discipline? None whatsoever, either back yourself up with evidence and a rigorous argument, or shut up. This doesn't meant that there has to be agreement on what is true or even agreement on what constitutes valid evidence, but something as insubstantial as belief has no place at all in a rigorous education."

Materialism, Empiralism, Darwinism, or whatever are all beliefs that currently have a large place in education. These are not treated as insubstantial.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 25 March 2005 14:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink


A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 25 March 2005 14:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i had a right-wing prof once, he was maybe 65+, looked and talked like a hick-ish sean connery, lived in the biggest hick county in the state but wore this great suit every day (flagpin on the lapel natch) with this briefcase (drove a bronco), he was hilarious and awesome. we need more of these people in our schools guys. i don't see what the argument is really.

proflove, Friday, 25 March 2005 15:05 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

again i ask the question, what is meant by "Biblical Christian"? one who uses certain passages in Leviticus to burn down Red Lobsters? One who claims that it says "The Lord helps those who help themselves"?

or the ones who think that the Sermon on the Mount/"feed the hungry"/"heal the sick"-thing might be onto something?

kingfish, Friday, 25 March 2005 17:21 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(empircism isn't a system of belief, it's a system of inquiry. calling it a belief system is like saying carpenters believe in hammers.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 25 March 2005 19:06 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(empiricism, i mean...)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 25 March 2005 19:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

don't bother gypsy, A Nairn does not know what words mean.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 March 2005 19:10 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Kingfish, The Biblical Christian would look at the Bible holistically not catagorically.

The Chiristian uses a system of inquiry when they ask the Holy Spirit to guide them.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

em·pir·i·cism     P   Pronunciation Key  (m-pîr-szm)
The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

That sounds like a belief to me.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"look at the Bible holistically not catagorically."

these terms are meaningless. Define them.

"The Chiristian uses a system of inquiry when they ask the Holy Spirit to guide them"

what if the Holy Spirit is guiding you by presenting indisputable physical evidence, from which you must draw your own conclusions?

"The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
That sounds like a belief to me. "

The totality of human experience is filtered through the senses. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 March 2005 23:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Kingfish, The Biblical Christian would look at the Bible holistically not catagorically.

yes, but what does this tend to mean in practices? also, does holitically involve something akin to, say, contextual analysis? analysis that might neat little bits of info about how the Decalogue share many structural similarities to Hittite laws that were going around at the time.

in other words, please clarify.


kingfish, Friday, 25 March 2005 23:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

holistically - Looking at the whole Bible taking into consideration all it says. In practice studying and thinking over verses that at first appear as contradictions bring out subtle meanings.

catagorically - Looking at single verses only; neglecting to consider the whole bible as God-breathed.

"What if the Holy Spirit is guiding you by presenting indisputable physical evidence, from which you must draw your own conclusions?"

This may be one way, but not the only possible way. It could guide the spirit of a human.

"The totality of human experience is filtered through the senses. If you believe otherwise, please explain."

This is a good question. The Holy Spirit can work on the spirit of a human which is something deeper then senses.

A Nairn (moretap), Saturday, 26 March 2005 01:03 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry I missed this thread so far. It's fulla interesting issues v/v philosophy of science and methods of teaching that I'm v. interested in. I want to dispute mark's claim that better teaching of evolution would have headed off anti-evolutionism at the pass. I actually think that the more scientific evolution proponents have been doing a reasonable job defending themselves, but in political terms it hasn't mattered anyway.

Which gets to another point that mark touched on aptly -- evolution isn't a *theory* -- it's a process that is a central object of *investigation* in the disciplinary domain of biology. To do biology, one must first accept that the object of one's investigation exists. So to the extent that this issue isn't "headed off at the pass" I think it's because we're teaching *what science is* wrong, with a crude sort of empiricism that Zizek manages to dodge quite well. (point of information -- as I understand it the "concrete universal" is actually from Laclau and Zizek picked up on it early in his career only to generally throw it by the wayside or at least scare-quote it in his more recent work. along those lines, Zizek's ontology has always had an objective reality, just as his epistimology has always had an irreconcilable rupture with that reality -- tho a *relative* one rather than absolute).

I never understood the scientific method until I started reading philosophy of science, because the way that it was taught in school was mystical-religious junk! Hypotheses just appear in thin air, and experiments just verify or disprove them. Science is just a huge collection of generally verified atomized facts. ("The world is all that is the case." full stop) This is what I think mark is growling about and against, and rightfully so. If instead of saying we're teaching our kids the TRUTH we said "we're teaching our kids productive methods for generating applicable knowledge of the world" we'd be in much better shape.

But I think mark is also prettifying Nairn's arguments. If the wager of science is on a verifiable reality, then the wager of Narin's version of religion is that verification is *never enough*. Everything is encapsulated in the exchange:

You don't draw a conclusion and then find evidence to support it, you look at the evidence and then draw a conclusion."

where are you getting this process from? What if you were to already know the conclusion as told by GOD?

Both sides are obv. wrong. If you know the conclusion you don't bother with evidence. But if you don't have prior sets of conclusions (not to mention historically developed instruments and technique and method), then you don't know what evidence you feel like gathering, or can gather. And similarly if you don't have tentative conclusions, or at least conclusions as to what possible conclusions one might expect, or etc.

Nairn's position is clearly not "once we discover everything that's true, the sum total of this knowledge will turn out to be the true xtianity." Rather, it is that the only *way* to discover truth is through true xtianity -- which, whether Nairn is consistent in drawing implications or not (he's not), means that the mertonian norms of science are destroyed!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 26 March 2005 03:47 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

has anyone pointed out yet that this law will drive up tuition fees meaning it reigns in left-wing lecturers and keeps the poor outta college. best law ever

fcussen (Burger), Saturday, 26 March 2005 04:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Reins in! Reins! Like a horse. Not a king.

(Sorry, you probably know that, it just drives me nuts. Little copyeditor rage there.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 26 March 2005 06:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

If instead of saying we're teaching our kids the TRUTH we said "we're teaching our kids productive methods for generating applicable knowledge of the world" we'd be in much better shape.

This is so completely...what's the word...OTMFM. Teaching people how to think rather than what to think -- how to approach the world critically, how to recognize received wisdom and subject it to the same scrutiny as brand-new information, how to deal with "information" period, in all its forms.

For what it's worth, my mom's a middle-school science teacher at a small, mostly progressive private school, and she has one creationist student in her class this year. After some tactful discussions with the parents, sympathizing with their right to believe whatever they want, she told them their daughter was just going to have to deal with discussion of evolution because that was a core part of the subject matter. Mom even kind of pushed it with a multiple choice test in which students had to select the right definition of "evolution." The girl circled the right answer, and then wrote next to it in big letters, "STUPID!" But at least she got it right.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 26 March 2005 06:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink



"Y'see?! Y'see?! STUPID!"

kingfish van pickles (Kingfish), Saturday, 26 March 2005 07:14 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...
salut je vous aimes tous

junior, Thursday, 27 October 2005 18:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.