President Obama Mum on Texas Succession Petition; Other state petitions gaining steam

[dragon890x]

Today in Biology class: How God created everything in only 7 days.

[ddr_f4n]

I went to a Catholic school.

My teachers taught and accepted evolution. Hell my religion teachers all said that those that take everything from the Bible literally are dumb.

[Izzy]

Those sound like some really backward societies.

The places that teach creationism that is, or refuse to teach evolution.

[Crashfan3]

Wait, seriously, Rubix? I went to a small town red-county public high school and no creationist views were taught in science class. o_o

[massflavour]

Originally Posted by UserNameGoesHere

I went to public schools.
They taught evolution and not creationism.

mfw there's public schools that don't teach evolution? Thought that was only private schools that didn't teach it lol.

it is against the law: deemed unconstitutional.

see kitzmiller v. dover which took place in '05.

[Crashfan3]

That would make sense then, since Rubix was in high school before 2005; I was in high school from 2007-10.

[ddrxero64]

so....every state has a petition to secede, and collectively there's 700,000 signatures so far. (still growing)

http://yilb.com/50-states-fill-petitions-for-secession/

[devonin]

No state has created a petition to secede. No state has proposed a vote in their legislature.

Stop confusing "Some internet morons who put up a petition about New Hampshire" with "The State of New Hampshire"

Jesus there are some stupid people on this forum.

Edit: The "combined vote tally" is as accurate and correct as the statement up at the top of the page, that FFR has 1.8 million members.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by devonin

No state has created a petition to secede. No state has proposed a vote in their legislature.

Stop confusing "Some internet morons who put up a petition about New Hampshire" with "The State of New Hampshire"

Jesus there are some stupid people on this forum.

Edit: The "combined vote tally" is as accurate and correct as the statement up at the top of the page, that FFR has 1.8 million members.

Would the state itself have to want to secede as well in order to secede?

[All_That_Chaz]

I'm pretty sure Rubix misspoke. Otherwise his post doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Cavernio]

Wouldn't it be neat if countries weren't physically boundaries but organizations or groups that people join free will? I wish I could imagine a way that those logistics could actually work out.

[dragon890x]

/discussion

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Crashfan3

Wait, seriously, Rubix? I went to a small town red-county public high school and no creationist views were taught in science class. o_o

To clarify:

In my case, I went to high school from Sept 2001 to like May/June whatever of 2005. I took IB Biology senior year. My class didn't teach Creationism, but it didn't teach evolution, either.

My point, more broadly, was that you'll always finds groups of people who are perpetually angry about something that they shouldn't be. Creationists want their crap in the science classroom? Too bad -- it isn't science. Complaining about Obama being some huge tax-demon? Too bad -- he probably lowered taxes for you in reality. Telling "government to stay out of your Medicare"? Hang yourself.

There will always be ignorant/crazy pissed-off people who are angry at things that don't make sense and aren't reasonable. There's no benefit to be had in giving those positions anything but ridicule + corrections of the misconceptions. Would you expect someone like Stephen Hawking to appear in a debate against a flat-earther? No. Because in doing so, he's implicitly granting that opponent status. It's a way of saying "He has a valid stance -- an opposing view worthy of debate." Sometimes bullshit is just bullshit and needs to be called out for what it is, rather than tiptoe around it because we're going to hurt someone's feelings for their refusal to think critically.

Otherwise you wind up with a society that is more and more anti-intellectual... case in point:

best line ever at 1:40

[Hateandhatred]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

/discussion

This is the greatest ever.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Wouldn't it be neat if countries weren't physically boundaries but organizations or groups that people join free will?

don't think I like that idea, actually. I imagine the result would be a bunch of very homogenous societies.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Otherwise you wind up with a society that is more and more anti-intellectual... case in point:

pretty sure that doesn't count as a "case" since it's satirical, lol. funny video.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

pretty sure that doesn't count as a "case" since it's satirical, lol. funny video.

The thing is, the satire isn't much different from reality (which is my point). I still love that video because it very obviously points out the problems with false dialectics/false equivalences.

[ddrxero64]

Texas is the only state that could manage to break off and be its own government anyway. I'm not a history buff but they were pretty much their own government before and could do it again, at least I think so.

[Cavernio]

"There's no benefit to be had in giving those positions anything but ridicule + corrections of the misconceptions."

But if you ridicule someone there's like a .01% chance they will listen to what you say. Not only that, you're more likely to push them further to their side of the argument. This holds for pretty much any argument, ones where one side is clearly right and ones where there's a lot more ambiguity. However, if you give them credence and manage to get to the root of problem, at the very least they are likely to listen to you.
In a science classroom, especially in an area where kids are likely taught creationism outside school, it would be far better to explain why creationism isn't scientific that ridicule it, which would also require an understanding of what creationism is.

I remember someone posting a like, hour long video about some preacher shitting on evolution and lots of things science says, and it was scary how convincing he was. He was refuting specifics about science and evolution and biology, trying to create holes in science. And really, if you're like most people, you don't know most specifics about any field of science, you may think 'hey, science thinks it knows for certain, but it doesn't, so this might be real'. What needs to be done to refute this preacher really would require careful listening and refuting specific points he raises. Ridiculing someone like him would specifically make you look like you can't argue his points, giving him more credence.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

"There's no benefit to be had in giving those positions anything but ridicule + corrections of the misconceptions."

But if you ridicule someone there's like a .01% chance they will listen to what you say. Not only that, you're more likely to push them further to their side of the argument. This holds for pretty much any argument, ones where one side is clearly right and ones where there's a lot more ambiguity. However, if you give them credence and manage to get to the root of problem, at the very least they are likely to listen to you.
In a science classroom, especially in an area where kids are likely taught creationism outside school, it would be far better to explain why creationism isn't scientific that ridicule it, which would also require an understanding of what creationism is.

I remember someone posting a like, hour long video about some preacher shitting on evolution and lots of things science says, and it was scary how convincing he was. He was refuting specifics about science and evolution and biology, trying to create holes in science. And really, if you're like most people, you don't know most specifics about any field of science, you may think 'hey, science thinks it knows for certain, but it doesn't, so this might be real'. What needs to be done to refute this preacher really would require careful listening and refuting specific points he raises. Ridiculing someone like him would specifically make you look like you can't argue his points, giving him more credence.

Just because a willfully ignorant person refuses to listen to you doesn't mean you capitulate and grant them status or ignore them and allow them to push their agenda in harmful ways.

Perhaps "ridicule" is the wrong word. What I really mean is to "dismiss" or "discredit," but without "ignoring." Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, but granting it too much validity perpetuates the notion that there are two sides to the debate when there aren't.

Attacking Creationist claims point-by-point doesn't work because what you'll get hit with, from time to time, is the Gish Gallop (needing to refute so many misconceptions that you haven't a chance in hell of doing it in a timely manner). It's easier to just explain how evolution works and how we don't need a Creator to explain any of it, much like we can explain how convection works and how we don't need Leprechauns to explain how water boils. I don't need to get into a point-by-point on Fucking Leprechaun Theory to show why it's nonsense.

Many people refuse to change their position because they've invested so much time in their views (or are incapable of understanding the other position)... the cognitive dissonance is too strong. That's why you see so many God of the Gap type arguments: You move the goalposts to some area where there's no explicit answer and claim you're right because you haven't been disproved yet.

It's also why we see supply-side "economists" argue that we've never had a chance to see "trickle-down" work properly even though we have mounds of evidence to show to the contrary. You can always argue that "times were different" because of X, Y, and Z, even if those variables have little effect on what's actually being discussed. Of course, pointing that out results in a "Well, prove me wrong" type argument, which incorrectly flips the onus to the other person.

The goal, though, isn't to convert the crazies. It's to emphasize something hard enough so that its prominence gets to the middle-crowd sufficiently early. Over time, the vocal, ignorant crowd fades out. We've seen it happen all the time throughout history.

It's true that giving someone credence means they are more likely to listen to you, but those discussions always turn out the same way: "I acknowledge your stance and you surely acknowledge mine, but in the end, who's right? We'll just have to agree to disagree." The key issue there being that in many cases there *aren't* two valid sides to the debate. There's the side that's demonstrably correct and/or has much more compelling/consistent evidence in its favor, and the side that's willfully ignorant/internally inconsistent/etc.

Regarding your final paragraph: Many preachers who criticize evolution use a variety of techniques. I could get into a long explanation of what they are, but in the end, they usually don't understand how evolution works and are attacking their own misconception of things (or they're just ignorant of what science DOES know how to explain).

[devonin]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Would the state itself have to want to secede as well in order to secede?

The purpose of the petition is to demand that the American Government say "Okay, we give you permission to hold a vote to leave, and if the vote passes, to let you leave peacefully"

If the petition is granted, it would then be put to a vote that wouldn't pass in a million years.

The state could also just disregard whether the petition is granted or not, hold a vote on their own and just unilaterally declare independance, but then the US military would crush them into paste.

For reference, that's what I thought should have been done with Quebec. Grant them independance, then invade, conquer and offer nice surrender terms.