@Ionus,
Quote:I hold no grudges against anyone who wishes a more diplomatic stance in debate.
In which case you ought to hold a serious grudge against this lot I've been trying to educate for six years. They don't know what a diplomatic stance consists of. "Clowns" and "IDiots"give them away on that point. And much else. They even go so far as to seek to discredit the posts I write on the basis that I had two pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth the previous evening.
Quote: The "entire" concepts are hardly understood by leading experts in the field.
That is what I am currently debating with Farmerman.
Well--you are wasting your time. What he knows about the subjects could be written on a piece of confetti with a bill-posters brush. He just uses certain buzz-words like women use make-up. Neither take me in. His position on religion is based on personal considerations such as a priest whacking him at school or a deep need to confute his betters or to persuade some young lady that what the Pope says about chastity is a load of bullshit and she should try to be more like a monkey. I'm not convinced that the first is a respectable reason but the other two are. Confuting one's betters is natural in young men and serves a purpose if the confutation is valid. And Freud's idea that civilisation makes us sick can be used to justify a concern for the young lady's health.
The trouble is that he's hopeless at confuting his betters because they take no notice of anybody who puts the counter-confutation on Ignore and carries on as if there is no-one else in the debate. And he daren't go near persuading ladies to be more like monkeys for their health's sake. It's takes a Wilhelm Reich to take a job like that on. Or a Christopher Wood. (Confessions of a Window Cleaner). You can't really trust de Sade because the women in his life did what he wanted because of his aristocratic lineage and what fun he was to have around. Probably the best read man in history. And it going into his head as clean as similar stuff has gone into Dylan's. I'm a mere apprentice.
Such an argument with fm might have been got out on the spur of the moment in the service of an immediate need but it's not a principle he would take anywhere else. I doubt he had the nonce for that though way back when. Probably relied on the simple assertion that the Pope talks out of his arse.
Whatever the cause, the ORIGIN, once he stepped onto the road with it, and with his pugnacious belligerence, the position started setting like concrete does and pride got involved, never backing down, and it's now as solid as the underlying rock on which the pools of oil come to rest. I say rest because it's polite in diplomatic debates to ignore that the earth's surface is moving at about 1,000 mph and the whole sphere, well nearly, including the **** and the head office of the NCSE, at nearly 70,000 mph and goodness knows what the solar system and the galaxy are doing even if you applied our puny measuring systems to them for the sake of argument or to provide you with the illusion that you know what you are talking about. What he reads is chosen to confirm the position over and over and over and, indeed, it is written for a market which readily consumes such material. One might say that the larger the market becomes the less diplomatic debate there will be.
The position on divorce is consistent and leads to the permanent one-night-stand but how it relates to marriage, abortion, birth control and homosexuality or "equality" I cannot imagine. I suppose one has to accept the Party line on all agreed matters. Parties being coalitions. Managed by Media. If you want to argue with solid rock it's okay be me.
Quote:I am left with no alternative than to class you as an anti-IDer and an atheist.
As I said before, if believing the universe was created in 6 days makes me an anti-Ider, then I am an anti-IDer. However I am not an aetheist simply because I see history in the Bible and not the word of God.
That's not the point Io. The point is to challenge the teaching of evolution to 50 million teenagers. What you are is neither here nor there. Same with me. Do you want to see evolution taught in schools?
It is not an abstract idea. It will have real life consequences and trends will set in which will be dynamic. It's already self evident. 30 years ago there would have been questions in the House of Commons and heated debates if some of the stuff we see on TV today without batting an eye had even peeped out. 50 years ago the cops would have been rounding folk up. It's dynamic goodstyle. One can only assume that those running the show, they are dupes on here, seek to encourage the trends for reasons which are easily explained. Profit. Power.
And I'm not saying anything about that except that we need to decide whether we want those consequences before getting on the road in the schools. These other things are minor roads. The schools are the motorways like the Jesuits famously stated. And the schools are the subject of this thread. And schools are actual things and are very complex entities.
Did you know that Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe and that the atheists called him a Creationist. Fred Hoyle and the Steady-staters mainly. In fact it was Fred who coined the term Big Bang which some say was a joke about his own origin. He was droll enough.
