Phoenix32890 wrote:This is taking political correctness to absurd heights. I pity the children of Georgia! 
This isn't political correctness, it's religious extremism influencing society and government (public education). I don't mean to be picky, but I think there's a difference.
I think i see Phoenix's point, though, Ros, this is the the political rectitude of the extreme religious right . . .
Setanta wrote:I think i see Phoenix's point, though, Ros, this is the the political rectitude of the extreme religious right . . .
I have to look up "Political Rectitude"
...
Well, it's more or less a term i invented, since "political correctness" uses a non-word (correctness), for which the correct term is rectitude. I like to refer to the folks who are trying to cram their values down the throats of others (from the right or the left) as the Political Rectitude Gestapo.
Ok, I guess I see Phoenix's point also, but I'm still not sure I completely agree...
For example, I see "Political Correctness" as an attempt to rephrase statements and labels such that they don't offend people. In this way, the phrasing ("Vertically challenged", instead of "Short") becomes "Politically" correct.
In this case however, the restriction of the use of a word seems to be Politically Discriminatory as opposed to being Politically Correct. It seems like more of a form of censorship than courtesy.
I agree it's a subtle distinction.
rosbourne- I used the term "political correctness" to be droll. What is political correctness? One facet of this phenomenon is avoiding the use of a word that might offend one group of people or another. In this case, the word is, "evolution". Sure, there are other, more serious aspects to this issue, but my first thought was that the issue in Georgia was an example of political correctness, ad absurdum!
Phoenix32890 wrote:rosbourne- ... but my first thought was that the issue in Georgia was an example of political correctness, ad absurdum!
I hear ya Phoenix. Point taken.
I can only ever think of Bill Bryson at these moments. When Kansas had pushed through changes to school curriculum to exclude evolution he wrote:
'They're not so much at risk of discovering that they're descended from apes as being overtaken by them".
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
okbye
well, with the pub you reported set, the good guys are 4 and 0 on this issue.
The distinction made in the entire case is one where the proponents of creationism or ID have been trying to find a way in which they can slide the camel under the tent with the least hassle.
They had originally started out quite bold in Kansas, then in Louisiana they figured they had it knocked. the La story is as good as 'Inheret...' There were a flock of really good lawyers from Skadden Arps in nY that moved in pro bono to defend the teaching of evolution as a unique foundation of biology. they won in a drawn out and heated battle in which the creationists drew out their most respected warriors.
In pa , the case was much more civilized , more like a chess game.the creationist case wasbased on a more subtle distinction regarding what sounded like an inoccuous assertion that
"the state should not enact any laws that require the public schools teach theories of the origins of life on earth unless they present a "balanced " view and present alternative theories"
The creation and Intel Design lobby lost when the Pa curriculum subcommittee agreed that the basis for scientific advance included the application of the scientific method as well as discovery of evidence.Thus, they, in effect stated the SJ Gould maxim that , in science a theory is an explanation for a phenomenon which, all the evidence to date,supports and , more importantly, no evidence refutes. the rule became shortened to "the only way to prove a theory is by not disproving it'
Elegant explanation by Jay gould
i didnt know that Bill bryson wrote about the kansas case, was there an article ?
farmerman wrote:i didnt know that Bill bryson wrote about the kansas case, was there an article ?
He worked it into an article he had as a regular gig, they were all published in a work called "Notes from a Big Island". In the States it was titled "I'm a Stranger Here Myself".
Maybe a bit off, but I've read once that it was a proposed law (in some state in U.S.) to declare by law the value of PI (circumference/diameter of circle) to be exactly 3. It was claimed that this would make calculations much simpler, and lift some burden off a child's mind..
I think it is an urban legend, anyone knows ?
Only politicians could be so obtuse to suppose that the legislative process could suspend the laws and priciples of physics, maths and natural history. I'd love to say that they were all ignorant, but most of them are well-educated. Where does the system let them down?
Seems to be an Indiana kind of thing, Mr. Pondquility--they also resolutely set their clocks to a time one hour different from those of the states immediately surrounding them. They are more boring than shredded wheat, and they play basketball with an obsession matching the Japanese love for bay-soo-ball . . . an odd lot of customers indeed . . .
S-ta, I was meaning 'politicians' as a sub-set of humanity.
