Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

Sir_Humphrey

I always find it odd that Guardian readers are seem as superstitious, when in fact it is usually the Daily Mail that goes in for this sort of quackery. The Guardian doesn't even have a horoscope.

lemonjelly

Generali wrote: »

Intelligent design, if it is to be taught, should be taught in Philosophy or RE lessons.

It isn't science as it has never been put up for peer review and isn't replicatable IMO. If its proponents start to use scientific method and it is 'provable' then there is a case for it being included in science lessons.

vivatifosi wrote: »

As this thread inadvertently, at one point, veered towards library sciences, I thought I'd mention the Dewey System. Intelligent design is normally classified under 213 (religion: creationism) rather than 576 (science: evolution). However there is a slow creep (particularly in America) towards shelving intelligent design as science. Personally I'm with Gen on this one. Teach it as religion if you must, but not science.

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The teaching of creationism (and ID) has been ruled as unconstitutional in state schools (public) in the USA.

Before 1925 the teaching of evolution was illegal in 15 USA states.

It was only in 1968 that the ban on teaching evolution was lifted in Arkansas.

There is a long history of certain states trying to ban the teaching of evolution and force the teaching of creationism which is then usually prevented by the Supreme Court.

ID is only clever in the sense that it attempts to muddy the waters and shoe horn looney religious beliefs into education. If it was a Muslim country doing it, we would be rolling our eyes at the backwardness of it.

It makes my blood boil when I see UK state schools teaching creationism like this one;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3088444.stm

and don't get me started on Homeopathy on the NHS !

All 3 above posts deserve so much more than 1 thanks.

The notion of creationism & ID are unverifiable, and are accordingly belief systems, NOT science. They are untestable and therefore rely on a leap of faith.

I'm completely with keenyboy, as watching the manner in which the christian right tried so vainly (mainly through pressure, buying influence, & blackmailing methods) to enforce their views & get creationism & ID onto curriculums. It can be very scary when people try to exert such an influence imo.

lemonjelly

michaels wrote: »

As a libertarian I am happy for anyone to believe in ID or homoeopathy.... or economics or smoking if that is what floats their boat and they don't try to impose it on others...

This is actually quite a worrying thing to say.

Libertarianism in itself is fine, however I can't help feel it is too relativistic in nature. The idea that these things are all "relative" is self defeating & contradictory, as it makes your own viewpoint no more valid than anyone else's. In fact, it makes all viewpoints invalid. It is like saying there is no right or wrong. When clearly, socially we do see there are things that are right and wrong.

Is it ok to be into kiddy !!!!!! provided you don't impose it on others? Of course not.

Sir_Humphrey

lemonjelly wrote: »

This is actually quite a worrying thing to say.

Libertarianism in itself is fine, however I can't help feel it is too relativistic in nature. The idea that these things are all "relative" is self defeating & contradictory, as it makes your own viewpoint no more valid than anyone else's. In fact, it makes all viewpoints invalid. It is like saying there is no right or wrong. When clearly, socially we do see there are things that are right and wrong.

Is it ok to be into kiddy !!!!!! provided you don't impose it on others? Of course not.

The trouble with right-wing libertarianism is that when you actually work out the policy implications, you realise it is a just a very fuzzy, woolly veil for screwing the poor and worshipping the rich.

That's why I am not keen on it, despite being socially liberal.

Generali

lemonjelly wrote: »

This is actually quite a worrying thing to say.

Libertarianism in itself is fine, however I can't help feel it is too relativistic in nature. The idea that these things are all "relative" is self defeating & contradictory, as it makes your own viewpoint no more valid than anyone else's. In fact, it makes all viewpoints invalid. It is like saying there is no right or wrong. When clearly, socially we do see there are things that are right and wrong.

Is it ok to be into kiddy !!!!!! provided you don't impose it on others? Of course not.

The point of that part of Libertarianism is that people should be free to act as they wish if there is no impact on anyone else. Any restriction on freedom of action should be viewed as 'evil' albeit one that is sometimes required morally or pragmatically.

For example, forcing people to put their children in suitable seatbelt is consistent with Libertarianism whilst forcing adults to wear seatbelts is not.

lemonjelly

Generali wrote: »

The point of that part of Libertarianism is that people should be free to act as they wish if there is no impact on anyone else. Any restriction on freedom of action should be viewed as 'evil' albeit one that is sometimes required morally or pragmatically.

For example, forcing people to put their children in suitable seatbelt is consistent with Libertarianism whilst forcing adults to wear seatbelts is not.

I see the point you make generali. Problem is, we're social creatures, not a collection of individuals. As a society, almost everything we do will impact on others in one way or another.

Libertarianism is (imo) far too simplistic & narrow minded in viewing who we are & what we do.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

The point of that part of Libertarianism is that people should be free to act as they wish if there is no impact on anyone else. Any restriction on freedom of action should be viewed as 'evil' albeit one that is sometimes required morally or pragmatically.

For example, forcing people to put their children in suitable seatbelt is consistent with Libertarianism whilst forcing adults to wear seatbelts is not.

Every action you take has an impact on others; it is just more obvious in some cases than in others.

Conrad

Degenerate wrote: »

To support their view they point to biological structures that they say are too complicated to have arisen randomly in one step, and that have no functional intermediate steps that would have presented evolutionary advantage.

Could you give some examples.

The eye is the example I've seen put forward by ID proponents, but Darwinism points us to the many intermediate steps available in nature right now such as light sensing patches in deep sea worms.

Incidentally 'sudden leap' mutations are all around us - dwarfs, people with 5 limbs and so on.

adouglasmhor

lemonjelly wrote: »

This is actually quite a worrying thing to say.

Libertarianism in itself is fine, however I can't help feel it is too relativistic in nature. The idea that these things are all "relative" is self defeating & contradictory, as it makes your own viewpoint no more valid than anyone else's. In fact, it makes all viewpoints invalid. It is like saying there is no right or wrong. When clearly, socially we do see there are things that are right and wrong.

Is it ok to be into kiddy !!!!!! provided you don't impose it on others? Of course not.

How would kiddie !!!!!! be made without it being imposed on others, in the sense that every piece of kiddy !!!!!! means a child has been abused and victimised. What a stupid counter to try.

Sir_Humphrey

adouglasmhor wrote: »

How would kiddie !!!!!! be made without it being imposed on others, in the sense that every piece of kiddy !!!!!! means a child has been abused and victimised.

Not necessarily. I should have thought that such images could be generated artificially.