Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Let's talk about various types of religion.
Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu May 12, 2005 9:45 pm

Rspaight wrote:And on and on and on and on.

All the atrocities committed "in God's name" and all the perversions of essentially peaceful religions like Christianity (and Islam, AIUI) sickens me too. But is it fair to blame Iraq or the Holocaust in any way on the teachings of Jesus? Or is the argument that humanity would be better off if we all agreed to swear off organized religion, due to the potential for misuse?

It's tempting to state that if Judaism didn't exist, the Holocaust would never have happened -- but IMO that would have to be predicated on a very simplistic view of human nature. Or, to put it another way -- if Judaism didn't exist, would Hitler have been able to find a substitute rallying point to fuel his political ambitions and his/his followers' hatred of people that were deemed inferior? Would WWII have been prevented if Judaism (or organized religion) didn't exist?

If one really wanted to make the Earth a paradise, my advice wouldn't be to eliminate organized religion, or bombs, or guns, but man himself. We're so darn ingenious when it comes to finding reasons/methods for hating and killing each other that we can't be stopped. Unfortunately, we have the capability to exterminate not just ourselves but all advanced life on Earth.

Now there's a good topic for Dawkins' next documentary -- "The Real Root of All Evil, and Evolution's Worst Mistake...Man."

You'd think that an "intelligent designer" would be able to communicate its intentions a little better than that.

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Greek philosopher Epicurus... (paraphrasing) "If God is good, then He is not all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then He is not good."

There is a third possibility, IMO. God is indeed all-powerful and good, but man has a preference for doing things "his way" and God will not force His rules (or even His presence) upon us. Many of our fellow men have volunteered (most with ulterior motives) to act as our leaders...with confusion and turmoil being the predictable result.

You used the word "communicate." In order for communication to be successful, it must be both sent and received.
Last edited by Dob on Thu May 12, 2005 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dob
-------------------
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu May 12, 2005 11:00 pm

krabapple wrote:...if you want someone who approaches evolution from a credible philosophy/history of science POV, and who's certainly no friend of Dawkins, try Michael Ruse. ..he's the 'accepted' academic expert on the topic at this point.

From the Boston Globe:

"Ruse...is an ardent critic of scientists who he thinks have hurt the cause by habitually stepping outside the bounds of science into social theory. In his latest book, ''The Evolution-Creation Struggle,'' Ruse elaborates on a theme (that) evolution is controversial...because its supporters have often presented it as the basis for self-sufficient philosophies of progress and materialism, which invariably wind up in competition with religion."

Bingo.

It doesn't matter how many books I read about the science of evolution or how well I understand it. My main objection to evolution is when it stretches to include materialistic, reductionist hypotheses about the nature of man, life, and the entire universe. I object to the philosophical, religious overtones of (to use Ruse's term) "evolutionism."

Reductionism, materialism, and atheism are not sciences. They are philosophies. If I'm going to read philosophy, I'd rather read someone other than Dawkins. And if I want to read about the science of evolution (which I don't), why should I have to put up with Dawkins' theist bashing bullsh*t when I can choose from any number of books that stick to the science? At least Dawkins isn't dry, I'll give him that much.

I'm really, really tired of dealing with religious fellow-travellers and apologists whose skepticism runs more to parsing scientist's phrases in the hopes of finding a contradiction, rather than actually trying to understand the science.

Apparently you haven't noticed, but I've been (lately) arguing against the evolutionist worldview on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones. If I mix scientific questions in with the philosophical ones, it's only a reaction to the scientists (Dr. Wiley) doing the same thing.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu May 12, 2005 11:45 pm

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote:...if you want someone who approaches evolution from a credible philosophy/history of science POV, and who's certainly no friend of Dawkins, try Michael Ruse. ..he's the 'accepted' academic expert on the topic at this point.

From the Boston Globe:

"Ruse...is an ardent critic of scientists who he thinks have hurt the cause by habitually stepping outside the bounds of science into social theory. In his latest book, ''The Evolution-Creation Struggle,'' Ruse elaborates on a theme (that) evolution is controversial...because its supporters have often presented it as the basis for self-sufficient philosophies of progress and materialism, which invariably wind up in competition with religion."

Bingo.



You're welcome...I pointed you at him because I was tired of watching you flounder around with *amateurs*. I could tell he would tickle your taint. Have a ball. (My god, imagine when you discover *Feyerabend*)


OF course, this will require that you actually *READ RUSE'S FUCKING BOOKS" instead of just blurbs about them. I hope you'll parse every single one of his sentences carefully. When you do, you may find to your horror that Ruse is actually more an 'evolutionist' than not...and probably an atheist --- though he gets his kicks trying to find commonalities on 'both sides'. You might also find that he's often talking about figures like Spencer and Huxley, who weren't 'Darwinists' per se...they were 'social Darwinists'.

You can occasionally read Ruse in 'real time' talking with others about philosophy of biology *here*

http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_o ... arkar.html


It's instructive to read what an actual biologist has to say in response to some of his woolier claims:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... he_waters/

and someone with a history/philosophy background isn't sure he's on the right track either:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/not ... php?id=786


It doesn't matter how many books I read about the science of evolution or how well I understand it.


Er..I suspect Michael Ruse would call that a damn fool thing to claim.

My main objection to evolution is when it stretches to include materialistic, reductionist hypotheses about the nature of man, life, and the entire universe. I object to the philosophical, religious overtones of (to use Ruse's term) "evolutionism."


Reductionism, materialism, and atheism are not sciences.


No scientist says they are. But there is no science in positing "God' as an
explanation for a natural phenomenon. 'God' is not a scientific explanation. That's what enrages certain people.

Do you know what *is* science?


They are philosophies. If I'm going to read philosophy, I'd rather read someone other than Dawkins. And if I want to read about the science of evolution (which I don't), why should I have to put up with Dawkins' theist bashing bullsh*t when I can choose from any number of books that stick to the science? At least Dawkins isn't dry, I'll give him that much.



If you don't want to read about evolution, shut the fuck *up* about the evolution vs. creationism debate, please. Because otherwise you're no better than the ignorant yahoos holding court on the school board in Kansas.

You don't even know what you're talking abot re: Dawkins' books. His seminal best-seller, 'The Selfish Gene' is pretty much entirely about selection, not 'philosophy'.


I'm really, really tired of dealing with religious fellow-travellers and apologists whose skepticism runs more to parsing scientist's phrases in the hopes of finding a contradiction, rather than actually trying to understand the science.


Apparently you haven't noticed, but I've been (lately) arguing against the evolutionist worldview on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones. If I mix scientific questions in with the philosophical ones, it's only a reaction to the scientists (Dr. Wiley) doing the same thing.



First, Wiley is *responding* to religious fuckheads who insist on making the debate about theology and philosophy, not about *data* and its *interpretation*.

Second, what the *fuck* is the 'evolutionist worldview'? How does it differ from a scientific worldview generally ? How does an 'evolutionist worldview' differ from physicist Murray Gell-Mann's ? He's an atheist too, btw.

Ruse bitching seems to come down to: OK, Dawkins et al aren't 'social Darwinists' -- they *aren't* offering evolutionary science as a religion.
It's not that Dawkins is *wrong* or anything, it's just that they're *rude* to believers, and that makes them as bad as creationists.

WTF?


Is this what *you* are complaining about?
Last edited by krabapple on Fri May 13, 2005 12:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Fri May 13, 2005 12:00 am

Dob wrote:But is it fair to blame Iraq or the Holocaust in any way on the teachings of Jesus?


Well, there lies the rub. What exactly are the "teachings of Jesus"? The fact that there are such a wide array of types of "Christianity" suggests to me that religion has a lot more to do with Man's ideas than Jesus'.

Or is the argument that humanity would be better off if we all agreed to swear off organized religion, due to the potential for misuse?


Since that's never going to happen it's pretty hard to answer that. I will say, though, that a lot of hate and terrible things have happened directly as the result of religion.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri May 13, 2005 8:40 am

But is it fair to blame Iraq or the Holocaust in any way on the teachings of Jesus?


The "teachings of Jesus" aren't a religion. Christianity is a religion.

Jesus never told anyone to be an anti-Semite. Christianity did.

Jesus never told anyone to invade Iraq. Bush did, claiming he consulted God on the matter, and the right loves him because of his "faith" and "values."

Or, to put it another way -- if Judaism didn't exist, would Hitler have been able to find a substitute rallying point to fuel his political ambitions and his/his followers' hatred of people that were deemed inferior?


The question is irrelevant because it misunderstands religion. Religion is not something that can be "removed" from human nature. Religion *is* human nature -- both in a positive and negative sense. Most people reject nihilism, and for most people the absence of nihilism requires the presence of a "greater plan," a "larger truth." Religion is inescapable because for most people it's the only alternative to the abyss. This is good, because it inspires people to look beyond themselves and find a reason to engage with the world in a constructive way.

Unfortunately, in a negative sense, it's a vessel into which man pours all of his fears and prejudices and doubts. Then, since those fears and prejudices and doubts no longer belong to man, but to "God", man is no longer responsible for questioning them, only for acting on them.

It's like this: a child writes "KICK YOUR SISTER" on a piece of paper and tapes it to the wall. He then kicks his sister. When he gets yelled at by his mother, he points to the piece of paper and says, "It wasn't my idea." The piece of paper is "God," and "KICK YOUR SISTER" is religious dogma. (The child could just as easily have written, "HUG YOUR SISTER" on the piece of paper. What one chooses to do with religion is more about the person than it is about the religion.) The mother, of course, is one's own conscience.

The tragedy is that, while religion can be an enormous force for good in the world, as it inspires some people to see a greater purpose in life beyond mere survival and spurs them to help others and seek justice, it's just as likely to turn people into toddlers who do what they want and claim it wasn't their idea. The insanity is that so many people will enthusiastically follow the piece of paper, no matter what's written on it.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Sat May 14, 2005 1:08 pm

krabapple wrote:(My god, imagine when you discover *Feyerabend*)

From a review:
Possibly Feyerabend's best known book, Against Method is basically an attack on the idea that science has a single, monolithic 'method', one which has stood the test of time and produced the 'advances' leading to the science we know today. Instead of the close connection between ideas of rationality and scientific method on which many thinkers would base their understanding of science on, Feyerabend points out contradictory and irrational ideas, to his mind not just part of science but at its very core. They are particularly important, he believes, in the challenging of fundamental assumptions which leads to 'revolutions'.

Does the hidebound scientific community consider “out of the box” thinking and “brainstorming” (which are two common terms that seem equivalent to Feyerabend’s premise of “anything goes”) radical ideas? If so, that’s pathetic.

OF course, this will require that you actually *READ RUSE'S FUCKING BOOKS" instead of just blurbs about them.

IMO, I will have a more balanced view (and my time will be spent more efficiently) if I read a couple of summations, a few thoughtful critiques (pro and con), and some pertinent excerpts of ten books rather than reading one book completely. And this attitude of mine pisses you off, because you (apparently) think that if I only read some of these books cover to cover I’d have some sort of epiphany.

You might also find that he's often talking about figures like Spencer and Huxley, who weren't 'Darwinists' per se...they were 'social Darwinists'.

Well, criticizing social Darwinists doesn’t strike me as compelling or daring or even very interesting.

Krabapple wrote:
Dob wrote:It doesn't matter how many books I read about the science of evolution or how well I understand it.

Er..I suspect Michael Ruse would call that a damn fool thing to claim.

By quoting me out of context you totally obliterated my point. Or was that your intent?

But there is no science in positing "God' as an explanation for a natural phenomenon.

And there is no science in positing “all phenomena are natural.” That’s philosophy. You DO believe there is no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon, correct? (note the word “believe”)

Do you know what *is* science?

Do you know what *isn’t* science? Are you aware that stating “all phenomena are natural” takes you straight into “all phenomena are caused”? Meaning there is no such thing as a “causeless cause”? Which would lead me to ask, “what then is the scientific definition of freedom as it applies to the actions of man?”

If you don’t want to open that can of worms, don’t say that the idea of a supernatural element existing in the mind of man isn’t “even on the table.” You can’t make that statement without understanding the origins of reason and abstract thought, which you don’t. Until then, “anything goes.”

If you don't want to read about evolution, shut the fuck *up* about the evolution vs. creationism debate, please. Because otherwise you're no better than the ignorant yahoos holding court on the school board in Kansas

Whatever my religious/philosophical beliefs, I have never taken the position that those beliefs should be force fed to students in a science class. Don’t you believe me?

I said I don’t want to read (further) about the *science* of evolution. I feel that my basic layman’s (high school level) understanding of it is sufficient for the purposes of this debate, which is about evolutionism/ materialism, not the finer points of the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion.

You don't even know what you're talking abot re: Dawkins' books. His seminal best-seller, 'The Selfish Gene' is pretty much entirely about selection, not 'philosophy'.

From “The Selfish Gene,” Chapter 1, Paragraph 1 – “Why Are People?”
Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’…To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth, but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist. Darwin made it possible for us to give a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this chapter. We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G.G. Simpson put it thus: ‘The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.’

I apologize for being so wrong, Krab. No philosophy there, no sir. But (as you would undoubtedly protest) I haven’t read the whole thing… maybe Dawkins is one of the few (only?) writers in human history to write a book that goes in a completely different direction than what is laid out in the first paragraph.

Gosh, if that's true, maybe I shouldn’t make snap judgments about books by what is described in blurbs or dust jackets or the first paragraph. Maybe the book is actually nothing like that.

Wiley is *responding* to religious fuckheads who insist on making the debate about theology and philosophy, not about *data* and its *interpretation*.

You mean the “data” and “interpretation” that finally answered the questions “Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man?” The nerve of those religious f*ckheads, twisting those scientific questions into a debate about theology and philosophy. No wonder you’re enraged.

Second, what the *fuck* is the 'evolutionist worldview'?

“an outlook that goes far beyond the scientific acceptance of evolution as a means of explaining the origins and development of species” – Michael Ruse

How does an 'evolutionist worldview' differ from physicist Murray Gell-Mann's ? He's an atheist too, btw.

I’m assuming you’re referring to the work he’s done on “emergent complexities” at the Santa Fe Institute. He seems like a determinist/materialist, which is what I would expect from an atheist physicist. So my answer to your question would be “not at all, apparently.” But why would I be especially interested in what his views are? Because he’s “the man with five brains”?

Hey, I’ll disagree and argue with anyone, their superior intelligence notwithstanding. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Ruse bitching seems to come down to: OK, Dawkins et al aren't 'social Darwinists' -- they *aren't* offering evolutionary science as a religion.
It's not that Dawkins is *wrong* or anything, it's just that they're *rude* to believers, and that makes them as bad as creationists.

WTF?

Is this what *you* are complaining about?

If you put that rant into a coherent form I might be able to answer.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Sat May 14, 2005 7:16 pm

lukpac wrote:I will say, though, that a lot of hate and terrible things have happened directly as the result of religion.

Rspaight wrote:The tragedy is that, while religion can be an enormous force for good in the world, as it inspires some people to see a greater purpose in life beyond mere survival and spurs them to help others and seek justice, it's just as likely to turn people into toddlers who do what they want and claim it wasn't their idea.

Hey guys, where are you going with this?

The clear lesson that I get from history is that religion and politics are a bad mix, that there should always be separation of church and state, and that religion (organized or not) should be tolerated, with religious discrimination being outlawed.

That's why I am against hanging the Ten Commandments down in City Hall and I am against our leaders making laws or policies or decisions that favor one religion over another, even if it happens to be *my* religion that is favored. Sure, it might feel good at first, but things like that have a way of backfiring.

Furthermore, although some of us may find certain organized religions distasteful, or even see them as "dangerous" cults, they must be tolerated (as long as they're not breaking laws). That is the inevitable result of religious freedom.

Is there a better way?
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Sun May 15, 2005 5:52 pm

Dob, you'd do *much* better to simply point your philosophy hard-on towards places like this

http://scottishnous.typepad.com/my_webl ... or_th.html

where's it'll likely get all the argument-joy it craves.

The thing is for me, being lazy, I have no use for your arguments, you aren;t intersted in what I think are the more important issues; nor do I have any patience for being the 'stand in' for all the scientists in the world. I've already pointed you at enough stuff you apparently had *no clue about* before, haven't I?
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Sun May 15, 2005 8:16 pm

krabapple wrote:I've already pointed you at enough stuff you apparently had *no clue about* before, haven't I?

Yes you have. I have no trouble acknowledging that I have learned a lot during the course of this thread. And even though I disagree with someone like Dawkins (philosophically, as I don't have the knowledge to question his science) I'm less ignorant now in that I at least know who he is.

Although at times you lost your patience with me, you still had the courtesy to provide me with links that had interesting information. So I thank you for that.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Mon May 16, 2005 11:36 am

The Kansas school board hearings continue...from the AP.

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas. "I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon May 16, 2005 11:54 am

I wonder how many points will be taken off the future Kansas biology final exam for students who refuse to acknowledge God as the Creator.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 pm

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."


No shit, asshole.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon May 16, 2005 2:42 pm

Image
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Mon May 16, 2005 9:09 pm

The last panel in that Tom Tomorrow strip touches on what seems to be a common view on both sides (more so with the creationists, probably) that our children's minds are easily "poisoned" or "scarred" by what we perceive to be misconceptions.
As I've stated, I don't think we should teach intelligent design/creationism in public schools, but IMO we are generally underestimating the resilience and independence of our children. They're not modeling clay...they have minds of their own. FWIW, I was raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic grade school and high school. The result? I became an atheist in 8th grade and stayed that way all through high school. The more my parents and my teachers tried to push Catholicism (or theism in general) on me, the more disgusted I became.

Since I am neither a Catholic or an atheist today, those outlooks were not permanent...they were both simply a part of my ongoing, lifelong education and development. Actually, I think that trying to "shelter" our children is, in some cases, not only futile, but can result in the opposite of what we intended.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Mon May 16, 2005 10:02 pm

Exactly, Dob. Children aren't as impressionable as everyone seems to think. They bounce back and forth, often from extreme to extreme.

I'm generally fairly confused by the "children as a precious commodity that once corrupted can never be salvaged" concept, because everyone seems to believe that it applies to everyone but themselves. "I could tell in the 1950s that thinking for myself was a valuable path to follow, but ALL OTHER CHILDREN in ALL OTHER AGES will be CORRUPTED by the blah blah blah"
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911