Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Some of my more conservative teachers and colleagues have testified to Eagleton's ability to almost turn them to the dark side. His sensitivity and concern for people is apparently just extremely compelling. I'll probably pick this up. Thanks a lot.

I can see that. I promise you won't get Marxist-cooties from this one, though--it's just a great book.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I can see that. I promise you won't get Marxist-cooties from this one, though--it's just a great book.

Have you read any Slavoj Zizek? He's a good time, Marxist or no.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy, taught well, is far more exciting than the drivel that students are forced to sit through nowadays.

Sure, but to improve our SS curriculum, start by bringing the focus back to Canada. Not just our history, but economics, political science and geography of our country.

I agree some of the material kids are learning is really pathetic (IMO: fair trade, UN, obsessive focus on Africa), but discussing the views of a bunch of arrogant talking heads from the 18th century would not improve the curriculum.

I think, ideally, our SS curriculum needs to be nationally focused and relevant to life in Canada in the 21st Century.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by bcb

Sure, but to improve our SS curriculum, start by bringing the focus back to Canada. Not just our history, but economics, political science and geography of our country.

I agree some of the material kids are learning is really pathetic (IMO: fair trade, UN, obsessive focus on Africa), but discussing the views of a bunch of arrogant talking heads from the 18th century would not improve the curriculum.

I think, ideally, our SS curriculum needs to be nationally focused and relevant to life in Canada in the 21st Century.

You seriously can't be serious. Yes I just said that.

Philosophy questions the very fabric of everything, and you want the focus to be on a boring, docile, economy driven country less than 200 years old?

[themedicineman]

I don't get why the atheists in this thread are bashing the belief systems of people. Why can't people believe in what they want to?

I'm an atheist but I don't go out of my way to bash and try to tear apart a persons beliefs and ideals because I chose to believe in something different than they did. However, if we're talking about organized religion then that's something that I'm firmly against but we have to be careful about clumping in belief systems in with organized religion as the two are 2 completely separate things.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by themedicineman

...and try to tear apart a persons beliefs and ideals because I chose to believe in something different than they did.

I have no problem with that if their beliefs and ideals include:
- Homosexuals are deviants
- Women are not equal to men
- Abortion doctors and those that use contraception are evil

As I pointed out in several other threads that meandered into religion, when we had that poll about gay marriage, those that voted AGAINST it were primarily religious people.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have you read any Slavoj Zizek? He's a good time, Marxist or no.

My very good friend loves Zizek. Every discussion we've had lately has gone back to Zizek. I really like the way he confronts the ideology of every topic.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I have no problem with that if their beliefs and ideals include:

- Homosexuals are sinning. They've left the natural use of the opposite sex and become inflamed with lust for one another. God calls this "vile affections".

- Women are different then men

- Abortion doctors do evil in that they kill unborn infants.

As I pointed out in several other threads that meandered into religion, when we had that poll about gay marriage, those that voted AGAINST it were primarily religious people.

There I fixed your post. Try to be a little more honest when describing Christian fundamental positions.

[Weiser Wonder]

So, Calgaryborn, are you saying that you could take part and enjoy homosexual passions? Have you formed the discipline through god to overcome this?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have you read any Slavoj Zizek? He's a good time, Marxist or no.

I haven't read a whole lot of him, though his "Parallax View" wound up in the endnotes of my dissertation somewhere. Mind you, I'd call him a Lacanian rather than a Marxist, but my feeling is that nobody really knows what Slavoj Zizek is; perhaps including Slavoj Zizek.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There I fixed your post. Try to be a little more honest when describing Christian fundamental positions.

If only you knew how similar you and Richard Dawkins really are.

[themedicineman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I have no problem with that if their beliefs and ideals include:
- Homosexuals are deviants
- Women are not equal to men
- Abortion doctors and those that use contraception are evil

As I pointed out in several other threads that meandered into religion, when we had that poll about gay marriage, those that voted AGAINST it were primarily religious people.

Even from a scientific stand-point homosexuality is wrong, I don't disagree with it as people should be able to do as they wish but the argument can still be made that it serves no purpose. I agree women and men are equal, however, even the most devoted catholic is now coming around to understand it except for a few and that few people voice their opinion so loud that it seems like it's the opinion of most. And on abortion, since when is it alright to do violence against an infant? I know it's only a fetus at the time, however, it's still living at that point and it's unfair to take the life of what could be a very outstanding person. If you don't want to get pregnant their are a plethora of ways to make sure that it doesn't happen.

[Devils'Advocate]

Even from a scientific stand-point homosexuality is wrong?

Sometimes I just want to cry.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy, taught well, is far more exciting than the drivel that students are forced to sit through nowadays.

Honestly though Peter, even though I was taught this when I was 16/17, there was absolutely no way that I was ready to actually comprehend those ideas at that age.

Complete waste of time for me until University. This is coming from someone who is fairly passionate about history too.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Honestly though Peter, even though I was taught this when I was 16/17, there was absolutely no way that I was ready to actually comprehend those ideas at that age.

Complete waste of time for me until University. This is coming from someone who is fairly passionate about history too.

Well, you wouldn't start off with an exegesis of Aristotle's Politics, but you could bring out some of the more exciting ideas contained there-in, like the great-souled man.

Or you could talk about Locke's civil government. From a beginner's standpoint, these are pretty interesting ideas that could easily draw anyone in.

Heck, even throw in some Nietzsche, if you wanted.

[Azure]

Or you could not make the course mandatory, and just give students the option of taking it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or you could not make the course mandatory, and just give students the option of taking it.

I'm going to throw my hand in with Locke and Jefferson and believe that all people in a democracy have some element in their soul that can only be satiated with the love of reason. Even if most students don't make it their vocation, all could benefit.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by themedicineman

Even from a scientific stand-point homosexuality is wrong, I don't disagree with it as people should be able to do as they wish but the argument can still be made that it serves no purpose.

Science doesn't make an opinion on homosexuality, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the scientific method.

So homosexuality serves no purpose, well if its procreation you speak of yes it cannot hope to do that; however if we use this logic further into real world issues then married hetero couples who cannot or choose not to procreate have no purpose either do they?

I agree women and men are equal, however, even the most devoted catholic is now coming around to understand it except for a few and that few people voice their opinion so loud that it seems like it's the opinion of most.

Well womens rights are usually the worst off in poorer less educated nations, and of course often also in very religious nations like many muslim nations. I'd say womens rights in a secular democratic nation are usually where they should be, equal, but its again the forces of religious groups or sects of them that push womens rights or hold them back. Need only look at mormons or some of the more traditional christian groups in the US and Canada.

And on abortion, since when is it alright to do violence against an infant? I know it's only a fetus at the time, however, it's still living at that point and it's unfair to take the life of what could be a very outstanding person. If you don't want to get pregnant their are a plethora of ways to make sure that it doesn't happen.

Without modern medicine infant disease, death and disfigurement is shockingly high. You may ask why I bring that up, well modern medicine allows a very high % of healthy babies to be born, against the natural grain of human birth before modern medicine. So its unnatural what we are doing, however its a benefit.

So going further with this, abortions which no one likes; even pro lifers... is still important as we should have rights for women to decide, and that is of course under strict laws of when you can have them and under what circumstances.

We all want zero abortions, but for me its about health, safety and the right of the mother to choose up until a time in which an abortion becomes no longer the ending of a pregnancy but a death of a infant.

[peter12]

It's funny that people say science has no moral stance on anything and act like its some neutral entity. Up until a few years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness!

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thor

So homosexuality serves no purpose, well if its procreation you speak of yes it cannot hope to do that; however if we use this logic further into real world issues then married hetero couples who cannot or choose not to procreate have no purpose either do they?

Or priests that abstain from having sex for that matter..... Scientifically they are evil. Apparently.

Need only look at mormons or some of the more traditional christian groups in the US and Canada.

I was thinking of the Mormon's. I like to challenge them when they show up at the doorstep. I was told that women should be subservient to men the way that man is subservient to God. And that they are allowed to disagree with the man, but just should not voice that disagreement.