Romney v Clinton

[Damocles]

C'mon damo. You know the republican candidates are not talking about a "philosophy" class. I never even had a philosophy class in high school. I doubt more than 5% of american high school students take a philosophy class.


I just googled. Google is rife with examples of McCain saying he is comfortable with intelligent design being taught in public schools (though he personally accepts evolution). This is code word, for saying that the TheoCons can have their whacked out scientific views taught alongside other academic subjects, and put forth as an "alternative" view to evolution.

I have never seen a HS without a Philosophy class.

Seriously.

It is spin for "I wouldn't object to it being taught in philosophy class."

I'd readily admit that they are working to get that "special" vote, but know that they are not insane and when pressed they will constantly say "not necessarily in science" but... and so forth.

Therefore, you can attempt to make it mean that "not necessarily in science class" means that it would have equal billing as a Theory, but that too is spin.

They attempt to regulate their answers to gain more of their "base", I agree. But saying they support it being taught as science when, even in that debate, they constantly say "not necessarily as science" (code for, only in religion or philosophy classes) is also deliberate spin on your part.

 

[LadyT]

Well, I honestly don't think hillary is going to get the nomination. In my opinion she doesn't have the support of the left the media seems to think she does.
I'm pretty sure when the votes are counted she'll be shocked at what little support she receives. Not only that, I'm buying into the argument that it can't be good to have two families running the white house for 16 years straight.
That little plantation comment and the one about the 7-11 has rubbed me the wrong way for sometime now.

 

[LadyT]

I have never seen a HS without a Philosophy class.

Seriously.

It is spin for "I wouldn't object to it being taught in philosophy class."

I'd readily admit that they are working to get that "special" vote, but know that they are not insane and when pressed they will constantly say "not necessarily in science" but... and so forth.

Therefore, you can attempt to make it mean that "not necessarily in science class" means that it would have equal billing as a Theory, but that too is spin.

They attempt to regulate their answers to gain more of their "base", I agree. But saying they support it being taught as science when, even in that debate, they constantly say "not necessarily as science" (code for, only in religion or philosophy classes) is also deliberate spin on your part.

I don't think we had one.

 

[Cypress]

Damo, when GOPers are asked about creation science being taught in public schools, they invariably say that students should be exposed to "all views".

There is only one intellectually valid view of human evolution. That would be natural selection. There is NO other alternative.


Of course moderate republicans don't want to look crazy. So, they'll send spin meisters on TV to say that their candidates fully accept evolution.

But, the fact that they're comfortable with the teaching of creation science, is simply code for getting it back into the schools. Taking us back to the days before the scopes Monkey trials. The theocons have been pissed for decades that Darwinism is the only valid theory for evolution.


The correct answer for an honest GOPer to say, is that intelligent design does not belong in public schools. Even a Bush appointed judge in Pennsylvania ruled that in the Dover case.

 

[uscitizen]

We did not ahve a philosophy class either, but it would have been mostly wasted on the redneck hillbillys anyway.
But then perhaps that is why they voted for Bush...
Yep we need a philosophy class in HS.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think we had one.

We had several, and I certainly wasn't going to the "richest" of High Schools.

I personally took "Religion as Philosophy" in 10th grade, as well as other philosphy classes in HS.

I know it is offered in Denver Public Schools as well, it is also one of the classes being taken by my neighbor's daughter...

I guess Colorado is just enlightened with myriad philosophy classes available.

 

[Cancel7]

I have never seen a HS without a Philosophy class.

Seriously.

It is spin for "I wouldn't object to it being taught in philosophy class."

I'd readily admit that they are working to get that "special" vote, but know that they are not insane and when pressed they will constantly say "not necessarily in science" but... and so forth.

Therefore, you can attempt to make it mean that "not necessarily in science class" means that it would have equal billing as a Theory, but that too is spin.

They attempt to regulate their answers to gain more of their "base", I agree. But saying they support it being taught as science when, even in that debate, they constantly say "not necessarily as science" (code for, only in religion or philosophy classes) is also deliberate spin on your part.

Uh Damo, I do not remember any philosophy class in my high school, and I went to a public school on Long Island. Those are some public schools not to be scoffed at. This is not some shit high school we are talking about.

That's college level stuff you are talking about. Unless things have really changed.

And I'm not sure what "not necessarily as science" means? If you were out with a woman, and having a few drinks and she said "i'm not necessarily going to have sex with you tonight" would you think you were definitely not getting any sex that night?

Because I don't read it that way.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, when GOPers are asked about creation science being taught in public schools, they invariably say that students should be exposed to "all views".

There is only one intellectually valid view of human evolution. That would be natural selection. There is NO other alternative.


Of course moderate republicans don't want to look crazy. So, they'll send spin meisters on TV to say that their candidates fully accept evolution.

But, the fact that they're comfortable with the teaching of creation science, is simply code for getting it back into the schools. Taking us back to the days before the scopes Monkey trials. The theocons have been pissed for decades that Darwinism is the only valid theory for evolution.


The correct answer for an honest GOPer to say, is that intelligent design does not belong in public schools. Even a Bush appointed judge in Pennsylvania ruled that in the Dover case.

Once again, when they say, "Not necessarily in science..." it is code for philosophy classes. You can attempt to "spin their spin" to better support your generalizations, but you have to admit that "not necessarily in science", as they repeatedly declared during that debate, means pretty much the only place left is philosophy or religion classes.

 

[Cancel7]

We had several, and I certainly wasn't going to the "richest" of High Schools.

I personally took "Religion as Philosophy" in 10th grade, as well as other philosphy classes in HS.

I know it is offered in Denver Public Schools as well, it is also one of the classes being taken by my neighbor's daughter...

I guess Colorado is just enlightened with myriad philosophy classes available.

Well, I certainly believe you, but you can believe me when I say, we didn't have it, to my knowledge, and I was in the honors level classes, so I think I would have known about it.

 

[Cypress]

I don't think we had one.

I don't think we had a Philosophy class in HS. And if we did, I don't recall any of my friends or peers taking it.

 

[Damocles]

Uh Damo, I do not remember any philosophy class in my high school, and I went to a public school on Long Island. Those are some public schools not to be scoffed at. This is not some shit high school we are talking about.

That's college level stuff you are talking about. Unless things have really changed.

And I'm not sure what "not necessarily as science" means? If you were out with a woman, and having a few drinks and she said "i'm not necessarily going to have sex with you tonight" would you think you were definitely not getting any sex that night?

Because I don't read it that way.

As I said, I do not believe that we, in a poor area of Metro Denver, had them, and I took them, but there is a dearth across the nation otherwise.. "Bible as Literature", "Religion in Philosophy" were two that I took. Mr. Defroe taught them both.

 

[Cypress]

Once again, when they say, "Not necessarily in science..." it is code for philosophy classes. You can attempt to "spin their spin" to better support your generalizations, but you have to admit that "not necessarily in science", as they repeatedly declared during that debate, means pretty much the only place left is philosophy or religion classes.

Damo, nobody on this board except you remembers a Philosophy class in high school.

Obviously, the GOP simply wants to get creationism back into the public schools. As some sort of a competing theory with evolution.

Using the "only in philosophy class!" excuse, is simply a way for moderate republicans to not look crazy to the rest of the nation.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, nobody on this board except you remembers a Philosophy class in high school.

Obviously, the GOP simply wants to get creationism back into the public schools. As some sort of a competing theory with evolution.

Using the "only in philosophy class!" excuse, is simply a way for moderate republicans to not look crazy to the rest of the nation.

And I think you all are conveniently forgetting to "support" your theory that they are theocrats. If they aren't taught in science where will they be taught? Your theory, "Woodshop" mine, "philosophy"...

 

[Cypress]

Uh Damo, I do not remember any philosophy class in my high school, and I went to a public school on Long Island. Those are some public schools not to be scoffed at. This is not some shit high school we are talking about.

That's college level stuff you are talking about. Unless things have really changed.

And I'm not sure what "not necessarily as science" means? If you were out with a woman, and having a few drinks and she said "i'm not necessarily going to have sex with you tonight" would you think you were definitely not getting any sex that night?

Because I don't read it that way.

"
And I'm not sure what "not necessarily as science" means?"

First, I rarely see a GOP candidate specifically state that creationism, is strictly invalid as a scientific theory.

Obviously, their goal is to get the teaching of creationism back into public schools. Go to any TheoCon or evangelical website. They say it.

The "not neccessarily as science", is an excuse proffered by GOP pundits, so that their candidates don't look crazy to the rest of the nation.

 

[uscitizen]

As I said, I do not believe that we, in a poor area of Metro Denver, had them, and I took them, but there is a dearth across the nation otherwise.. "Bible as Literature", "Religion in Philosophy" were two that I took. Mr. Defroe taught them both.

Heck I was raised in the "bible Belt" and my schools had no philosophy or religion classes in them.

 

[Cypress]

And I think you all are conveniently forgetting to "support" your theory that they are theocrats. If they aren't taught in science where will they be taught? Your theory, "Woodshop" mine, "philosophy"...

I can't ever recall a republican specifically state that it should be taught in "philosophy" class. A class that almost no high schools offer, as evidenced by the members of this board. It's possible that somewhere, at sometime, a GOPer said that.

But, 99.9999% of the time a GOPer will make the open-ended, non-qualified statement, that they are cool with creationism being taught in public schools. That is clearly calcuated to appeal to theocons, who have spent decades steaming with anger about Darwinism in public schools.

 

[Damocles]

I can't ever recall a republican specifically state that it should be taught in "philosophy" class. A class that almost no high schools offer, as evidenced by the members of this board. It's possible that somewhere, at sometime, a GOPer said that.

But, 99.9999% of the time a GOPer will make the open-ended, non-qualified statement, that they are cool with creationism being taught in public schools. That is clearly calcuated to appeal to theocons, who have spent decades steaming with anger about Darwinism in public schools.

I already said that they are working to get that "special" audience. So you are reiterating what I have stated.

It's always amazing how they can "hear" the code in "Strict Constitutionalist" but can't in "not necessarily in science", but only if they are lefties.

Seriously, attempting to say that they mean "Yes, we'll teach it as a scientific theory...." When what they said was "Not necessarily as science..." because they are working to appeal to one special group and give reassurance to another at the same time.

 

[uscitizen]

But sounds like more than 3 of them are going for it Damo.

 

[Damocles]

And Social Studies courses like, "Human Geography" meld philosophy and science in a fantastic display of ingenuity.

Does anybody remember that teacher that was on the news for a while that taught this in a CO HS that was "in trouble" for spouting anti-Bush stuff?

I am 100% sure that CO is not the only state that has philosophy and human sciences classes as part of their curricula.

 

[Damocles]

But sounds like more than 3 of them are going for it Damo.

There are exactly 3 that reject evolution in its entirety. There are two more that say that they think it should be taught, "but not necessarily in science class", the others hemmed and hawed and tried not to alienate the religious nuts.