It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
its just this simple: creationism is a dogma and evolution is a theory. it is against the law to teach dogmas, it is not against the law to teach theories. if you want dogma you go to church and if you want theories you go to school. im pretty sure eistein was smarter than anyone in this thread and he said "where would we be without the educated guess". even if the theory of evolution is wrong, it is an educated guess, and creationism isnt even an educated guess.

if you or other people want to believe in dogma's and theories, there is nothing stopping you. just dont do it in public schools.




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory


There you have the error in the judges decision in black and white. The statement posted on the stickers in no way denigrates evolution since the only thing that it says about it is the truth. To imply that by making such a statement the school board is endorsing some alternative theory displays the judges inablility to be impartial in his ruling since the subject matter of the ruling, the sticker, makes no implication in its verbage. The judge unfortunately allowed the political battle leading up to the placement of the sticker to color his reasoning as to the stickers validity and constitutionality. To censor a school board action based purely on the political debate leading up to the action rather than on the action itself is a travesty of justice and an abridgement of the school boards rights of free speech and I dare say free exercise of their religion.

Before you flame away at that last statement let me clarify. The school board members aparently had some religious motive for wanting to emphasise that Evolution is a theory. Some of their belief systems do not agree with the tenants of the theory so they wanted their children to be informed in the teaching of the theory that it is not a fully substantiated fact. Had they chosen to put a sticker on the book saying Jesus did not evolve from a monkey they would have crossed the establishment line of constitutional law. Instead however they did an excellent job of wording the statement so that it was simply a statement of fact. By so doing they exercised their right to free speech and stayed well on the side of the free exercise of religion clause in the constitution. In conclusion the judge by ruling that such a sticker is unconstitutional has not only abridged the right to free speech, but by making a ruling based on the religious motives of the school board members has trampled on their right to free exercise of their beliefs.

In plain language the judge has said that even though the statement posted to the textbooks had no religious implications in and of itself the mere fact that those who posted it had religious motives for doing so was enough to declare it unconstitutional. Hence I declare that the judges ruling is unconstitutional because he has grossly abridged the right of free exercise of religion and right of free speech. Personally I think he should be quickly removed from his office and back into practice as an attorney since he has shown a nack for partisanship.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
i think the best part about the whole argument is one word : truth. if you cant see that there were ulterior motives behind the sticker, you are running like hell from the truth, or not intelligent enough to understand it.



[edit on 17-1-2005 by jprophet420]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

It is false. Evolution is indeed a fact, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind and/or dumb. I've already explained why it is a fact
[edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]


You claim that evolution is a fact yet I have not seen you post any information that proves it to be so. As I posted in the thread I am more than willing to concede that Micro-evolution is a fact. However the macroevolution that the theory of evolution proposes has never been demonstrated to take place. We have not even been sucessful in making it happen by applying all the technological resources at our disposal. If we with all our knowledge of genetics cannot mutate one species into another through direct and carefully planned mutation of the genome, how can you say that it is a fact that such mutation from one species into another via random mutation / natural selection is how all species are on earth are formed?

I believe the theory of evolution needs to continue to be studied and perhaps at some point in the future we will discover a mechanism by which it can be shown to happen but until that mechanism is identified, experimentally tested and confirmed you cannot maintain your scientific integrity and still claim that evolution of species is a fact rather than a theory under examination.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
i think the best part about the whole argument is one word : truth. if you cant see that there were ulterior motives behind the sticker, you are running like hell from the truth, or not intelligent enough to understand it.
[edit on 17-1-2005 by jprophet420]


The ulterior motive behind the placement of the sticker should be legally irrelevant. To make them otherwise is to abridge a person's free exercise of religion by invalidating their actions based entirely upon their belief system. If you cannot see how wrong that is you do not understand the constitution and the protections it imparts.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
You claim that evolution is a fact yet I have not seen you post any information that proves it to be so.


Jesus frigging Christ! It's so obvious, I can't believe you can deny it. You must be in a complete state of bliss.


Wooly Mammoths are related to elephants, just as Neanderthals are related to Humans. It's beyond obvious. How anyone can deny it, I'll never understand. Sometimes, things really are as simple as they appear. Whether Humans are decendants of apes, I have no idea, but evolution, as a process, is blatant. Even if all Neanderthals died before humans evolved, it's still evolution. It's the next generation of improved beings, who just happen to be so much like the previous one, that it's impossible to deny the similarity. Even if there's no gene mutation at all, it's still evolution.


Maybe you should read the definition:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena


If we with all our knowledge of genetics cannot mutate one species into another through direct and carefully planned mutation of the genome, how can you say that it is a fact that such mutation from one species into another via random mutation / natural selection is how all species are on earth are formed?

Why would you assume it's something we should be able to do? We also can't create human life from nothing. Does that mean there is no human life?


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
Even if there's no gene mutation at all, it's still evolution.

No gene mutation=no evolution. You better go back and read the textbooks on the subject so you get an understanding of the theory you are propounding. If there is no genetic mutation you get no difference in the product since it is the genome that determines the form. If there were no genetic mutation you do not have a new species since it is the difference in the genome that defines a new species or in the case of the elephants you are referring to related subspecies.



Maybe you should read the definition:


Surely you are not suggesting that the dictionary definition of the word evolution encompasses the true meaning of Darwin's "Evolution of Species " theory. The thoery says a whole lot more than the definition of the word does and we are talking about the theory not the word defintion.



Why would you assume it's something we should be able to do? We also can't create human life from nothing. Does that mean there is no human life?


I personally make no such assumption, however until the process by which it takes place can be identified and verified in some reasonable fashion it remains a theory and not a fact in the same way that many Einstien's theories remain theories because we have been unable to test things like the increase in an objects mass as it approaches the speed of light. Only the unscientific would claim that the theory of relativity is a fact at this point though it is the widely accepted best guess as to the nature of the universe, just as evolution is a widely accepted best guess as to the origin of species.

Being the best guess should never be cause to preclude or repress honest exploration of other possibilites nor should it ever be reason to state the guess as scientific dogma.



[edit on 17-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Even evolution within a species or subspecies is evolution. Do you deny this? There is also nothing that says we should be able to see signs of gene mutation. There's nothing that says mutations can't be complete changes, leaving little or no evidence of it's origin. I think you're being rather closed minded. You have a problem with never finding a "fish-boy," so you throw all the existing evidence out the window. Natural selection is also evolution. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Evolution works in many ways:


  • Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
  • Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
  • Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
  • Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Even animals that appear very similar may differ markedly at the level of their genes. There's no reason to assume we should be able to see similarities in evolved genes at all, really.

Each person has slight differences in their physical make up — and therefore in their DNA. These subtle variations in DNA are called polymorphisms (literally "many forms"). Many of these gene polymorphisms account for slight differences between people such as hair and eye color. But some gene variations may result in disease or an increased risk for disease. Although all polymorphisms are the result of a mutation in the gene, geneticists only refer to a change as a mutation when it is not part of the normal variations between people. So, cancer or aids, while horrible diseases, could very well be a mechanism of evolution.

Please read up on the different types of DNA mutations. There are quite a few.

www.genetichealth.com...

Also, you're assuming that we should be able to see mutations. For all we know, evolution could be on a smaller scale we haven't even discovered yet. We didn't even know about DNA until 1953, right?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Personally, I accept Evolution as the most logical theory of how we all came to be.

However, I don't think the stickers are an endorsement of any kind. Evolution is a THEORY. It is simply a reiteration of this, as many are taught it as fact. I myself was taught it as if it were fact, until I took physics and really understood the difference between hypothesis, theory, law, etc. I'm the kind of guy who wants "under God" out of the pledge (as it wasn't part of it originally anyhow), and "In God We Trust" off our money, because I have no such trust in a God...(especially the Christian god). However, even I don't have a problem with the stickers being on the books....



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Also, you're assuming that we should be able to see mutations. For all we know, evolution could be on a smaller scale we haven't even discovered yet. We didn't even know about DNA until 1953, right?


Ah finally tacit, if not intentional admission of my point. The fact remains that though we have some observations that indicate evolution takes place within a species we have no direct evidence to indicate it takes place from one species to the other. Evolution's mechanism has yet to be well defined and therefore is still in the realm of theoretical rather than the realm of fact.


There's nothing that says mutations can't be complete changes, leaving little or no evidence of it's origin.


There is also nothing saying that they can be complete changes. It is the mechanism of the above changes that is undefined. Let me, at the risk of posting the same information twice, summerize the undefined mechanism.

In order for the theory of evolution to be true there must be a mechanism by which additional information is added to the genetic code of living beings. A single celled organism has DNA that is many magnitudes less complex than say a dog. There is no defined mechanism by which this additional code can be added to the DNA of a living being. All that science has been able to observe is a reshuffling of the existing DNA into new combinations. Unless a mechanism is defined whereby the genetic code can be augmented with vast amounts of new material The evolution of species from simpler organisms ie the theory of evolution will remain a theory since its primary mechanism remains undefined.

On a side note Damned you claim I am not open minded, yet I am not the one claiming as a fact something that is yet to be proven. I have on several occasions in this thread afirmed the existance of evolution within species, creating subspecies or closely related species. What I refuse to do, because I believe it to be an error in logic, is to affirm that a process that works within a species works to create new and more complex species. I have gone so far as to say that Evolution should continue to be studied to see if its mechanism can be defined even though I do not put much stock in the theory itself.

How are these things close minded?



[edit on 17-1-2005 by Johannmon]

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

Also, you're assuming that we should be able to see mutations. For all we know, evolution could be on a smaller scale we haven't even discovered yet. We didn't even know about DNA until 1953, right?


Ah finally tacit, if not intentional admission of my point. The fact remains that though we have some observations that indicate evolution takes place within a species we have no direct evidence to indicate it takes place from one species to the other. Evolution's mechanism has yet to be well defined and therefore is still in the realm of theoretical rather than the realm of fact.


There's nothing that says mutations can't be complete changes, leaving little or no evidence of it's origin.


There is also nothing saying that they can be complete changes. It is the mechanism of the above changes that is undefined. Let me, at the risk of posting the same information twice, summerize the undefined mechanism.

In order for the theory of evolution to be true there must be a mechanism by which additional information is added to the genetic code of living beings. A single celled organism has DNA that is many magnitudes less complex than say a dog. There is no defined mechanism by which this additional code can be added to the DNA of a living being. All that science has been able to observe is a reshuffling of the existing DNA into new combinations. Unless a mechanism is defined whereby the genetic code can be augmented with vast amounts of new material The evolution of species from simpler organisms ie the theory of evolution will remain a theory since its primary mechanism remains undefined.

On a side note Damned you claim I am not open minded, yet I am not the one claiming as a fact something that is yet to be proven. I have on several occasions in this thread afirmed the existance of evolution within species, creating subspecies or closely related species. What I refuse to do, because I believe it to be an error in logic, is to affirm that a process that works within a species works to create new and more complex species. I have gone so far as to say that Evolution should continue to be studied to see if its mechanism can be defined even though I do not put much stock in the theory itself.

How are these things close minded?


Why does there have to be a mechanism? And why would you assume that you should be able to observe something that takes hundreds of millions of years to even become visible? IMO, the mechanism is so many gradual, minute changes, that we'll never be able to see it. It may not even have anything to do with DNA or genes. It could be something yet unknown, but the evidence is clear. There is an obvious relationship. For example:

Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and macaques, vertebrates thought to be more closely related to humans, have fewer differences from humans in the 146-amino-acid hemoglobin b-chain than do more distantly related mammals, like dogs. Nonmammalian vertebrates differ even more, and nonvertebrate hemoglobins are the most different of all. Similar patterns are also evident when the DNA itself is compared. For example, chimps and humans, which are thought to have descended from a common ancestor that lived approximately 6 million years ago, exhibit few differences in their DNA.

As I already said, genetic mutation isn't even necessary for evolution. Even if every living thing on the planet died, and then, 3 million years later, something else, slightly different than any pre-existing life form appears, it's evolution. There are no set rules to this, yet. There is only evidence that it has indeed happened. Anything is possible. It's still the only logical theory, backed by factual evidence. I would not be surprised if certain assumptions about evolution change in the future, but there is no doubt that it is fact. Science is allowed to improve. New discoveries are allowed to replace old theories. We may not know exactly how it happened, but it's clear that it has, to most people anyway. Again, I think you have to be a fool not to see it. It's as plain as the sky, moon, and sun. We can't prove their mechanisms either, but there they are. The fact still remains that they are indeed there. No matter how wrong we may be about how they formed, they're still there.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I had drafted a response to the above post and even posted it but after reading it again I decided my argument was a little to personal to keep it on the board, and I have deleted it. Suffice it to say I laughed myself silly when I read the above and have not stopped giggling since at the irony of verbage used. At this point I will sign off this debate since I have clearly made the points I felt needed expressing and to continue the discussion would cause it to degenerate into non productive argumentation. Still to say "I don't know how it happened but I am sure it did" and then proclaim a theory as fact is just plain funny since a theory is supposed to be an explanation of how and why things are as we observe them to be.


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Johannmon]

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Forget it man. Go ahead and resort to personal insults. It's all you have left.
You know what I meant, if I worded it badly. Go pray now.


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
There you have the error in the judges decision in black and white. The statement posted on the stickers in no way denigrates evolution since the only thing that it says about it is the truth.

Incorrect. It ignores the factual side as to the occurance of evolution, and promotes a religious agenda by merely isolating evolution. A better thing to do would be to start off all science classes with instruction on what science is and what its methodology is. Heck, I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

You claim that evolution is a fact yet I have not seen you post any information that proves it to be so.

There are several other threads where that is being discussed. Not to mentioned that there are actual scientific researches that are problably the best place to learn about evolution.

I believe the theory of evolution needs to continue to be studied and perhaps at some point in the future we will discover a mechanism by which it can be shown to happen

Darwin's theory that evolution occurs thru a mechanism of natural selection seems to be working well enough. There is some disagreement as to how powerful and prevalent natural selection is, and while I'd like to see that sort of stuff in a school standard, well, the creationists seem more concerned with getting their ideas protected in science classrooms, rather than advancing science education.

but until that mechanism is identified, experimentally tested and confirmed you cannot maintain your scientific integrity and still claim that evolution of species is a fact rather than a theory under examination.

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. No theory is confirmed by experiments and thusly considered to be fact.


The ulterior motive behind the placement of the sticker should be legally irrelevant

I'm not entirely convinced that motive and especially context should be ignored, but the fact that the sticker soley concerns itself with evolution is enough to let anyone reasonably state that its an attempt to get creationism in the classroom. Indeed, thats how these devices are actually used.

No gene mutation=no evolution.

Incorrect. Mutation is the source of variation. Without variation then evolution will probably effectively cease tho.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon a theory is supposed to be an explanation of how and why things are as we observe them to be.
Excellent, you've just summarized how the science of biologic evolution came to be... a collection of observations over time, aggregated into a science that describes the reasons for what is observed. As is always the case, the anti-evolutionists misuse a fundamental nomenclature misunderstanding over what is a "scientific theory". There are several "theories" in physics which are hard facts, yet no one argues that kinetic theory is just a theory of thermodynamics (for example). Bacteria evolve and advance before our eyes... evolution happens.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Spacemunkey,
Expressing ridicule when things are obviously rediculous isnt a violation of ATS, personal attacks are. Plays on words can IMPLY whatever youd like to assume. I just call things like i see them. Dont say things that are rediculous and no one will be able to ridicule them.
However, you again help me make my point without realizing it...
I say,


Based upon some of the statements ive read on this thread, i can ASSUME alot about the mental capasity of the person posting the statement, but if i said what those inferances were or why i think they were made, (true or not)
AGAIN from reading just the text, your ASSUMING that what id say was negative....why couldnt i be thinking positive things about the things ive read? (assume it was genious?)

Thats my whole point about this lame brained judge...he's applying assumptions on both the texts inferances, as well as assuming that all readers of it would know the history of the sticker....
And your still going to support a judge that makes double assumptions to make a ruling off of?

I said,


IF this was a true statement, then why does their tolorance end by inclusion of a true statement which opens up ideas to other non stated posibillities??? Not so open minded and inclusive after all eh?
Yet somehow you magically assumed this was making ridicule too?
This was an EASY observation to make when you said people were being soo inclusive, yet i point out their discrimination without even trying hard.
So speaking the truth is to be supressed still eh? its no wonder you dont see why the judge was in error in this case, you repete all his assumptions about what is actually being said.

I am not, nor have i said that creationism is a hard science, mearly another hypothesis..(which would place it below evolution as a theory)
I am not saying nor have i that creationism should be taught in a science class more so than mentioning that it and any other hypothesis exist along with the study of evolution.
I am not saying that evolutionary theory isnt a valid, well documented theory on the origins of life.

By not saying that other hypothesis exist on this subject, you are applying informational censorship.

Damned says,


Evolution is indeed a fact, and it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind and/or dumb. I've already explained why it is a fact.
If it is a fact, then why is this called a thoery and not fact? DUH!!
You offered nothing to say that the statement was false...you did offer that evolutionary theory was a hard science and creationism a hypothesis, but that does not change the statement in questions truthfullness.

Damned tries to have it both ways here,


These religious people don't really have a problem with evolution. They have a problem with creationism not being taught in public schools. That's their big beef. They worked hard brainwashing their children, and they don't want any science teacher giving their kids the chance to think about an alternate (and much more logical) possibility.
So if they dont have a problem with teaching evolution, then how do they have a problem with the teacher teaching a more logical alternative? (evolution)
Wouldnt asking for ONE SENTANCE that says other hypothesis exist be both open minded and reasonable? (instead of the close mindedness you claim they have, and have exhibited in your own posts by advocating segregation of christians truthful speech thru censorship)

Your demonization of peoples religion by use of the term "brainwashing" shows obvious negative bias against them which obviously shows in that you are reading MORE into what the statement on the sticker says, than the text indicates.
BEFORE, you go ballistic and join spacemunkey in orbit, ive alread said, YES there is motive behind both sides of this issue, but again ask why you discount a truthful statement because of the senders motive...and how do you assume motive or messenger from the text in question?
truth is truth, youve said it yourself. Assumptions are Assumptions.

You question what in the textbooks the people found problematic, yet you just said they didnt have a problem with the subject, only the fact that it EXCLUDED a sentance that said other hypothesis exist.
What is your problem with making such a truthful statement for any reason? Again i feel it is because you dont like the messenger...
killing the messenger doenst change the message.

Im not here to get pulled into a sideline debate about the merits of either theory, or if religion is overreaching here or not...
Im here to say that the judge is incorrect, for his saying there is no other obvious idea stated (in a truthful statement), yet the statement endorces something not stated...how exactly does that work?
I find the judge's saying that everyone reading the statement would infer this or be able to determine in any way who the messenger was or their intent absolutly illogical.
You dont have a problem with judges using double assumptions to make rulings on? yes i see this as a black and white issue...the law isnt supposed to be in the grey area of ASSUMING things!!!


[edit on 18-1-2005 by CazMedia]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I just wanted to point out to the proponents of this ruling, that the sticker was only stating the fact that evolution as an explanation for the ORIGIN of life is a theory.


"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things..."


Even the judge conceeded that the sticker's statement was true:

"While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred...


but for some reason, he felt that the sticker, "...misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

I don't see where he got this from, however, since the sticker clearly states that evolution as an origin is a theory, and not that evolution as a whole is.

I think that if the school board were to appeal this case, they would likely win, since the judge who made this ruling did so based on assumptions rather than facts.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I just wanted to point out to the proponents of this ruling, that the sticker was only stating the fact that evolution as an explanation for the ORIGIN of life is a theory.


"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things..."


Even the judge conceeded that the sticker's statement was true:

"While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred...


hmmm. do they put that sticker on advanced math books that use imaginary numbers? do they put that sticker on books that teach the theory of relativity? do they put that sticker on stephen hawkings books? do they put that sticker on all textbooks that teach theories in general? no, they dont. the reason they dont is there is no religion motivated political rhetoric behind those things.

EVERYONE who DID NOT request that this sticker be put on all textbooks with theories in them prior to this case that wants them now is a merely JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON. that is a FACT and not a THEORY.

put that in your theory analyser and smoke it!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Cazmedia...

I never said that ridicule was a violation of ATS, I merely tried to point out that rather than ridicule other people's point of view, that you use firm constructive arguments thats all.



....Cazmedia
Expressing ridicule when things are obviously rediculous isnt a violation of ATS, personal attacks are. Plays on words can IMPLY whatever youd like to assume. I just call things like i see them. Dont say things that are rediculous and no one will be able to ridicule them.


....Based upon some of the statements ive read on this thread, i can ASSUME alot about the mental capasity of the person posting the statement, but if i said what those inferances were or why i think they were made, (true or not)




AGAIN from reading just the text, your ASSUMING that what id say was negative....why couldnt i be thinking positive things about the things ive read? (assume it was genious?)


Cazmedia, what you actually said is as follows ;



Based upon some of the statements ive read on this thread, i can ASSUME alot about the mental capasity of the person posting the statement, but if i said what those inferances were or why i think they were made, (true or not)

Id surley get a warn....

Im not assuming anything, its there to be seen by all. I base my arguments on fact not fiction

[edit on 18-1-2005 by spacemunkey]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Spacemunkey,
Now your catching on...word play is often used in legal proceedings.
like in this case.

I wondered in your post of pg 5 why you didnt put in my words
"ill get a warn" in your cut and paste...which i cut and pasted from your post to use as i wasnt going to supply this for you.
BUT
your right, in that adding those words makes ALL the difference, your correct THEN in your assumption that i meant my statement in a negative way.

But see how without those words one could only ASSUME that?

Its the exact same reasoning behind my argument that the judge in this case put 3 assumptions onto the stickers text...
1)assumes meaning where none is stated.
2)assumes the reader has any knowlege of the senders intent.
3)assumes that the intent of the speaker somehow negates a true statement.
Thats alot of assumptions to base any legal ruling upon.

Even knowing the cases backround for wanting the sticker,
knowing that a seeming predominance of local citizens demanded their local elected school board officials do this...
and knowing the why of their wants in this case,
HOW does this make the statement untrue and therfore unlawful?
HOW can you say the true message is somehow invalid because you dont aprove of the reason that someone spoke the truth?

Reguardless of your ideas on church/state mingling,
this was a bad ruling, which is very clouded by the "impartial" judges preconcieved notions on the behind the scenes issue, and not enough objectivity on the actual statement and its effects. (which he grossly overstates in a huge leap of assumption)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join