Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Cosmic Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (585)	12/11/2001 10:24:11 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 667

You know- I wouldn't want to argue that their opinion wasn't equally valid, since nudity can be very healthy and clothing, especially tight clothing, can be responsible for health problems.. But I would argue that in a pluralistic society we have to meet in the center in our public systems so as not to alienate others. So the naked class attendance while perhaps VERY healthy, is not going to work because on balance it disrupts too many people. So far from calling that stupid, I would say it might even be a very intelligent opinion, and yet it still isn't workable in society.

To: Lane3 who wrote (585)	12/11/2001 4:36:10 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 667

Schools are in the business of teaching. Something that is disruptive (i.e., a prayer ritual that required a shout of "hallelujah!" every 20 seconds all day long) is not a reasonable practice of the 1st amendment IMO. Going to school naked has a similar pragmatic justification for prohibition. My point is that if you base our decisions of what is stupid and what isn't USING a historical precedent, there is ample evidence that MANY opinions we consider true or false at one time become reversed at a later date. I think it is much easier to make the case from a pragmatic POV (based upon demonstrated efficacy) than to determine whether it "right" or "wrong". Evolution could be right or wrong, but since we are teaching science and not metaphysics, the current state of science says unequivocally that evolution is more or less supported by the data. Other theories don't have that level of cohesion with all the data WITHOUT involving metaphysical and non-scientific criteria. So, while a parent may hold the opinion that evolution is wrong, there is no constitutional right to be taught a particular metaphysical viewpoint. Creation, by my definition, is a metaphysical viewpoint not subject to scientific scrutiny. Evolution is not a metaphysical viewpoint because it IS subject to scientific scrutiny. But even evolution is not testable in any absolute sense (there can always be data points that don't line up for a variety of reasons in the rock record) and there may be a discovery of Golliath just waiting to be discovered fully labeled in an indisputable way as to PROVE Creationism. It should be noted, though, that the first discovery of large fossils was thought to be just that!