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.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (3211)	12/22/2016 6:09:54 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361175

>>>They want that to be a State level choice, and then the Red states can water down science standards as they desire. Unfortunately, no matter how many people vote for it, creationism is not science, and evolution is not wrong. <<< I like local school board control. School Boards generally want to compete with other districts for raising standards not lowering them. I can't imagine many wanting to do otherwise. I have never heard one single Republican suggest watering down science standards. Many like the idea of Charter schools where science standards can be watered up. I don't know any conservatives who deny adaptation or survival of the fittest. If they poo poo the theoretical part how much skin is that off your nose, especially if it is taking place in a remote small town. If someone wants to teach what they perceive to be the merits of creationism, like they do in religious schools, how does that cause harm?

To: neolib who wrote (3211)	12/22/2016 6:33:18 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By one_less TimF Respond to of 361175

But its a mistake to think that every moron's views are equally valid. That is a problem Libertarians suffer from. I agree that that would be a mistake. But I think you mistake the libertarian view. That the moron is free to be a moron is not the same as his view being considered equally valid. Not even close. When people have freedom, they may use that freedom in a way we don't approve but we stick up for their freedom, and ours, by tolerating what they do with it. They get to be gay or atheist or Christian or progressive or moronic as long as they are non-aggressive about it. Folks from both the left and the right often cite liberty when what they mean is the liberty to do whatever the controlling tribe approves, not what the individual wants. That ain't liberty. And tolerance ain't approval. They want that to be a State level choice, and then the Red states can water down science standards as they desire. Unfortunately, no matter how many people vote for it, creationism is not science, and evolution is not wrong. And liberty is not always pretty. Just as free speech is not always pretty but the principle matters. There are two ways to go with that and everything else in the culture wars. You can fight for the power to control them even as they fight for the power to control you. Tit for tat. On and on. Or you can stand on principle and use only non-aggressive means (unless what is happening is unconstitutional) to disabuse them of their error and protect the victims. Every problem is not a nail. The Conservatives have been dying to abolish the roll of the Feds in setting education standards. One way to mitigate that type of problem is to have a light hand on any imposed requirements. Do we really need this or that regulation? Much of the reason for the push-back is the accumulation of irritating requirements triggered by over-reach and perceived disrespect. Sometimes less is more. The next four years will give you plenty of examples No doubt.