Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 12:22 PM

(04-27-2012 11:34 AM)UCF08 Wrote: You don't take Biology in 11th grade, you take it freshman year,

Depends on the school system but that's not the main point we are debating about so of course you're gong to spend time on it.. Ill reply in kind.

Quote:and you certainly don't learn about nerve cells in that course.

Wow you don't learn about nerve cells in HS biology? where id the world is that ok.. Hell it's not like teaching protein configurations... "This is a neuron, these are it's parts"... Pretty HS level stuff.

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=hJnaU4I...ll&f=false

Quote:Religion is not philosophy nowhere close to it.

LOL the man who cant tell others that their religious beliefs are or are not right can tell them if they are/are not also philosophical... That's rich!

Quote:Not sure how you're being intellectually honest here comparing the two,

Well lets start with this... Many Atheist consider Jesus a wise teacher. Jews don't consider him God yet consider him a wise teacher. Buddhist who don't consider him anything mystical say he had good philosophies. Even Ghandi said he liked what Jesus taught.

That you seem to think you get to bottle what is and is not philosophy is the height of Hubris!

Quote:but it's a false premise and one that you need to stop falling back onto.

Ill admit I did not learn this in HS, it was college, but the branches of Philosphy are Epistemology, Logical, *Metaphysical*, Aesthetics, and *MORAL*

Talk to any Philosophy professor worth their salt and they will tell you Augustine of Hippo, Roger Bacon, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, and many others who rooted their philosophies in their faith are worthy of study and were, in fact, philosophers.

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 12:25 PM

BTW don't think you get to weasel out of answering this one...

Quote:And even then I have to ask can you logically argue against Social Darwinism and Eugenics? No the objections to those are rooted in moral and philosophical beliefs..

I notice it's the only part of my post you ignored... You would rather address what you did/did not learn in hs (speaking on not getting tongue in cheek humor) than the very serious consequences of trying to drive debates on the governance of people in a strictly logical direction.

I45owl · 04-27-2012 12:44 PM

(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 12:46 PM

Quote:Wow you don't learn about nerve cells in HS biology? where id the world is that ok.. Hell it's not like teaching protein configurations... "This is a neuron, these are it's parts"... Pretty HS level stuff.

Everywhere. You don't even learn in depth about nerve cells in college level Bio I and Bio II, you learn about it in physiology or anatomy. Believe me, I went to a great high school, one of the top in the nation for math and science, and it's not in the curriculum for Biology class.

You're just confusing the two classes, which is understandable.

Quote:LOL the man who cant tell others that their religious beliefs are or are not right can tell them if they are/are not also philosophical... That's rich!

Well lets start with this... Many Atheist consider Jesus a wise teacher. Jews don't consider him God yet consider him a wise teacher. Buddhist who don't consider him anything mystical say he had good philosophies. Even Ghandi said he liked what Jesus taught.

That you seem to think you get to bottle what is and is not philosophy is the height of Hubris!

If the beliefs require a faith in a higher power of unknown strength and magnitude, then they're religious. For instance, one does not have to believe that Jesus is the literal son of god to agree that many of his teachings are valid, just as one can do the same with many other religious figures.

I can agree the lines can become a little muddled between the two, but they aren't in this case (the gentleman is reading directly from the bible and claiming 'god' wishes XXXXXX) so stop trying to insert controversy into a transparent situation.

(04-27-2012 12:25 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: BTW don't think you get to weasel out of answering this one...

Quote:And even then I have to ask can you logically argue against Social Darwinism and Eugenics? No the objections to those are rooted in moral and philosophical beliefs..

I notice it's the only part of my post you ignored... You would rather address what you did/did not learn in hs (speaking on not getting tongue in cheek humor) than the very serious consequences of trying to drive debates on the governance of people in a strictly logical direction.

I really didn't even see that, but it's funny you think I ignored if because it's impossible to defend against it. Looking past the fact that those topics really aren't based on legitimate science, far healthier as a society to promote massive mixing of genetic material and not limit it, so what? That doesn't prove or disprove anything, just like any idiot pointing at the plethora of negative actions religion has taken throughout the years does not directly address current issues. I'm not saying "HEY! WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!?!" in this thread as a legitimate argument, because it's not, just like yours is not.

Quote:Ill admit I did not learn this in HS, it was college, but the branches of Philosphy are Epistemology, Logical, *Metaphysical*, Aesthetics, and *MORAL*

Talk to any Philosophy professor worth their salt and they will tell you Augustine of Hippo, Roger Bacon, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, and many others who rooted their philosophies in their faith are worthy of study and were, in fact, philosophers.

Again, what's your point? That the two can become confusing? Sure, but that's not the case in this situation.

Also, not sure why you're still arguing this as I've said no less than 5 times now that I wasn't being serious in my original post.

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 12:46 PM

(04-27-2012 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

I45owl · 04-27-2012 12:48 PM

(04-27-2012 11:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote: I was being facetious about the making it illegal, I just abhor it when it's used as evidence. It automatically makes me assume the person using it has no valid reasons and instead is going to rely on religion to gain the support they need.

... And, this is perhaps the best possible argument for allowing politicians to read from scripture in the legislature.

aTxTIGER · 04-27-2012 12:56 PM

(04-27-2012 12:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

yup

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 12:58 PM

(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 12:58 PM

Quote:Everywhere. You don't even learn in depth about nerve cells in college level Bio I and Bio II, you learn about it in physiology or anatomy.

I shutter to think you're representing UCF when you say that...

Quote:Believe me, I went to a great high school, one of the top in the nation for math and science, and it's not in the curriculum for Biology class.

It's in the NYS regents curriculum (or at least was as of 1993) for *every high school in the state*

Quote:You're just confusing the two classes, which is understandable.

My HS did not offer anatomy, so no... I'm really not..

Quote:If the beliefs require a faith in a higher power of unknown strength and magnitude, then they're religious.

Still waiting for a point here... Religious does not exclude Philosophical, your protestations do not change that..

Quote:I can agree the lines can become a little muddled between the two

They overlap, again your protestations do not change that. You cant ignore the fact that moral and metaphysical are two long accepted branches in the field of philosophy..

Well you can ignore it, but that does not change it...

Quote:I really didn't even see that

Yet managed to cut it, and only it out.... hmmmm

Quote:Looking past the fact that those topics really aren't based on legitimate science

Wow so now selective breeding and genetics are not part of science? wow you just keep digging yourself a deeper pit of ignorance to hang out in.

Quote:far healthier as a society to promote massive mixing of genetic material and not limit it, so what?

Mixing of genetic material does not mean mixing of *broken* material (like hanging X syndrome for example)... A woman with Hanging X typically has *no* outward signs of the condition but if she has a son he has a 50% chance of being learning and behaviorally disabled.

Quote:That doesn't prove or disprove anything, just like any idiot pointing at the plethora of negative actions religion has taken throughout the years does not directly address current issues.

Well Margaret Sanger is a whole heck of a lot more recent than the crusades, hell the whole Eugenics movement hit full stride not even 100 years ago and was based in a lack of god and a morality that only what biologically, and logically good for societies should be allowed.

Quote:Again, what's your point?

Umm that faith and philosophy are not mutually exclusive?

aTxTIGER · 04-27-2012 01:05 PM

(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 10:30 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote: The government shouldnt be in the marriage business at all.

I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

I45owl · 04-27-2012 01:14 PM

(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:44 PM)I45owl Wrote: I think the government does have a compelling reason to recognize marriages or unions or whatever you wish to call them. Among the reasons are inheritance, divorce (alimony/child support), child custody, decisions with regards to life support or competency of a spouse. All of those issues are more complicated if the government doesn't have any conception of a marriage contract or something like it.

I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 01:20 PM

(04-27-2012 01:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: I err on the side of "something like it"... Marriage, to me, is a sacred institution why involve the government at all.

yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

I could be mistaken but thats pretty much whay aTx was saying...

I would have both a marriage and a govt civil union..

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 01:21 PM

Quote:I shutter to think you're representing UCF when you say that...

I've discussed my classes with my pals who went to Stanford/Wake Forest/Virgina Tech/UF among others, and I've never seen any significant difference in their classes scope and ours. There might be a slight difference in what they focus on or specific areas of interest, but across the board they're about the same.

Again, I think it's far more likely you're remembering the courses incorrectly, how long ago did you take them?

Quote:It's in the NYS regents curriculum (or at least was as of 1993) for *every high school in the state*

Cool, I can't speak for the state of New York, I can only speak to the state of florida. But, per the New York State curriculum guide for the closest class to Biology I could find, the only mention of nerves I could find was this -

Quote:1.2j Receptor molecules play an important role in the interactions between cells. Two
primary agents of cellular communication are hormones and chemicals produced by
nerve cells. If nerve or hormone signals are blocked, cellular communication is
disrupted and the organismÕs stability is affected.

So like I said, the specific cell anatomy is not taught in general biology in my experiences. And mine are far more recent than yours I'm willing to bet (currently back in school taking nothing but bio/chem science courses).

As for the rest of it, I'm not going to argue a point with you that I just don't care enough to. I really couldn't care less about your views on the subject, nothing you wrote has even put a dent in my views, and honestly I knew when I made that first post that someone was going to attempt this pointless argument, which is why I've stated over 6 times now that my first comment was a joke. There is a difference between philosophy and religion, and just because they *CAN* intersect at points, doesn't mean they always *MUST* intersect, and there is a drastic difference between the two due to this fact. It's a pretty easy concept really, not sure why you're having such a problem with it.

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 01:25 PM

(04-27-2012 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:
(04-27-2012 01:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:
(04-27-2012 01:05 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(04-27-2012 12:56 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote: yup

I think most rational people would agree with this. Unfortunately, there are extremists on either side who would disagree with this (the *ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE* to the right, and the *WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS* on the left who'd see a change like this as not truly accepting them fully). It's quite saddening really.

Religious institutions should be able to marry(or not marry) whoever they want, while the government should allow it's citizens to have contractual unions with whoever they want.

That's all well and fine, but that's more of a semantics issue than it is a rights or government intrusion issue. I'm fine with dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition and welcoming the new era of common-law civil unions...

I could be mistaken but thats pretty much whay aTx was saying...

I would have both a marriage and a govt civil union..

This is how I took it as well. You can get married in a church of your choosing, which has a right to choose to honor your marriage or not. Either way under the law, they're the same. The religious aspect of your marriage is between you and your church/god/spaghetti monster/sci-fi writer/whatever, but the tax/legal implications are between you and the government.

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 01:34 PM

(04-27-2012 01:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote: Again, I think it's far more likely you're remembering the courses incorrectly, how long ago did you take them?

Here let me say it a bit more clearly.... The only Biology I have ever taken was a regents course in the 11th grade... I've never taken anatomy of *any* kind at any level!

Quote:Cool, I can't speak for the state of New York, I can only speak to the state of florida. But, per the New York State curriculum guide for the closest class to Biology I could find, the only mention of nerves I could find was this

Oh good to know that these schools never are expected to teach in more detail than an overview document teaches... I already posted a link to you of a general HS biology study guide..

Quote:As for the rest of it, I'm not going to argue a point with you that I just don't care enough to.

Well that and the fact you've been shown to be woefully ignorant on basic philosophy and genetics...

Quote:which is why I've stated over 6 times now that my first comment was a joke.

Yea, I've caught you constantly trying to run your ignorance and bigotry under the cover of "I was only kidding". That practice is actually more insulting than the bigotry itself. It's called kidding on the square and gets old real fast.

Quote:There is a difference between philosophy and religion

Damn what philosophy text books, professors, history, and practice say. It must feel nice to take religion and put it in it's own bottle, that way you can dismiss it out of hand in a debate and say people shouldn't even talk about it... don't forget to follow up with "I'm just joking"

Quote:and just because they *CAN* intersect at points, doesn't mean they always *MUST* intersect

Umm where did I say the must intersect at all points... I said they overlap, not that they are the same. You, otoh, have pushed that they are exclusive of one an other.

Quote:It's a pretty easy concept really, not sure why you're having such a problem with it.

Flat earth is an easy concept to... The simplicity of a concept has little to do with the correctness of a concept.

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 01:42 PM

Quote:Here let me say it a bit more clearly.... The only Biology I have ever taken was a regents course in the 11th grade... I've never taken anatomy of *any* kind at any level!

What's a regents course? Never heard of that classification. Is it like an AP course?

And I do think it's funny that you're arguing with someone who literally *JUST* took Bio I and Bio II over what is included in the course when you have only taken a single Bio class in your entire life. Stop.

Quote:Oh good to know that these schools never are expected to teach in more detail than an overview document teaches... I already posted a link to you of a general HS biology study guide..

lol you stated they were in the NYS teaching guidlines, and they aren't. I don't really care all that much about this, I'm simply responding because you a) called me a liar and b) trying to talk sh*t about my University. I have had in-depth discussions regarding my class with other students in other premier colleges around the country, and I have already proven that the NYS does not require that information to be taught. You're wasting your time and effort, and making yourself look bad.

As for the rest of your post - I'm not going to argue a point with you that I just don't care enough to. I really couldn't care less about your views on the subject, nothing you wrote has even put a dent in my views, and honestly I knew when I made that first post that someone was going to attempt this pointless argument, which is why I've stated over 6 times now that my first comment was a joke. There is a difference between philosophy and religion, and just because they *CAN* intersect at points, doesn't mean they always *MUST* intersect, and there is a drastic difference between the two due to this fact. It's a pretty easy concept really, not sure why you're having such a problem with it.

**GrayBeard** · 04-27-2012 01:48 PM

Hey Bull, you do realize that you have allowed a lib to take you down a rabbit hole and away from the original topic of the thread.

UCF08 · 04-27-2012 01:50 PM

I'm a moderate, sorry to disappoint.

Bull_In_Exile · 04-27-2012 01:55 PM

(04-27-2012 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote: What's a regents course? Never heard of that classification. Is it like an AP course?

No... It's just a set of state, rather than local, standards.. I took Regents Physics in 10th grade and then AP in the 11th... trust me AP is worlds more difficult than regents.

Quote:And I do think it's funny that you're arguing with someone who literally *JUST* took
Quote:Bio I and Bio II
over what is included in the course when you have only taken a single Bio class in your entire life. Stop.

At one school in Florida...

At UB... Bio129
http://www.biology.buffalo.edu/courses/b...o129_2010/
About a month in they get into chapter 8 of this 100 level biology course..
http://www.biology.buffalo.edu/courses/b...edule.html

Quote:lol you stated they were in the NYS teaching guidlines

No, I said they were taught... Guidelines *never* discuss every detail of what is taught... do you know what does *textbooks*

But well agree to disagree here... Unless you have talked to other kids who have taken regents biology in NY or 100 level biology at SUNY you're no more qualified to say what is or is not than I am. Point is knowing basic cell biology is nothing to hang your hat on, nor show you're somehow educated...

YAY you're back to repeating things like thats an effective argument! Ill play too!