View Poll Results: Do you support this legislation?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, saying the pledge should be a priority

    3 11.54%
  • Yes, but let's tackle more important issues first

    8 30.77%
  • Doesn't matter to me one way or the other

    2 7.69%
  • No, I don't want my child to be programmed

    8 30.77%
  • There are schools that don't already recite the pledge???

    5 19.23%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,701

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    I just timed myself reciting the pledge at the pace that I remember we used when in grade school. 12 seconds... add in the time for standing up, placing hand over heart, and sitting down, 17 seconds. Total time for a school year of 180 days, 51 minutes. Over the entire term of grade school (grades 1 through 6), 5 hours and 6 minutes. Now, I know that time could have been better utilized by some who post here by familiarizing themselves with the method and benefit of using a dictionary but is that a point for or against the practise of reciting the pledge?
    Not having attended grade school in other countries, I wonder if the children in those countries go through a similar routine.
    What the genteel demand is something of themselves. What the vulgar demand is something of others.
    The true church is one's own heart.
    It has been my experience that those who proclaim the world is going to hell in a handbasket are the same ones who are leading the way there with their grip fixed firmly on the handle.
    Why can't you find god? Everyone knows he lives in a little black box.
    A carp who deals in red herrings is a traitor to his species.


  2. #62
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    49
    Posts
    205

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    I do believe you mean condescending and not facetious. Sure, I'm arrogant, but that's nothing new and it's not really applicable here. The same goes for your military service. If that service meant that you were somehow more qualified to speak on political matters, then it would be required for full citizenship. As it's not, it really doesn't matter in these discussions. Now, if we were having a debate on the particular venue in which you served, it would be more than appropriate to bring up.
    Just as your corrections really have no place in the argument other than to attack the person on another level, so drop it already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Except that God and Christ have no place in the political sphere in this country. I'm no Christian, nor are the other 64,466,065 non-Christians in the United States. That doesn't include the liberal or moderate Christians who feel that "God" has no place in the government. Now, like I said earlier, this is little different from a bill to mandate time out of the school day for students to pray to their Lord God Jesus the Christ. If people want to do it on their own time, let them do so.
    They have no place? You really need to go and re-read your history bub....it was integral to the political sphere at the time the country was formed. Stop with the Christian attacks and actually use some facts to argue about the pledge recital issue. Stop trying to use circular reasoning and non-issues to further emotionally charge your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Ooh, fun times; thanks for breaking out the "liberal" label. Tell me, the state has mandated that every classroom take time out of their day to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. People can abstain if they so choose, but everyone else will participate. Do you really think a child can realize what is going on if everyone else is participating in something? Do you think they have the ability to discern the meanings in that Pledge or to come to their own conclusions about it?
    You obviously don't have kids nor know what to do in raising one. I have three and know that MY children CAN realize and discern. You obviously base your argument solely on the kindergarten level of the word "child"....but frankly, my "CHILDREN" who are older than this would be affected if I were living in Michigan, and I have taught them to be able to discern....kids are smarter than you give them credit for (maybe not in your experience or case), but.....you do them no justice by proclaiming their blind ignorance as it only shows your blatant ignorance in matters of "children" unfortunately...

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    No, they're going to participate so that they do not become pariahs. People generally don't like to be portrayed as outcasts. You're not going to instill any critical thought in these children concerning the government, the country, its history, or the pledge itself with this law.
    Again, you do them no justice by assuming too much. Will some follow like sheep? Sure.....but not all.....and not all parents or kids who believe in God will recite the Pledge either based on principal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Your argument here is pretty fallacious. No one has said that you should be prohibited from reciting the pledge if you so choose. Can you show me where that has been said? Also, I'm a citizen, therefore my opinion matters. The fact that I am childless is moot since I am a citizen. If you really think that pledging your allegiance to a symbol is patriotic, I think you should reconsider your beliefs. What exactly is patriotism, anyway?
    Not allowing it prohibits it......since you bring religion into the argument, it's the same with public prayer in school. Since it isn't alloted for, it's not allowed....and kids *HAVE* been removed from school for forming informal prayer groups during school time. Or do you ignore those news reports?!? Obviously it doesn't support your argument, so you must by your train of thought in this argument....


    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    Actually, people are being forced to observe the time for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine if people were forced to take time out of their day to observe Islamic prayer time? It wouldn't be a pretty picture (though it would do wonders for my position). School is for education, and the recitation of the pledge serves no part in that.
    If time were alloted for prayer, then those who wanted to pray based upon Islam beliefs, COULD.....doesn't mean I have to....nor would it mean my kids would have to......it just would mean they COULD pray if they chose, and pray to whatever god(s) they chose to do so to.....your all or nothing arguments are definitely fallacious by nature.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    See, that short parenthetical remark was what is known as an "aside". It bore no weight on my argument whatsoever, but you choose to see it as somehow diluting that argument. Trust me, I could focus very much on the way in which people structure their sentences and arguments here. However, I don't do that because it serves no purpose. Your mistake was glaring and I pointed it out so that you wouldn't have it happen again. It was in no way said pejoratively, so I'm sorry you misconstrued it. By the way, I've never claimed perfection.
    Again, if it makes you sleep better at night and somehow makes you feel you have an edge over me or others, then correct away Mr. Perfection.....

    In fakt, I jus mite mack sum obvinus mistacks jus to dilute evin further cents u can't focus on facts but must fohcus on attacking the person's edumacation and grammah skillz.....

  3. #63
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by pctoolbin
    Just as your corrections really have no place in the argument other than to attack the person on another level, so drop it already.
    Or to help them not look ignorant when they attempt to hold some sort of meaningful conversation.


    They have no place? You really need to go and re-read your history bub....it was integral to the political sphere at the time the country was formed. Stop with the Christian attacks and actually use some facts to argue about the pledge recital issue. Stop trying to use circular reasoning and non-issues to further emotionally charge your argument.
    Are you aware of what circular reasoning is? It's something like this:

    Statement - The Bible is the literal truth of God.
    Question - Why?
    Answer - Because the Bible tells me so.

    Now, I don't see this type of rationale in my arguments. Perhaps you could show me where you see it?

    You obviously don't have kids nor know what to do in raising one. I have three and know that MY children CAN realize and discern. You obviously base your argument solely on the kindergarten level of the word "child"....but frankly, my "CHILDREN" who are older than this would be affected if I were living in Michigan, and I have taught them to be able to discern....kids are smarter than you give them credit for (maybe not in your experience or case), but.....you do them no justice by proclaiming their blind ignorance as it only shows your blatant ignorance in matters of "children" unfortunately...
    Because I am childless, I must be ignorant of how children work. It's not as though I interact with them on a regular basis through my neice and nephew or the school at which my mother works or anything. Nope, I'm just wrong because you feel your children are different than what I have stated. I appreciate the less-than-subtle attack, too. You know, they really make the case for you.

    Again, you do them no justice by assuming too much. Will some follow like sheep? Sure.....but not all.....and not all parents or kids who believe in God will recite the Pledge either based on principal.
    I don't believe I've said that they all will or will not do something, even when based on principle.

    Not allowing it prohibits it......since you bring religion into the argument, it's the same with public prayer in school. Since it isn't alloted for, it's not allowed....and kids *HAVE* been removed from school for forming informal prayer groups during school time. Or do you ignore those news reports?!? Obviously it doesn't support your argument, so you must by your train of thought in this argument....
    So, are you going to address what I said, or what you want me to say? I'm so confused as to what prohibition means if it's something other than not to allow someone to do something. Tell me, are urination or defecation breaks built into the system of classes in junior high or high school? According to you, those actions must be prohibited because there are not specific times for them. And no, I don't watch the news. Feel free to share reports on these "informal prayer groups".

    If time were alloted for prayer, then those who wanted to pray based upon Islam beliefs, COULD.....doesn't mean I have to....nor would it mean my kids would have to......it just would mean they COULD pray if they chose, and pray to whatever god(s) they chose to do so to.....your all or nothing arguments are definitely fallacious by nature.....
    I do believe it is your argument that has stated that not giving time to something prohibits it. To me, that seems to be an "all or nothing" argument. The original article makes no mention of what participation entails, but I would imagine that if it is like the schools I know here and back home, everyone is forced to stand during the recitation. What if everyone was forced to keep silent and kneel on prayer rugs? You also didn't address the educational value (or lack thereof) of this pledge.

    Again, if it makes you sleep better at night and somehow makes you feel you have an edge over me or others, then correct away Mr. Perfection.....

    In fakt, I jus mite mack sum obvinus mistacks jus to dilute evin further cents u can't focus on facts but must fohcus on attacking the person's edumacation and grammah skillz.....
    I hope you realize how foolish that makes you appear. Also notice how I never attacked your grammar nor your education.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  4. #64
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    11 Dimensional Space-Time
    Posts
    7,808

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert3
    I just timed myself reciting the pledge at the pace that I remember we used when in grade school. 12 seconds... add in the time for standing up, placing hand over heart, and sitting down, 17 seconds. Total time for a school year of 180 days, 51 minutes. Over the entire term of grade school (grades 1 through 6), 5 hours and 6 minutes. Now, I know that time could have been better utilized by some who post here by familiarizing themselves with the method and benefit of using a dictionary but is that a point for or against the practise of reciting the pledge?
    Not having attended grade school in other countries, I wonder if the children in those countries go through a similar routine.
    In elementary school, up to grade 8, we used to say the Lord's Prayer AND sing O Canada EVERY morning before first class. That was in SK.

  5. #65
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by nuke
    In elementary school, up to grade 8, we used to say the Lord's Prayer AND sing O Canada EVERY morning before first class. That was in SK.
    What's SK?
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  6. #66
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    11 Dimensional Space-Time
    Posts
    7,808

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    What's SK?
    Sorry, Saskatchewan. It's between Alberta and Manitoba!

    I just posted it for interests sake, in response to Robert's last comment.

  7. #67
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Age
    44
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    It's fun logic, but I don't agree with it.
    Mine or yours?

    That it's not scientific? That there is no evidence in support of it? That the supposed "science" behind it is a mixture of lies and slights of hand? That it's a poor excuse at an attempt to reconcile science and religion?
    Wasn't trying too, I was pointing out the neither has the proof (one can actually see) you speak of, "the stuff life is made of" -proteins have what 541 active chains(?), that can interact and form into various combintions (a number to high too count), which would include RNA and DNA, I've no problem with the premise, however, when these proteins fold together, SCIENTIST CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY LIFE BEGINS - nor can they reproduce it, but yet everything they say after that most important portion of time (where life actually began) is accepted, and yet you would call others sheep, when you fall in line like a lemming to a theory.

    Perhaps, but you might also say that choices of subject matter are crappy.
    And one can chose not to take the crappy "subject matter" - hence a choice, or does making a choice only apply when you are trying to prop up your debate? If not, why are you skating around this?

    No, that's not the case. Evolution is not directed. If evolution meant going from simple to complex, why do we have still have single-celled organisms? You haven't studied this much, have you? Well guess what, I have studied it quite a bit. From what I have observed, only Vihsadas rivals me in terms of background in this sort of material. Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time. There is no direction, no progression, no simple toward complex.
    Here you go dictionary boy the meaning of evolution. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tion&x=11&y=15

    Here's your beloved wiki as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    In fact they say this (pretty much what I thought)
    From wiki The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which states that all modern species are the products of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics.
    The changes need not be over long periods of time, really. Indeed, you can see how little time it takes to create something very different from the progenitor by looking at dogs. And I quote what you asked concerning the origin of life:
    Well two different dogs are compatable (reproductively speaking), I doubt there is a pedigree breed on the planet, how does this explain life itself, afterall you basing full confidence in a theory (as scientists do), when one cannot explain the most important step in the process - life itself.

    Religion explains things, but very little of those explanations have evidence in favor of them.
    So does science, however science has not proven life itself, yet any theories based on life is accepted because they say so. You would've made a great pundit for the great debate of the time before exploration on round vs flat, with you being on the side of flat.

    Science observes, drafts an explanation, and attempts to find evidence for and against that observation. You find evidence against your supposition? Then you discard it and form a new one based on what you have found.
    OK, so they created life and observed how it evolved?

    You don't seem to know what it means. Enlighten yourself as to the scientific method.
    I know what the premise is, and science has accepted theories in the past for quite some time as is, only to have some of them disproven. People seem to accept what science produces as fact, likely based on findings in the exact arenas of the field, so when a theory comes out it's accepted as such, perhaps you should enlighten yourself.

    It's not much different, but it would increase the power they wield. And as to your first statement, what kind of evidence do you have to support such a claim?
    How? Explain and give some evidence as I did with PP.

    I wasn't sure if PP was governmental or private. Anyway, PP is a social program designed to ensure the health of the population in spite of what some people feel should be done. It wouldn't be needed if people would keep to themselves and not attempt to tell others how to live their lives "morally" via legislation.
    Yes, it is a social program, and I've not a problem with it - except when they take my tax money and perform abortions - some to minors without the knowledge nor consent of their parents or guardians, it is a choice that is being made for me (ie forced) - I DO NOT have the option of saying I don't want to send my tax monies there unlike the choice given for those who may not want to say the pledge, and there are many that feel like I do. Yet you are clamouring on in here like your the champion for free will, when you are really veiling your hypocrisy.

    I was asking for evidence that others think I am a coward, and what evidence they use to formulate that opinion.
    I said your demeanor suggests a reliance on others to fight for you, thats my opinion, don't need proof at all, just how I read you.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 03-17-2005 at 09:19 PM.




  8. #68
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    Mine or yours?
    The fun logic.

    Wasn't trying too, I was pointing out the neither has the proof (one can actually see) you speak of, "the stuff life is made of" -proteins have what 541 active chains(?), that can interact and form into various combintions (a number to high too count), which would include RNA and DNA, I've no problem with the premise, however, when these proteins fold together, SCIENTIST CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY LIFE BEGINS - nor can they reproduce it, but yet everything they say after that most important portion of time (where life actually began) is accepted, and yet you would call others sheep, when you dfall in line like a lemming to a theory.
    Once again, your argument doesn't follow. Science cannot explain the beginning of the universe either, but I don't hear you railing against gravity or those who feel that the current theories surrounding gravity are correct. See, the problems of explaining life's beginings or the start of the universe have little bearing on evolutionary theory. Your entire premise here is flawed. Science is a work in progress,with nothing being set in stone. Newtonian physics fails to describe the inner workings of singularities, but we still use Newtonian physics for all sorts of things. There are problems in science, yes, but so what? Science observes and attempts to explain what is observed. If we find better evidence for something, we change the theory to fit what has been discovered.

    And one can chose not to take the crappy "subject matter" - hence a choice, or do you making a choice only applies when you are trying to prop up your debate? If not, why are you skating around this?
    Huh? You said that the "crappy" referred to a condition and not a choice of material. Therefore, I specified that the choice of the material itself could be a crappy condition.

    Here you go dictionary boy the meaning of evolution. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...ution&x=11&y=15

    Here's your beloved wiki as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    What's your point, especially with maligning wikipedia?

    In fact they say this (pretty much what I thought)
    Again, what's your point?

    Well two different dogs are compatable (reproductively speaking), I doubt there is a pedigree breed on the planet, how does this explain life itself, afterall you basing full confidence in a theory (as scientists do), when one cannot explain the most important step in the process - life itself.
    And like I said earlier, evolution is not the theory that attempts to explain the appearance of the first life. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to what I am saying, by the way. I pointed out dogs to show that evolutionary changes need not be over long periods of time (which is what you stated earlier). Here, I'll even quote it agian for you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    ...however, evolution is based on changes to species over a long period of time...
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan
    The changes need not be over long periods of time, really. Indeed, you can see how little time it takes to create something very different from the progenitor by looking at dogs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1
    So does science, however science has not proven life itself, yet any theories based on life is accepted because they say so.
    What do you mean "proven life itself"? And you must not pay attention to the numerous threads concerning this, so I'll repeat it agian here: science doesn't prove anything.

    You would've made a great pundit for the great debate of the time before exploration on round vs flat, with you being on the side of flat.
    What the hell is that? On what do you base that claim? You're really losing it, now.

    OK, so they created life and observed how it evolved?
    How does that follow? You seem to have trouble drafting any sort of meaningful argument here.

    I know what the premise is, and science has accepted theories in the past for quite some time as is, only to have some of them disproven. People seem to accept what science produces as fact, likely based on findings in the exact arenas of the field, so when a theory comes out it's accepted as such, perhaps you should enlighten yourself.
    It's not like I'm the one with dozens of hours of collegiate levels science work or anything. I'm also not the one who participates in the field of stories where everything is questioned, either. Are you going to show any sort of damn evidence for your continued, asinine claims? It'd be nice if you simply stuck to the banal, like "scientific theories held true in the past have been disproven". What the hell do you think the scientific method is?

    How? Explain and give some evidence as I did with PP.
    See the issue of Roman publicans and equites. The tax collection service in the Roman Empire was a private enterprise, where agencies bid for the largest amount of taxes they said they might collect. These agencies actually rounded up the money from individuals and cities around the Empire, kept a share for themselves, and gave the rest to the government. The agencies often gave "campaign contributions" to those in charge of overseeing the provinces (governors and equites), leading to ever-increasing control of those provinces by the private "benefactors".

    Also see this:

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/V...sbn=0300047991

    Yes, it is a social program, and I've not a problem with it - except when they take my tax money and perform abortions - some to minors without the knowledge nor consent of their parents or guardians, it is a choice that is being made for me (ie forced) - I DO NOT have the option of saying I don't want to send my tax monies there unlike the choice given for those who may not want to say the pledge, and there are many that feel like I do. Yet you are clamouring on in here like your the champion for free will, when you are really veiling your hypocrisy.
    Uh, I'm unsure as to what voting is then if you don't have a say over how taxes are spent. Do you have a problem with carrying out the death penalty using tax money? How about incarcerating prisoners? I don't want taxes used to murder people in other countries or to fund "conservative" Christianity, but they are. Like I said earlier, I'm all for ending governmental funding of "abortion" just so long as all legislation attempting to curtail it is prohibited.

    I said your demeanor suggests a reliance on others to fight for you, thats my opinion, don't need proof at all, just how I read you.
    And I keep asking you to show me why you think that.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •