He Hated the Hippies...Didn't He?

[Kemaiku]

Your pony didn't constitute a threat, it was the caption that seemed to me to imply that you were somehow petitioning for my removal from these boards.

You can't be that thick, everyone else understood it just fine, it was clear as water, a remark about your behaviour and how we should ignore your idiocy.

Removal from the boards? how you could even read that into it is mindboggling.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

Your pony didn't constitute a threat, it was the caption that seemed to me to imply that you were somehow petitioning for my removal from these boards.

You can't be that thick, everyone else understood it just fine, it was clear as water, a remark about your behaviour and how we should ignore your idiocy.

Removal from the boards? how you could even read that into it is mindboggling.

You seem to have difficulty making up your mind as to my intelligence. Either I am not "that thick" or I am an idiot. Which is it? Either way, you have a great day and I will get back with those references. Cheers!

 

[T'Bonz]

OK guys. This is really not Star Trek original series talk, but more of a TNZ topic.

I'd prefer if we get back on topic here, especially as this has already had some unpleasant posts, one of which I will address below. If not, I'm shutting it down.

And Chemahkuu, do NOT post graphics accusing people of trolling and double that for those fucking retarded ponies. If you or anyone believes that someone is trolling, hit the mod notify button please and one of us will evaluate the posts and take action, if needed.

Thanks.

 

[RB_Kandy]

I'm not really sure how to jump back into this conversations. But here goes.


Nerys Myk , in regards to a comment made by Burma Ryder said

It means I found your unsupported statement that hippies led to intolerance and that intolerance is the same as "political correctness" humorous and laughable.

Actually I am inclined to agree with Burma Ryder on this one. Political correctness has become like a scary iron fisted doctrine, an unyielding dogma of "think my way or you're a nazi". The "Left" has become in power for a long time, and you risk your job and constitutional freedom if you dare to think outside the box of political correctness. Even if you agree with the political correctness of the Left 90% you're still a bigot if you disagree with 10% of it. The leftists, the liberals, they have become the intolerant ones who can't tolerate any difference in opinion, and they wield all the political power in this country.


Sure I'm against discrimination against people for their race, I am against persecuting Jews and persecuting minorities, but I am also against persecuting people for their beliefs and charging them with thought crimes under the guise of potential terrorist.


During the hippie era, the right wing was in control, no matter which of the two puppet regimes took office, and if you opposed what we now call "conservative" ideas, you were harassed, and you'd have your skull busted for protesting. Now it's the reverse. You get harassed and have your privacy invaded, and get your skull busted for protesting what we call "liberal" ideas.

I have been a part of academia for the last 20 years and I can tell you that it has changed a lot just during that time. Neo-Marxism and enthusiastic leftism is not viewed as ONE point of view in the curriculum, it has become the ONLY point of view and it is the curriculum.

Pet topics like: gender constructivism, feminism, class warfare, anti-capitalism, white privilege, and others are now central to all areas of study in most modern N. American colleges (even for subjects where these topics are ill-placed such as the pure sciences). Anyone pursuing post-doctoral studies is practically required to touch upon one or more of these if they wish to have any hope of succeeding. If these topics are not dominant in the curriculum, or if opposing viewpoints are permitted, untenured faculty runs the risk of losing their postings. Students wishing to engage in dissenting views are smacked down and their grades suffer for it. This is happening right now. I have witnessed it personally in a prestigious university. Check out the film Indoctrinate U.

The hippies who championed the right to dissent have become the establishment and have unfortunately adopted the same parochial practices as their one-time opponents. They are going to make this world a kinder and better place according to their own standards no matter what anyone else thinks. For now, this seems not to have become as pervasive in government as it has in academia.

I am not saying that their positions should be silenced, I am simply saying that theirs is not the only valid position. As soon as people en masse start believing that they have any moral authority, bad things happen. As a student of history, you have surely come across many examples of this.

Why should a store be permitted to dictate to people how they should express their holiday sentiments. Do Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians really get offended if someone wishes them a Merry Christmas? Perhaps atheists do, but then why should they care?

I am sure that there are many hippies that were veterans, but let's be frank here, the vast majority of them burnt their cards and skipped out. I probably would have done the same thing, but you see, I would have been more honest about it. I would have dodged the draft to save my own ass from being shot up and would not have claimed to be taking some moral high ground.

Tolerating dissent is key and it is well represented in The Way to Eden. Even though Kirk questions the Space Hippies' morality, sanity, and politics, he still allows Spock to help them try to chart Eden.

I agree 100%
However, I must point out, as an atheist, I love being wished a Merry Christmas. Some view it as a christian holiday, others view it as a pagan holiday that got hijacked by Christians. I see it as an opportunity to get drunk on eggnog and open my presents, and spend time with my family LOL.

As an atheist and a liberal, it is my goal in life to make you cry. I want to oppress you because I am truly evil and want to take away your rights.

Finally! We get a confession LOL

While I'd like to take your word for this, I'd rather see or read examples.


Documentaries like any other form of film can and are edited to force a particular view point.

Look mate, I'm not trying to get personal or pick on you here, but first you ask for an example, and within his statement he gives an example, and you state that a documentary can be edited to show a biased view. But of course news articles can be biased, news segments, and websites. Every form of a media can be biased in showing one side of the story, and slanting news, and slanting results. So you won't take his word for it, demand a citation, shoot down his citation because it, like all citations, can be slanted.
To me, it says you have your mind made up to not accept something, and no one is going to convince you otherwise. Well my brother, all I can say is, free your mind LOL.


Look man, I gotta agree with Burma here, our schools are liberal brain washing camps. I don't need a documentary or a news article to prove this, I hang out with college kids. And what's really weird is, if you want to know how people think, just ask a bunch of general hot topic political questions to a 16 year old girl, and then another, and then another. Notice you get the same answers on everything. Then ask them more complicated questions like "what is the magna carta", "what is parliament", "America is a democracy, true or false", "when did women in America first get the right to work" (there has never been a state or federal law forbidden women from holding employment).
You'll notice they know nothing about history or politics outside of a few catch phrases associated with their left wing views. They have lots of opinions, but no facts outside of a couple catch phrases to back them up. It's not that they have the "wrong" opinions, it's that they are passionate about their opinions, and can't be convinced otherwise, and lack the necessary education to have arrived at most of these opinions on their own. And what gets me is how sure of themselves they are in their political beliefs.


Now when you do this with 16 year old boys, it's very different. They still choose to comment on everything, like it's mandatory to have an opinion and pretend to know what you're talking about, but there is strong reason to believe these people can be reached and reasoned with. Often when you catch them in a contradiction or a fallacy, they put their head down, grin, and say "I don't know man... I'm just sayin..." That sort of "I don't want to lose this argument, but I don't actually have an argument".
Now talk to the 21 year old boys in college, suddenly they are a perfect reflection of those 16 year old girls. They are more convinced in their left wing views than ever, and they become more left wing. It's like the boys are a little bit slower to come to liberal conclusions, and at 16 they're not ready to accept that men and women are just as physically strong as each other, and it's society and the media that hold girls down by giving them baby dolls when they're little. However, after college finishes the brainwashing, they'll look you in the eyes and tell you messed up crap like "gender? There's no such thing as different gender, we're one sex, the human sex" Before a girl graduated high school she is thoroughly brainwashed. It takes boys a little bit longer, they need a minimum of 2 years of college to finish the brainwashing. But male or female, everyone comes out a bible thumping right winger or a left wing liberal, with just about no one in the middle still thinking for themselves.


It's all a matter of who has more control over you, your bible thumping parents or your liberal school teachers. And maybe one in a thousand can actually think for themselves.

I don't know if they are offended or not. You'd have to ask them. Would a Christian be offended if wished a Happy Hanukkah or Wonderful Ramadan? It would depend on the individual is my guess.

I'm with you on that, I don't care what the religious basis for a holiday is, you can wish me a happy, wonderful, merry, anything and I'd be appreciative. I don't care whether it's Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or some pagan goddess you ask to watch over me, it's the good intentions that counts, not the technicalities behind them. I never could figure out those people that want to make such a big deal out of it.

Not every liberal was a hippie in the 60s either.

Well, I'm sure that's true, not all liberals were hippies, I think it's safe to say that all hippies were liberal, or at least sided with liberals over conservatives.

The idea that evolution is as solid a truth as 2+2=4 or the law of gravity is simply not the case and there is dissension among members of the scientific community. I have offered to provide references, do you wish to see them?

I must have missed how this convo became evolution vs creationism/ID, but I would like those references.
I have heard of two biologists that didn't believe in the theory of evolution. I am not sure how many more disbelieve in the theory of evolution.
I recall a survey that sent out a query to 158 biology departments asking if any of the biologists doubted the current biological mechanisms of evolution in favor of intelligent design, and there were 73 resonances, one guy wrote back without an actual answer, one guy wrote back claiming "yes" and the other 71 responded that there was indeed no conflict or doubt on the currently accepted theory of evolution. So in spite of the fact it was a small survey, 97.3% of biologists have no doubt about evolution.
I also regularly watch a live science talk show on the internet, where many scientists are interviewed, and respond to people in the chat room. When a biologist is on, he or she is almost always asked if there is any doubt in the scientific community regarding the modern, Darwinian theory of evolution. The most common reply is that evolution is a hotly debated subject in society, but not in the scientific community, where none of the biologists or paleontologists have ever met another biologist or paleontologist that doubted Darwin’s theory of evolution.
So, if you have evidence that it is actually debated within the scientific community, I would like to see that reference.

I can certainly dispel one misconception you are exhibiting here.

Evolution--as in macroevolution--is not controversial. It was an established observation even before Darwin. We saw species in the fossil record that don't exist today, and an absence of most species we have now. We needed an explanation for that.

Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism. It has been refined over the years, but it is still the basic explanation we have for evolution.

Natural selection has been somewhat controversial, however there is no reputable scientific literature that has proposed a theory which better fits the facts.

Put simple: evolution is the fact that the theory of natural selection was devised to explain. If natural selection turns out to be incorrect (which seems unlikely at this point, but I'll play Devil's advocate), that doesn't invalidate evolution. Nothing would invalidate evolution short of fossil discoveries that indisputably show (for instance) humans walking among dinosaurs.

People really need to learn the difference between those two concepts.

Amen on that.

Society does define gender roles though. The Barbie or the Gun?

What? Dude... what?
Are you saying that society brainwashes the female sex to be vein, soft, and feminine because we give them barbies when they're little children. And males go on to play football and act tough because we give them guns when they're little boys?


Because I am a rough tough masculine archetype in most ways, I played football, and no one ever bought me a gun. And my aunt is a member of the NRA, in spite of the fact she was raised in a traditional family and most likely was handed barbie dolls.
So I am so confussed.
Or are you just trying to say that Barbie is feminine and guns are masculine? If so, how is a gun masculine?

Depends on the opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some things like racism and sexism should be tossed on the scrap heap. Others might be a bit nebulous.

Well, here's the problem I have with that elitist mentality. First, it's a very elitist view.
But also, what is racism? When black parents teach their black children to be proud of their race and heritage, no one seems to have a problem with that. You let white parents teach their white kids to be proud of their race and heritage, and it's racism.
The united negro college fund doesn't hand out scholarships to white kids. No one calls that racist.
Affirmative action programs that openly favor non-whites, females, and gays, are racist and sexist.
Funny how we here the feminist screaming about the lack of women having success in this or that field (because it must be male oppression, no other explanation), and yet no one seems to mind that NASA is giving an artificial advantage to women. NASA is muscling out some of the boys, to lend a helping hand to girls only, to join NASA. Here is one reference http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/teachingfromspace/students/wish.html


And here is another one http://women.nasa.gov/a2i/
And when it comes to WISH & NASA, read the FAQ here http://www.wish.aerospacescholars.org/faq
Notice on the requirements to see if you qualify, you must be female.
Umm, isn't that sexism?
Now I am sure every liberal feminist on here is going to scream about me being a sexist for pointing out the sexism.




And if you're really opposed to sexism, you should be really opposed to all the colleges that teach feminist theory and gender studies, as these are horribly anti-male.
If you, Nerys Myk, are truly against sexism, and hate, you should be horribly offended over this hate movement called Feminism. And don't even give me that crap feminism being about equality, yeah, their as much in favor of equality as Hitler was. If Hitler were around today I am sure he would have called his party the "German Civil Rights Movement".
Here is some lovely excerpts of famous feminists that are touted as heroes and icons by feminist theory.


"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".
Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).


"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.


"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.


"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin


"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)


"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon




This is the sort of lovely tolerance our liberal schools preach.


My point is, you, and liberals alike, say that while differences in opinions are OK, but things like sexism and racism are not OK, (i.e. you think my thoughts on certain subjects or you're evil) is not only elitist, but is also intolerant, especially when you consider that it's only racist or sexist when a liberal says so. It's never racist when whites are victims, it's never sexist when men are victims.


I ask that you look deep in the mirror, and reexamine your beliefs and attitudes.


Now, considering this thread was originally about Gene Roddenberry's views on hippies: as it was established, this episode of Star Trek was not written by Gene.


Also, I think the message seems to be in some part pro and in other parts anti hippie, because the writer was attempting to show that most hippies had good intentions, but their methods, attitudes, and lack of a concrete foundation, made them reckless and counter productive, and also made them susceptible to being manipulated by those with self interest.

There are some pretty naive and ill-informed opinions above. It's conveniently easy to make fun of the "movement" when viewed with hindsight and through the blinders of pop culture, which tends to exaggerate the silly at the cost of the serious. Like many movements, in some ways the hippie/yippie/counterculture was underminded by its own popularity. The cultural pendulum had swung so far in one direction so that people rebelled against it and pushed it the other way. That some swung it perhaps too far in the other direction is pretty natural. Think about the Roaring 20s compared to the decades that preceded and followed it and you'll see a similar swing of the pendulum to the extremes.

Well, I’ll confess, I may be misinformed about Hippies, I wasn't alive during the hippie mainstream.
I have met a few former hippies, and they were all good people.
It's true that I get the majority of my understanding about hippies from TV and movies. But I also get a lot of it by listening to pro hippie music and reading documentaries that mention hippies. I have also watched documentaries about the hippie movement that were filmed in the 60's. But, I wasn't actually alive during the movement.


Someone mentioned that our understanding of hippies is a caricature, a stereotype. But that applies to every group of people out there, blacks, whites, southerners, goths, Native Americans, surfers, etc.

 

[Maurice]

re "controvery" over evolution, statistically speaking, there isn't any real controversy:

Taking into account only those [scientists] working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists [in the US], but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

—Talk Origins Archive (with citations)
​

1 in 1000 is hardly a debate: it barely qualifies as a statistical anomaly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not really sure how to jump back into this conversations. But here goes.


Nerys Myk , in regards to a comment made by Burma Ryder said

It means I found your unsupported statement that hippies led to intolerance and that intolerance is the same as "political correctness" humorous and laughable.

Actually I am inclined to agree with Burma Ryder on this one. Political correctness has become like a scary iron fisted doctrine, an unyielding dogma of "think my way or you're a nazi". The "Left" has become in power for a long time, and you risk your job and constitutional freedom if you dare to think outside the box of political correctness. Even if you agree with the political correctness of the Left 90% you're still a bigot if you disagree with 10% of it. The leftists, the liberals, they have become the intolerant ones who can't tolerate any difference in opinion, and they wield all the political power in this country

. Do you have examples of this "iron fisted doctrine"? How about a time where "thinking out side the box" cost you your job and constitutional freedoms? Liberals can be bigots too. If the 10% you disagree with involves bigotry, you are a bigot. Yes?

So who are the liberals intolerant of?

When exactly did the "Left" come into power?

Sure I'm against discrimination against people for their race, I am against persecuting Jews and persecuting minorities, but I am also against persecuting people for their beliefs and charging them with thought crimes under the guise of potential terrorist.

Examples of this happening would be useful. What are the beliefs of these people hold they have led to "persecution" of them for thought crime under the guise of terrorism.

During the hippie era, the right wing was in control, no matter which of the two puppet regimes took office, and if you opposed what we now call "conservative" ideas, you were harassed, and you'd have your skull busted for protesting. Now it's the reverse. You get harassed and have your privacy invaded, and get your skull busted for protesting what we call "liberal" ideas.

Guess I've missed the newstories about right wing protesters getting their skulls busted at peaceful protests

Look mate, I'm not trying to get personal or pick on you here, but first you ask for an example, and within his statement he gives an example, and you state that a documentary can be edited to show a biased view. But of course news articles can be biased, news segments, and websites. Every form of a media can be biased in showing one side of the story, and slanting news, and slanting results. So you won't take his word for it, demand a citation, shoot down his citation because it, like all citations, can be slanted.
To me, it says you have your mind made up to not accept something, and no one is going to convince you otherwise. Well my brother, all I can say is, free your mind LOL.

Well, by examples, I meant something from the school's curriculum and graduation requirements showing the types of courses he mentioned were required or dominating in most Universities.A first hand source, rather than one filtered through the news or a documentarian's point of view.

Look man, I gotta agree with Burma here, our schools are liberal brain washing camps. I don't need a documentary or a news article to prove this, I hang out with college kids. And what's really weird is, if you want to know how people think, just ask a bunch of general hot topic political questions to a 16 year old girl, and then another, and then another. Notice you get the same answers on everything. Then ask them more complicated questions like "what is the magna carta", "what is parliament", "America is a democracy, true or false", "when did women in America first get the right to work" (there has never been a state or federal law forbidden women from holding employment).
You'll notice they know nothing about history or politics outside of a few catch phrases associated with their left wing views. They have lots of opinions, but no facts outside of a couple catch phrases to back them up. It's not that they have the "wrong" opinions, it's that they are passionate about their opinions, and can't be convinced otherwise, and lack the necessary education to have arrived at most of these opinions on their own. And what gets me is how sure of themselves they are in their political beliefs.


Now when you do this with 16 year old boys, it's very different. They still choose to comment on everything, like it's mandatory to have an opinion and pretend to know what you're talking about, but there is strong reason to believe these people can be reached and reasoned with. Often when you catch them in a contradiction or a fallacy, they put their head down, grin, and say "I don't know man... I'm just sayin..." That sort of "I don't want to lose this argument, but I don't actually have an argument".
Now talk to the 21 year old boys in college, suddenly they are a perfect reflection of those 16 year old girls. They are more convinced in their left wing views than ever, and they become more left wing. It's like the boys are a little bit slower to come to liberal conclusions, and at 16 they're not ready to accept that men and women are just as physically strong as each other, and it's society and the media that hold girls down by giving them baby dolls when they're little. However, after college finishes the brainwashing, they'll look you in the eyes and tell you messed up crap like "gender? There's no such thing as different gender, we're one sex, the human sex" Before a girl graduated high school she is thoroughly brainwashed. It takes boys a little bit longer, they need a minimum of 2 years of college to finish the brainwashing. But male or female, everyone comes out a bible thumping right winger or a left wing liberal, with just about no one in the middle still thinking for themselves.


It's all a matter of who has more control over you, your bible thumping parents or your liberal school teachers. And maybe one in a thousand can actually think for themselves.

Interesting data. When, where and how was this researched conducted? is there a place online where I can review the results and methodology of this study?

Funny, I was thinking most of your comments sounded like sound bites taken from rightwing sources rather than original thought. Obviously you're not a 16 year old girl, but maybe you more in common with one than you think.

Society does define gender roles though. The Barbie or the Gun?

What? Dude... what?
Are you saying that society brainwashes the female sex to be vein, soft, and feminine because we give them barbies when they're little children. And males go on to play football and act tough because we give them guns when they're little boys?

I'll assume you mean "vain". Something men are just as capable of being.

Well, I wouldn't say "brainwash", but boys are encouraged to play football and girls with dolls. A girl perfering sports over dolls or a boy wanting a doll rather than a gun aren't exactly embraced in society.

Because I am a rough tough masculine archetype in most ways, I played football, and no one ever bought me a gun. And my aunt is a member of the NRA, in spite of the fact she was raised in a traditional family and most likely was handed barbie dolls.
So I am so confussed.
Or are you just trying to say that Barbie is feminine and guns are masculine? If so, how is a gun masculine?

They're just examples. Representatives of the usual gender specific toys of childhood. So, you never had a cap gun, water pistol or any other toy gun? Me, I played Army and cowboy as a kid.

Depends on the opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some things like racism and sexism should be tossed on the scrap heap. Others might be a bit nebulous.

Well, here's the problem I have with that elitist mentality. First, it's a very elitist view.
But also, what is racism? When black parents teach their black children to be proud of their race and heritage, no one seems to have a problem with that. You let white parents teach their white kids to be proud of their race and heritage, and it's racism.

Neither fits the definition of racism. Being proud of your culture doesn't make you racist. Thinking other races are inferior does.

The united negro college fund doesn't hand out scholarships to white kids. No one calls that racist.

Well who the fund was set up for is right in the title. Sorry not racist. Any more than a fund for Irish or Italian kids would be. Helping members of your community get into college is not racist.

Affirmative action programs that openly favor non-whites, females, and gays, are racist and sexist.

Gee,I wonder why those people would need help? Perhaps they have some sort of disadvantage that a white person might not have. Nah, that couldn't be it.

Funny how we here the feminist screaming about the lack of women having success in this or that field (because it must be male oppression, no other explanation), and yet no one seems to mind that NASA is giving an artificial advantage to women. NASA is muscling out some of the boys, to lend a helping hand to girls only, to join NASA. Here is one reference http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/teachingfromspace/students/wish.html

Where does it say that this program "muscles out" boys? From what i can see they're are providing girls with role models and trying encourage them to enter math and science programs. As I understand it girls under perform in those areas at the high school level. Our future Uhuras, Janeways, Torres and Satos need to come from somewhere*

And here is another one http://women.nasa.gov/a2i/
And when it comes to WISH & NASA, read the FAQ here http://www.wish.aerospacescholars.org/faq
Notice on the requirements to see if you qualify, you must be female.
Umm, isn't that sexism?
Now I am sure every liberal feminist on here is going to scream about me being a sexist for pointing out the sexism.

No its not. As with your example above, its about getting girls interested in math, science and engineering. I'm sure Boys are also encourages and there are programs for them too.

And if you're really opposed to sexism, you should be really opposed to all the colleges that teach feminist theory and gender studies, as these are horribly anti-male.
If you, Nerys Myk, are truly against sexism, and hate, you should be horribly offended over this hate movement called Feminism. And don't even give me that crap feminism being about equality, yeah, their as much in favor of equality as Hitler was. If Hitler were around today I am sure he would have called his party the "German Civil Rights Movement".
Here is some lovely excerpts of famous feminists that are touted as heroes and icons by feminist theory.


"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".
Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).


"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.


"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.


"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin


"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)


"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

So women can have extreme opinions too. yeah, I'm against such narrow minded extremist views.

My point is, you, and liberals alike, say that while differences in opinions are OK, but things like sexism and racism are not OK, (i.e. you think my thoughts on certain subjects or you're evil) is not only elitist, but is also intolerant, especially when you consider that it's only racist or sexist when a liberal says so. It's never racist when whites are victims, it's never sexist when men are victims.

I ask that you look deep in the mirror, and reexamine your beliefs and attitudes.

I don't recall saying that. Sexism and racism are always bad, no matter who the victim or perpetrators are. Thats what this liberal believes.

Now, considering this thread was originally about Gene Roddenberry's views on hippies: as it was established, this episode of Star Trek was not written by Gene.


Also, I think the message seems to be in some part pro and in other parts anti hippie, because the writer was attempting to show that most hippies had good intentions, but their methods, attitudes, and lack of a concrete foundation, made them reckless and counter productive, and also made them susceptible to being manipulated by those with self interest.

A solid analysis.



*Star Trek content

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

This thread makes Carl Spock sad.

Like...you dig, baby?

And it makes DJ Kitty whimper.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

I'm rushing off, but here are a few references to look into, there are way too many to provide an exhaustive list:


Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999)
an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology who challenges the idea that evolution is gradual by discrediting the position held by some Darwinians who cannot account for the missing intervening fossils necessary to solidify this arguement. Schwartz postulates that evolution is the result of sporadic changes at the cellular level caused by environmental triggers.

Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994).
Admits that life could not have emerged from chemical factors due to the impossibility of proteins and nucleic acids emerging independently. RNA research is cited as promising but evidence is noted as being fragmentary. This flies in the face of the infamous Miller experiment.

Both of these scientists refute ID, and are trying really hard to answer the great questions of our origins without having to plug into God. And good for them for not giving up!


Ok, so I only had time to put down two because I didn't just want to copy and paste a long list of titles and authors without giving some information about the sources, but there are more. I will bring them up as time permits.

My point is and has always been not that evolution or Darwinism is bunk but that it is not a community made up of one big happy family of scientists who absolutely agree on everything. Scientists are finding fault with earlier conclusions and are finding themselves with inadequate evidence to support their theories. This to me simply means that there is more work to be done.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, all I am saying is that Darwinism/evolution theory is not a foregone conclusion and ID is not creationism.

I'm still not sure which camp I belong to, maybe I'm happy having one foot in either. I believe science and faith can be reconciled.

For all we know the possible explanations for our origins as suggested in Return to Tomorrow is the correct one. In which case both sides have got it wrong!

 

[T'Bonz]

This is no longer Star Trek talk, so goodnight.