Say No to PC Trek
- Thread starter fudgefase
- Start date
- Status
I guess that's the new version of the Nazi label. The law is extended. Anyone using either looses their arguement.
Not exactly equivalents. Someone "stealthy" or otherwise getting themselves elected to either a school board or political office has every right to espouse their views and try to make them policy for their constituents.
The Taliban, first and foremost uses the convert or die tactic and has no such love for such political or social niceties election to office.
Sharr
I have a question: How "surprising" can a Prequel be, especially when it is a prequel that will be populated by characters whom we already know, none of whom can die or be maimed because they have to be around in the TOS timeline?
While the idea of "throwing out all the shit that people expect" and doing something "surprising" sounds good, I just want to point out that the prequel that they are going to do, ergo, Kirk and Spock in their academy years, is probably the worst vehicle/plotline to achieve this. We already know what is going to happen in this movie:
Kirk is picked on by Finnigan;
Kirk cheats his way through the Kobayshi Maru simulation;
Kirk has an affair with What's Her Name, and unknowingly gets her pregnant;
Kirk graduates and is posted to the USS Republic.
While there are details to be filled in (exactly how Kirk hacked the Star Fleet computer, for instance, did Spock help him?) the storyline is already known.
Sorry.
And, of course, this movie will be PC (i.e. Left-Liberal)and Preachy: Everyone has been so since Star Trek IV.
Star Trek IV: Save the Whales
Star Trek V: There is no God
Star Trek VI: The Cold War Wasn't the Russians fault, it was "Militarism"
Star Trek VII: Selfish Obsession leads to Great Evil
Star Trek VIII: Zephram Cochrane lived the lifestyle of a hippie drunk while inventing warp drive. Let that Freak Flag Fly!
Star Trek IX: There was a PC statement about inter-racial romance, but it got left on the cutting room floor.
Wrong! Unless you read the script? None of the things you posted about are even likely to be part of this story. Agian just cause you can't possiably imagine a compelling story being there - doesn't mean a more... creative person couldn't imagine there being one.
Somehow I don't see what you assume this movie to be pulling Nimoy out of retirement... therefore I find it unlikely its as you thing it is.
Sharr
I apologize if I implied that Xian Taliban is anything but an overwrought term. And, no, they are not equivalents. But I support the point cited that PC seems to be something that is used to beat up on progressives, and that the PC moniker is never turned on censorship brought on from the right.
Ok that's probably right.
I really don't recall them making that a major theme of the movie. I don't actually remember there being much *point* to the movie -- it was mostly actiony from what I remember.
I thought it was more about letting go of the anger of the past. Like "we're not at war anymore, so we need to forgive the other side". Or did you miss that subtle point -- both sides had people so eaten up with anger that they didn't want to have peace. So they sabotaged it.
No, that was Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith. I believe #7 was actually Generations, and more about teamwork, with Jarjar Data and his amazing implant as comic relief.
You missed the 80% of the movie in which Cochrane wasn't getting his freak on. You know, the Borg -- should I blow up the Enterprise and save Earth, or play Ahab for awhile?
How can a movie be PC if the PC statement never makes it into the movie?
Sound and Fury.
The very use of the term "progressive" is disputable. How does one define "progressive," anyway? If both sides in a philosophical debate believe that they are moving things forward to a better state then things are currently in, then both sides have EQUALLY LEGITIMATE CLAIM to the term "progressive."
The term "progressive" has been co-opted recently because the term "liberal" has taken on a stigma among the general populace (whether that's good or bad is an entirely different point).
I actually have quite a bit more respect for a liberal who lays full claim to the term to describe his belief system (even if I don't agree with his beliefs). I have very little respect for someone who attempts to redefine a commonly used term to mean something other than what it has always meant and what it's linguistic roots would have it mean.
"Progressive" only means "moving things forward." The only question is... which was is "forward" and which way is "backwards?"
By describing oneself as "progressive" all you're really saying is that you think that the opposing viewpoint is wrong. Which may be true but is not really worth saying...
As for the term "PC" being "turned on censorship from the right," I would be curious to hear about specific examples of conservative groups attempting to silence opposing voices. Other than "competition in the marketplace" as opposed to "governmental support" for certain types of broadcasting... and since the marketplace reflects what the CONSUMERS want, not what the government wants, I see this as a good thing... I'm not even aware of any CLAIMS to that effect. Yes, there are those who claim that it's somehow "unfair" that talk-radio, for instance, is dominated by conservative voices. Yet the reason for that is because people listen to conservative talk radio and don't listen to liberal talk radio nearly as much. The failure of "Air America" was simply due to poor numbers, and was not due to being "forced off the air by nasty Conservatives." Not enough people listed... so not enough advertisers saw it as being worthwhile to advertise on there... which meant that the stations weren't able to pay their bills... the free market at work. And that's a GOOD thing. People get to choose.
No conservative group picketed. No "block group" threatened to stop buying products that were produced by firms that advertised on Air America. No sabotage was performed. No governmental regulations were created to force the stations off the air.
See, part of what makes conservatives what they are is a desire to see the free marketplace work, to see the government's power REDUCED, and so forth.
So, please, share specific examples of "Conservative censorship" so we can discuss them in their specifics. I literally can't think of a single example. I can give you numerous examples of on-campus activities AGAINST conservatives and conservative groups, for example, but none BY them.
OK, I gotta call, "Crap" on a couple of these. I'm hoping your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek.
STIV: Spock, "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical." He's right. It isn't. It's just not sound in any way.
And, for what it's worth, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, was one of the first national leaders in America to promote conservation of our natural resources and places of beauty.
STV: The movie does not say there is no God. Period. Would you really expect to find God sitting in the middle of the galaxy? The movie had 102 or more flaws in it, but it didn't have an atheistic message.
STVI: You can read what you want into this movie, I guess. Personally, I can think of no line, scene, or underlying theme that insinuates the Russians had no responsibility for the cold war or makes them into sympathetic figures. Just can't. You're reading way too much into it, IMO. Both sides take their share of blame for what happened in the past.
GEN: I assume you mean Soran. Since when is it "left-liberal" or PC to portray obsessive behavior as leading one down a dangerous path to evil or ruin? It's almost a story-telling cliche. Read "Moby Dick".
FC: Cochrane a "hippy drunk?" Man, that is so off. If anything, Cochrane was a cynic driven to drink and only looking to get rich on his invention. Hippy? Hah!
I'm not trying to provoke an argument. I just felt compelled to respond to a few of your points.
Ah, but to use your own example of right-wingers supposedly infiltrating public school boards to ban evolution texts, isn’t it interesting that the evolution texts steadfastly remain while what actually is banned is the Bible and any mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design? Even private Christian schools like the one where I got most of my primary education don’t ban the subject of evolution from even being discussed. Quite the contrary. Yet so-called “progressives,” who actually are censoring the entire opposing side of the debate, are lauded for championing the cause of “tolerance” while the righties, who are mostly just asking for equal time, get vilified for trying to “impose their beliefs.” That’s a perfect example of political correctness at its worst.
And I’m not aiming that at you personally, Seigezunt, just jumping off from your post to make a point of my own.
Creation stories and intelligent design are not banned from public schools in the US. Rather, they are not taught as science side by side with evolution. I'm sure it can be taught in theology or even philosophy courses. That's the difference.
Further, which creation story do you teach as science? You don't have time to do them all. Or, is only the Christian one "scientific?" What about the Cherokee Indian creation story? The Buddhist one? Hindu? Or are those wrong? Non-scientific? That's the can of worms you open going down this path. Not all Christians even interpret the creation story the same.
If you teach a Christian story of creation next to evolution, you've also violated the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. Even a conservative judge would have to say that.
If you respond by merely wanting teach some generic secularized version of creationism (intelligent design) along side Darwin, then you cheapen religion, IMO.
I also can't reconcile "scientific" creationism and the story of Doubting Thomas, either. It's about faith. It's about not doubting yourself or fearing the loss of the faithful because of what the evolutionists say. A Christian has nothing to prove. Proof, I guess, is on Judgement Day. But that's just me.
Sorry to butt in and take this thread off track. I guess I was in a ranting mood.
ETA: The Bible is not banned from public schools. Period. I don't know why that straw man keeps popping up.
In other words, you can treat one unproven thing as indisputable fact, and an opposing unproven thing may only be treated as mythology?
The reality is this. We know, as a fact, that evolution occurs within species. We know that because we've observed it. We do not know that it occurs from one species to another... that is a theory, not a fact. It has never been observed. And we do not know, in ANY case, if there is any controlling force behind even the in-species evolution we know occurs, much less behind the creation of new and genetically-unique species.
It is inappropriate, no matter how much you may, personally, prefer a given explanation, to treat one theory as "superior" to another equally valid one. Since there is no documented, recorded, scientifically validated example of the "evolution of species" as is often taught, it is scientifically INVALID to teach it as undisputed fact, or to suppress ANY contrarian school of thought.
Ah, but that's a straw man. Nobody is saying that a specific DOCTRINE should be taught in science class. Well, maybe a FEW people say that, but they're a MINISCULE minority.
The issue is that one particular scientific THEORY is taught, without sufficient scientific support, as though it is FACT. The bogey that Christians want Leviticus taught in Physics class is totally ludicrous and untrue!
The thing to realize is that anything that cannot be proven cannot be taught as fact... and if one thing that is unproven, but which supports one school of thought, is taught as fact, and another thing, which supports another school of thought is ignored or even openly ridiculed, that is NOT proper science... that's INDOCTRINATION.
See, "science" can legitimately teach that there is a THEORY that says that life MAY have evolved from one species to another. You don't even have to teach ANY competing theories... just make it clear that what's being taught is THEORY and not FACT.
That would be a scientifically-valid, and intellectually HONEST, way to run a science course.
Sorry... BULLSHIT.
Doesn't ANYBODY actually learn the Constitution anymore?
Here is the complete First Amendment:
Now, the first phrase... "Congress shall make no law"... follows on from a section in the body which makes it clear that ONLY Congress can make laws... and only over certain very specific areas of concern. So, read this as "The Federal Government shall make no law..." and it will be clear.
The line is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
"Respecting"... what does that mean? Well... "respecting" in this sentence means "having to do with." So, the first part of this says that the Federal Government cannot pass any law of any kind having ANYTHING to do with ... with what?
With establishing an "official religion." Interestingly, this doesn't mean that there cannot be an established religion... only that it cannot be dealt with by the Federal Government. States, according to the Constitution, could, in fact, establish an official religion and not be in violation of the First Amendment. Each state has its own constitution and the voters and citizens of each state have the right to choose to establish a religion, or to establish no religion, and the Federal Government has no right to even DISCUSS THE ISSUE. That's what the "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" says.
The second clause, if separated from the rest, would read "The Federal Government shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." There is no caviot saying "except in public schools" or anything to that effect. Of course, "free exercise" applies equally to all belief systems, including (but not restricted to) atheism... an atheist has every right to hold, practice, and argue in favor of his own belief system. But not to enforce it on others.
It's still a straw man... the argument being made is not "we should teach religion in school." The argument being made is that a particular belief system, atheism, is being treated (incorrectly) as though it's FACT, and is being taught as such. The whole "evolution of new species" thing is taught in support of a belief system. And since no new genetically-distinct species has ever been observed to come into being (genetically-distinct meaning "cannot reproduce except with other members of its species"... a new breed of dog doesn't qualify, since a poodle can mate with a greyhound!)
Scientific theory must only be taught as what it is... THEORY. And all theories must be given equal credence as such... THEORIES. No theory can be elevated to the level that it is treated as fact without absolutely conclusive supporting evidence. To do otherwise is ANTI-SCIENTIFIC, and falls, rather, into the realm of propaganda and thought-control. Brownshirt tactics...
Well, that's an interesting take. But that, at least, is also a matter of faith rather than a matter of science. All science says is that "evolution of new species" is only a theory, not a fact, and that there are other possible explanations. Among those explanations might be "creation of new life from whole cloth" or "creation of new life through intelligent intent but through the use of what we recognize as nature as the "sculptor's tool." And there are many other possible theories, as well, I'm sure.
The point is not to teach every possible position of FAITH... only to stop teaching the one theory that supports one belief system (atheism) as though it's incontrovertible fact. It isn't... and to say that it is, is nothing less than a lie.
It's not a "straw man," exactly... it's an exageration, rather... the application of a fairly sizeable body of anecdotal evidence to support a claim of an overall situation which does not exist (at least not yet).
There is no Federal law, and no state law, that bans students from voluntarily carrying bibles, reading bibles, praying, tossing down a prayer mat and facing Mecca, doing Taoist meditation, or anything else. Goat-sacrifices are probably prohibited, I'll grant that...
HOWEVER... many individual administrators, teachers, principals, and other "authority figures" have attempted to apply their own personal belief systems and have falsely used a mischaracterization of the First Amendment (which, as you can see clearly above, makes ZERO mention of "separation of church and state" anyway...). In my own High School, we had a vice-principal who used to walk around in the cafeteria and if she saw someone with a bible, she'd confiscate it... of course, it would be given back at the end of the day, provided that the "offending student" didn't do it again.
There are many examples of this sort of thing. But it's not LEGAL for them to do that... so you're correct, there is no "ban." There are only overzealous practitioners of atheism who want to force their own belief system on others. Which IS a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Nope. You just conceded something, and then went on to argue against that which you conceded. That's just a terrible attempt to separate two things which are actually exactly the same. Either that, or you're attributing ideas to the theory of evolution that don't belong to it.
If we were in TNZ, I'd spend some time replying to everything you said and maybe explaining why you just conceded that which you are arguing against, but we're not; this is terribly off topic and a mod will probably shut it down soon.
Agreed. We are too far off topic here to go on. But Cary, for what it's worth, in response to your comments on my post, I've taught constitutional law and stand by what I say. The cases are there.
Please excuse the length of the following 1994 quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould, but I'll go out on it.
That' all. I'm done. This isn't the time or place.
Nope, did no such thing. Are you missing the distinction between "within a species" and "between species?"
Oh, and I "conceded" nothing. The fact that you describe it as a "concession" belies a bias on your part. It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that evolution within a species occurs. We observe it regularly... and it's even measurable when looking at virii and bacteria.
What, exactly, is confusing you about this? Science... REAL science.. precludes stating that something is FACT unless it has been measured, observed, and repeatably demonstrated, and if there is no contrary data or evidence.
There has never been an actual laboratory experiment performed, nor any "in the wild observation" where one genetically-distinct species transformed into another one.
Given that, we do not have any FACTS about how a specific genetically-distinct species comes into being. We ONLY HAVE THEORY.
Get that? Saying it's THEORY is not the same as saying it's UNTRUE. Only that it's UNPROVEN. Which is an absolutely accurate statement.
You said that these two things are "exactly the same." Okay, then... show me your proof... provide your data... submit it for peer review. It is a THEORY... a possibility, but an as-of-yet-unproven one... that slow evolution within a species can result, eventually, in a new species. BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED... so it is a theory. Nothing wrong with theories... but you cannot treat a theory as a fact. The simple fact is that we do not know enough to claim that it's even possible. Leaping to conclusions is what's led to most of the scientific frauds throughout human history... TRUE SCIENCE is always skeptical and cautious!
Like what? The FACT of in-species evolution is that small mutations occur and are passed on from parent to offspring... beneficial ones stick around and harmful ones dilute out and eventually disappear, as the beneficial mutations make a lifeform more likely to survive or to reproduce, and the harmful ones make a lifeform less likely to survive or to reproduce. That's scientic fact.
The THEORY is that this process, occuring over billions of years, has resulted in slow transitions to the eventual creation of all the species on Earth today. This is entirely reasonable-sounding, but since we do not have genetic records over billions of years (only over a few decades!), there is absolutely NO proof that this is what happened. It's a theory.
What part of that do you say that I'm "misrepresenting?"
So, please feel free... in private message if you prefer. Your claim that I somehow "conceded" something is totally off-base in the first place... it's not a "concession" to state something that is, and always HAS BEEN, part of my own position.
But for here, just make it quick... give me two bullet-points:
1) What you're claiming I "conceded"
and
2) What you think I'm arguing against.
(here's a hint... what I'm arguing against is the misrepresentation of scientific theory as though it were conclusive scientific fact, particularly when this misrepresentation is based not upon science but rather upon a sociopolitical agenda)
Remember the good old days when we actually discussed the new movie, and discussions of this sort were saved for TNZ? 
A PM is forthcoming, if only to see if your position is based on willful ignorance or genuine misunderstanding.
As for your request:
1) That evolution occurs, in every way as described by modern scientific theory.
2) That evolution can produce "new species" which are "genetically unique" (or, at least, that we can't know this, if it has).
ETA: phrasing, clarity
As for your request:
1) That evolution occurs, in every way as described by modern scientific theory.
2) That evolution can produce "new species" which are "genetically unique" (or, at least, that we can't know this, if it has).
ETA: phrasing, clarity
You've taught Constitutional Law? Hmmm... what do you do for a living, and where did you teach? Just curious.
The meaning of the Constitution is quite clear and unambiguous. And the original intent is well-documented. It's true, however, that many people like to say that "we don't really know" what was meant by this, or by that. That's almost always a precursor to claims that "the Constitution needs to change" (however it's phrased... usually couched in some form of "living document" verbal manipulations)
I provided the FULL TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It is not hard to read, and not hard to understand. And its intent is both clear and unambiguous. The federal government may not make any law having anything to do with creating a national "official religious belief system" and also may not make any law which in any way restricts the rights of any citizen to practice his or her religious belief system as he or she sees fit.
There is NO OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE to this matter whatsoever, unless you want to treat the preamble... "endowed by their Creator" and all that...
Mr Gould was a well-known partisan. Quoting him on this topic is somewhat akin to quoting Gene Simmons on the necessity of funky face-paint for a rock band. You can hardly expect an unbiased answer!
And he was hardly an unquestioned authority. For instance:
My position is based upon NEITHER OF THE ABOVE. I am neither ignorant nor do I have any misunderstanding. In fact, it seems that YOU are "willfully misunderstanding" what's being said.
And to avoid any further reading-comprehension issues, I'll restate the original bullet-point questions I posed:
But for here, just make it quick... give me two bullet-points:
1) What you're claiming I "conceded"
and
2) What you think I'm arguing against.
Your statement here makes it clear that you're simply not grasping the basics of science at all.
I do not, and WOULD NOT, ever "concede" that anything DOES occur according to any THEORY. And neither should anyone else, ever. You seem to not quite grasp the difference between FACT and THEORY.
I state that it is a FACT that evolution occurs, within species. This is in no way a "concession" and is in no way inconsistent with any element of anything I have stated or anything I believe. Your insistence that it somehow forms a "concession" is a pure misrepresentation... either through your inability to stretch past your own preconceptions (ie, "everyone who disputes that it's a proven and incontrovertible FACT that life exists due to random mutations and nothing else must automatically be a scientific illiterate"), or through an intentional desire to discredit someone who's not cheering for your team. I prefer to think the first...
Just for the record... I believe this and always have. Therefore, it in NO WAY constitutes anything remotely close to a "concession."
Characterizing it as such is intended, it seems, to "weaken" my position through the use of loaded and emotionally-charged words. Not gonna work, though.
Cute. Those are two distinct and totally separate points. One is a scientifically valid one and one is a scientifically invalid one. By connecting the two there, you've tried to tie the invalid one to the valid one, I suppose in an effort to make both invalid?
For the record, if you were able to read and comprehend, you'd have grasped the fact that a theory is something which has not yet been proven beyond any doubt. The concept of inter- (rather than intra-) species evolution meets every requirement for being considered a valid theory, but does NOT meet the requirements for being treated as a scientific fact.
So, you claim that I"m arguing AGAINST the validity of the theory that "evolution can produce "new species" which are "genetically unique." But you'll be unable to find a single place where I said that, and several places in this very thread where I said exactly the opposite. That is called an INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION.
I say that this is a valid theory, just not supportable as a demonstrated fact. And you come back and claim that I'm arguing against it as a valid theory? Are you confused or is this intentional on your part? I'm curious...
Your second, parenthetical point, however, is somewhat closer to the reality of what I've been saying... specifically
Except, I never said "we can't." I said we DON'T. What I said was also very clear, and you've attempted to misrepresent it here. I said, simply, that we have no observation of the creation of a genetically-unique species. At no point did I say that we CAN'T have that... that would be a claim of FACT. You're trying to make it seem as though I'm arguing in favor of unsupported facts, instead of doing what I'm actually doing, which is arguing AGAINST unsupported facts.
The point is simple. The claim that one species can evolve into another is not supported by any facts at this time. Is it possible that we will have such facts at some point? Perhaps. Do we have any such facts supporting this now? Nope.
So the point stands... simply stated, we cannot treat inter-species evolution as a SCIENTIFIC FACT. It is, appropriately, a theory. To teach it as a fact, and to claim that it is not subject to dispute at any level... is fundamentally ANTI-SCIENTIFIC, and is utterly intellectually dishonest.
Oh, and one last thing. You'll note that at no point in this conversation have I ever stated that it doesn't happen. You've imagined me saying that, I'm sure... because you've been programmed to react in certain ways. That's why you treated my first point as a "concession." You might want to open up your mind a little bit... stop reading from the script you've been taught. Reality doesn't work according to any playbook.
Care to explain that point? ETA has many meanings... the most common of which is "estimated time of arrival"... but that's evidently not what you're referring to. Are you attempting to critique my writing style?
ETA meant edited to add. I proofread my post after making it.
Check your PM.
ETA: And again. I figured your last post deserved a reply, too. Now you've got two messages from me in your collection.
Oh, and this...
Undoubtedly, your confusion arose from the fact that I mentioned "theory" in my first point and not the second. Rest assured, when I use the word in one sentence, I do not mean to use it in another.
I replied to this portion publicly and this portion only because it was rather personal.
Check your PM.
ETA: And again. I figured your last post deserved a reply, too. Now you've got two messages from me in your collection.
Oh, and this...
Did I even use the word theory? Nope. My second point begins "That evolution can..." and continues onward without using the word "theory". I was asserting that you believe that evolutionary theory can accurately and knowingly describe that phenomenon, you and now you just said that, yes, evolutionary theory does not meet its burden of proof.
Undoubtedly, your confusion arose from the fact that I mentioned "theory" in my first point and not the second. Rest assured, when I use the word in one sentence, I do not mean to use it in another.
I replied to this portion publicly and this portion only because it was rather personal.
- Status
Similar threads
