Tom Corbett reserves disarming Pennsylvanians as an option

[Whiskey Reb]

I ahve to step away from the Puter for a bit, I'll be back.

[NikeBauer21]

Any candidate who wishes to attempt to put religion in a classroom is an absolute NO GO for me. I hold that value higher than RKBA. It's first in the Bill of Rights, after all.

And any candidate that refuses to allow the concept of religion in schools, but forces evolution is an absolute no-go for me.

Evolution(in concept of coming from monkeys or crystals) is not science either, it has no more supporting evidence than religion. So to teach it in the classroom as factual, but not allowing other choices such as religion, is a complete hypocritical bias. They are allowing the teachers to tech something that everyone does not agree with, hence indoctrination. Either teach them both, or none at all. And since many people oppose religion being in the educational system, DON'T teach either.

Sure, we are constantly evolving a minute bit all the time... in the aspect of changing. But to say we came from monkeys, or mud is much more absurd than a supernatural being.

BUT this has been beaten over and over again on this forum... Let's try not to derail this any further... unless you want to.. in which I will not participate.

[t1m0thy]

he wants to ban same sex marriage or civil unions. this means the state discriminates against same sex couples and also leads to automatic discrimination against same sex couples by insurance companies, hospitals, etc. because a same sex couple cannot be legally considered related.

this leads to wonderful things like life partners not being able to direct the care of their loved one...or even get status updates at the hospital...like you take for granted with your wife (assuming you have one).

supporting legally recognized unions between heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples *is* discrimination based on sexual preference...period.



well, the best...and most libertarian...solution to that is to get rid of laws that make gambling illegal in the first place. does he support doing that? why has he not introduced any legislation do to that?



evolution is a scientific theory--by the scientific definition of "theory" (not the typical misuse of the word)--and should be taught in science classes. "intelligent design" is not (it isn't even testable, and all the so-called "scientific" arguments supporting it have been blown up) and has no place in science class.

evolution is not "naturalist dogma". micro-evolution is a commonly observed phenomenon and is reproduceable in a lab. macro-evolution is scientifically robust conjecture that is supported not only by lab work in micro-economic evolution, but also by the fossil record.

i'd suggest reading the transcripts of the dover case...where a g.w. appointed, republican judge came to that same obvious conclusion.

Totally agree with you there. I was just reading up on Rohrer some more last night and saw that stuff.

Check out Marakay Rogers. They don't have a site up for her yet but here is her Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...2509253?ref=mf

[LittleRedToyota]

In my first post I stated openly and immediately that I am indeed a volunteer for the Rohrer campaign. Should I be ashamed of that?

not at all.

it's quite commendable that you are out working for the candidate you believe in.

he just isn't the libertarian that many people make him out to be...then again, neither are many people who call themselves libertarian as soon as things like "family values" and religion come into the mix.

of course, corbett is, in many ways at least, even less of a libertarian--but i don't think anyone claims corbett is libertarian.

however, to call corbett anti-gun requires completely ignoring his record as AG.

i'd rather not vote for either corbett or rohrer. but i would gladly take either over onorato or any of the D candidates. most likely, though, i will end up voting for marakay rogers though i do have to research her a bit more.

[Nullifidian]

And any candidate that refuses to allow the concept of religion in schools, but forces evolution is an absolute no-go for me.

Evolution(in concept of coming from monkeys or crystals) is not science either, it has no more supporting evidence than religion.

Correct, we didn't come from monkeys. We didn't come from apes either. However we share a common ancestor with apes.

Just because you completely fail to understand a scientific theory doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean "there is no evidence."

So to teach it in the classroom as factual, but not allowing other choices such as religion, is a complete hypocritical bias.

There is your problem. Religion is not "other choices". It isn't science. There is no concept of "proof" in religion. The religious answer to everything is "God did it" and "because God says so". THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

They are allowing the teachers to tech something that everyone does not agree with, hence indoctrination.

Science does not require consensus of opinion because it is not subject to opinion. Science is governed by math and observed results. You come up with theories based on what fits mathematically and is supported by the observations made. There's nothing about "agreement." There is only what fits the data. It is possible in many cases for more than one model to fit the data. In these cases there will be more than one prevailing theory. But all theories must fit the data. All must be testable. All must be falsifiable. Evolution fits those traits. No religious concept does. In fact, by definition, religion CANNOT be falsifiable or even testable since in religion the answer to everything is "God says so."

Either teach them both, or none at all. And since many people oppose religion being in the educational system, DON'T teach either.

You're missing the problem. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. We teach science in classrooms. We do not teach religion in classrooms. There is no conflict. If you disagree with a scientific theory on religious grounds that's ignorance. Plain and simple. Disagree with a scientific theory on SCIENTIFIC grounds, that's how progress is made.

When I was taught about Newtons laws in school, I brought up Relativity and how Newtons laws of motion weren't correct. The reply I got was that Newtons laws of motion are in part correct and in part "very very good approximations" for the masses and speeds human beings typically deal with and only begin to be measurably inaccurate when you reach speeds close to light or masses with measurable gravitational effects.

The point? The point is that it's fine to object to a scientific theory in school but the objection must be from a scientific standpoint. You can't say "the law of gravity isn't correct because the Invisible Pink Unicorn says so in the Chapter 3 verse 287 of the Great Fairy Book."

Sure, we are constantly evolving a minute bit all the time...

Now you're talking about Lamarckism which was shot down a long time ago. As in, back in the 1800s. Thanks for proving you don't know about evolution.

Evolution "stops" upon procreation. Once you reproduce there's no more evolution involved until the next generation. Unless of course you pop out another offspring again later.

in the aspect of changing. But to say we came from monkeys, or mud is much more absurd than a supernatural being.

Argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong. Wishful thinking. You don't like it, therefore it must be wrong.

BUT this has been beaten over and over again on this forum... Let's try not to derail this any further... unless you want to.. in which I will not participate.

There isn't an argument to be had. Religion is not science and has no place in science classrooms. You want to disagree with evolution, the first thing you have to do is learn what evolutionary theory states. You haven't. You very clearly don't know anything about it. After you learn what it is then if you still have objections, find a scientific reason for them. If you have no scientific objections (i.e. data which is not supported by current evolutionary theory) then sit down and shut up.

[t1m0thy]

If education of our children was placed back into the private sector where it belongs instead of in government hands this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Nullifidian]

If education of our children was placed back into the private sector where it belongs instead of in government hands this wouldn't even be an issue.

The problem with a purely private system is that it eventually becomes a system in which only the wealthy are educated.

[billamj]

The problem with a purely private system is that it eventually becomes a system in which only the wealthy are educated.

Funny, my family is certainly not wealthy but my daughter attends a private school. We pay both tuition at the school and local school taxes. Why? Because my daughter deserves the best education we can afford her, even if it means scrimping on other things.

[granuale]

Thanks for the info Stan. You saved me a bit of research. I didn't know he was an intelligent design supporter. Once again it looks like the choice is to vote for the guy who only wants to violate some fundamental rights and liberties. You just pick which ones you don't mind being violated. Oh well. Likely I'll go the usual route and vote Libertarian. It's nice to leave the voting booth and not feel dirty.

[Nullifidian]

Funny, my family is certainly not wealthy but my daughter attends a private school. We pay both tuition at the school and local school taxes. Why? Because my daughter deserves the best education we can afford her, even if it means scrimping on other things.

You missed a word.

The word was "eventually".

In a time when there was no public school system, education most certainly WAS only possible for the wealthy.

Please do not compare prices under the current system which includes schools that are "free" (i.e. paid for by taxes and accessible to all regardless of socioeconomic status), with prices of schools in a system with no such option.