PDA

View Full Version : Should an ex-porn star be allowed to teach high school science?


radiationroom
March 9th, 2011, 06:59 PM
Thom Hartmann (http://www.thomhartmann.com) is discussing the suspension/firing of a high school science teacher who was fired because she made a porn flick as a teenager in the 1980's. Apparently the school board where she worked had a collective bowel movement over this while the students are rallying in favor of the teacher.

What is your opinion?

meLoCo_go
March 9th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Dunno.
I'd say if she's a good teacher let her teach.
It's harder to train a good teacher than porn star.

E. Shaun
March 9th, 2011, 07:13 PM
I'd say if she's a good teacher let her teach.


Exactly! If every seasoned adult was held accountable for his or her actions as a teenager / young adult, we'd have a much worse unemployment crisis, and a duller workforce at that.

Goes211
March 9th, 2011, 07:26 PM
I can only imagine what the Facebook generation will have to deal with when all those pics and youtube films resurface during job interviews.

ManRoom Studio
March 9th, 2011, 07:28 PM
One would assume that she would excel at teaching biology . . .

sorry, went for the obvious there . . .

Seriously, in our rapid regression into the dark ages, the inane trivialities that people are focusing on "while Rome burns" is both mind-boggling and terrifying. I'd weep for the future of our children if I thought they had one.

The ManRoom

Wide-O
March 9th, 2011, 07:29 PM
This (http://www.pastormelissascott.com/index.shtml) used to be a porn star too! :vuvu:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/scott-melissa.jpg

Keks
March 9th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Dunno.
I guess I'd have to see the flick to form an opinion.



:Roll eyes:

All the best,
the keks

weedywet
March 9th, 2011, 08:31 PM
appearing in the porn film wasn't ILLEGAL.

what they are implying is that it was IMMORAL

if this is then up to the community to decide, then would it be okay for a liberal local school board to ban all teachers who ever voted Republican, as they'd clearly be immoral by community standards?

as the answer is clearly 'no', so should it be for these anti-porn crusaders.

cwatkins
March 9th, 2011, 08:42 PM
If she was HOT and still isn't that old could you imagine
the trouble that would cause though..
She'd have like an all male class.
I'd be all about having her remake high school teacher
porn or something, score the million bucks and screw
trying to make 16,500$ a year teaching.

I would have to see the porn and current condition of the
teacher; but Van Halen had a close approximation I think;
I would like have been one to sign up for the class.
Heck, I was a geek I may have even had a chance
of not getting shot down; wait unless; could it be;
Was she teaching human reproduction science?

nobby
March 9th, 2011, 08:55 PM
Seriously, in our rapid regression into the dark ages, the inane trivialities that people are focusing on "while Rome burns" is both mind-boggling and terrifying. I'd weep for the future of our children if I thought they had one.

I'm a lot more concerned about former heads of government agencies going to work for lobbying firms than whether a teacher made a porn flick years ago when she was desperate and homeless.

The lobbyists seem to me to be a lot more meretricious.

HOOK
March 9th, 2011, 08:59 PM
I wonder how many of the school board members that watched the flick (and others just like it) before they woted??:headpalm::fingerlefty:

...someone once said "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone"...:Roll eyes:





HOOK

MacGregor
March 9th, 2011, 09:33 PM
I would have no problem with her teaching my children if she's a good teacher.

But it could become problematic for HER when the young lads find out and plaster screenshots of her movies all over the place.
Teens can be very nasty...

Mac
.

Johnny
March 9th, 2011, 09:38 PM
Let the schools hire whoever they want to hire, so long as parents who object are free to educate their children elsewhere. And aren't required to pay the teacher's salary.

weedywet
March 9th, 2011, 09:41 PM
if they "educate" their children at home, will they teach them the correct use of "whomever"?

you know, in between all the gratuitous jesus stuff?

PRobb
March 9th, 2011, 10:07 PM
I would have no problem with her teaching my children if she's a good teacher.

But it could become problematic for HER when the young lads find out and plaster screenshots of her movies all over the place.
Teens can be very nasty...

Mac
.

That's really the problem, which is a shame.

Johnny
March 9th, 2011, 10:18 PM
if they "educate" their children at home, will they teach them the correct use of "whomever"?

you know, in between all the gratuitous jesus stuff?

Yes, right after they teach when to use capital letters.

CloseToTheEdge
March 9th, 2011, 10:20 PM
It has everything to do with the individual. Each person should be judged on what they are doing with their life now, not 20 years ago. People should be evaluated on a 'case by case' basis, so no 'one size fits all' rules work in situations like this one.

That said, some people have behaved in such a way that they should never be allowed to be alone with children (convicted pediphiles, convicted murderers, the Koch brothers, etc.).

Having an adult film career that long ago would not be an issue for me at all, provided she was a good teacher and she had not been involved in her prior vocation for a long period of time.

weedywet
March 9th, 2011, 10:23 PM
Yes, right after they teach when to use capital letters.

god told me not to

obviously

Johnny
March 9th, 2011, 10:27 PM
god told me not to

obviously
Man you hate my guts.

But ironically, I went to government school and had a former Penthouse pet as a teacher. So you see where this all leads.:grin:

G. Hoffman
March 9th, 2011, 11:47 PM
I'm a lot more concerned about former heads of government agencies going to work for lobbying firms than whether a teacher made a porn flick years ago when she was desperate and homeless.

The lobbyists seem to me to be a lot more meretricious.



This - yes.



Gabriel

weedywet
March 10th, 2011, 12:08 AM
Man you hate my guts.

But ironically, I went to government school and had a former Penthouse pet as a teacher. So you see where this all leads.:grin:

not at all, I don't know you.

but I do hate religion as a "reason" to do anything.
including and especially a reason to remove your child from a demonstrably better education, that would in the long run be better for the country as well, just so that he won't be exposed to a differing religious viewpoint.





and yes, I see where it's going... your state obviously doesn't spend enough on education. that's what you meant, right?:grin:

TSTW
March 10th, 2011, 01:38 AM
I can only imagine what the Facebook generation will have to deal with when all those pics and youtube films resurface during job interviews.

Couldn't agree more!

Smileyblue
March 10th, 2011, 01:57 AM
If she is a good teacher what is the problem?

So what if she made a porn flick, she's not the only one with a skeleton in her closet. She shouldn't be condemned for something she did as a teen. That is just ridiculous. She obviously felt at the time (being a single mother and homeless) that she had to feed her kids and she could probably make a good deal of cash doing the film.

I feel bad for her, and her son that attends the same school. Who are the School board to judge her. It's not like she is doing it now...

eagan
March 10th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Alright, I just spent about ten minutes trying to find this on the Hartmann site. Then it occurred to me... why? Why am I HUNTING?

WHERE is this?


JLE

Smileyblue
March 10th, 2011, 02:15 AM
http://www.cellspin.net/user/160de1f2a1/post/130046/

Here you go Egan.

It was a link in the Twitter feed.

Cheers SB

weedywet
March 10th, 2011, 03:13 AM
what if she worked part time for the Teabagger party?

what if she sold guns part time?

what if she is a union organiser?


why should her COMPLETELY LEGAL other job matter?

maybe puritan Americans should get over their fear of sex

dwoz
March 10th, 2011, 03:13 AM
My kids are homeschooled. But my wife and I, as home schooling parents, find the religious homeschoolers frightening, dangerous to their kid's futures, limited, overbearing, vastly undereducated even in the book they use as their text, and generally stupid and vapid.

That does not stop some of them from being quite nice people, it just gives pause, and despair, for their kids' understanding of science, math, and history.

dwoz
March 10th, 2011, 03:16 AM
I think that a teacher who is CURRENTLY or RECENTLY a porn star is probably too disadvantaged to be able to be effective in a school setting, but not because of him/her...because of the situational intricacies.

I know one HS teacher who is a car salesman in the summer months. You'd think the fact that he was a lying sack of shit utterly devoid of moral compass in his second job, would disqualify him as a molder-of-young-minds in his main job...

Aardvark
March 10th, 2011, 03:34 AM
How come any moron who gets naked and fucks on film is considered a star?

If I have a walk-on in a regular movie does that make me a movie star?

Adult film worker seems more appropriate for the vast majority of skanks and wanks in that business.

Hey, I played in rock band that played in a club once... does that make me a rock star?:headpalm:



Cheers,
Aardvark



.

Darth_Fader
March 10th, 2011, 05:22 AM
Hey, I played in rock band that played in a club once... does that make me a rock star?:headpalm:

Who here hasn't? :)

Not that I qualify as a rock star, either. I can kinda look like one of ZZ top, but that's about the limit. I do a better Jerry Garcia, but only until I open my mouth and start talking.

I'd think this teacher would be BETTER as far as a teacher given her experience, though. She has a better idea of how bad things can get. NOT that anyone should have to know that. I know being poor sucks. Been there, done that. No thanks.

eagan
March 10th, 2011, 06:39 AM
So.

She's a teacher.

Is she a good teacher?

Does she act properly and professionally when she's on the job?

Yes?

Yes?

End of teapot tempest.


JLE

TubaSolo
March 10th, 2011, 07:49 AM
Who would want to deprive healthy kids of ONE GOOD REASON to be excited about going to school?

"Now today, class, I'm going to tell you about hormones, using a few simple examples... (wearing a miniskirt, she sits on the desk)" :Roll eyes:

Who among us here wouldn't have been FOR ONCE really looking forward to attend any teacher's class?

Say it if you dare!..

:lol:

Keks
March 10th, 2011, 09:10 AM
Al chauvinistic fun aside...

If she is a good teacher what is the problem?

So what if she made a porn flick, she's not the only one with a skeleton in her closet.

That.
I believe that she could be a special role model,
meaning that if you're broke, you still have a chance to brake even.
And I believe that she could be an authentic counterpart for pupils in trouble.

All the best,
the keks

Oberlehrer
March 10th, 2011, 12:15 PM
It doesn't matter if she is a good teacher or not.

Being (among other things) a teacher myself (see my nickname) it is very obvious to me that something like having starred in a porn flick could be considered worse than (for example) a criminal record. Because it fuels certain fantasies. Human sexuality is something that "connects" extremely deep with adolescent kids. They probably would not see her as the "role model" we would like her to see. This is by no means her wrongdoing, but neither it's the kid's - they simply can't help it.

Having her teach for a different age group would probably not pose that much of a problem.

weedywet
March 10th, 2011, 03:43 PM
So in an all white school just after desegregation you'd argue that a black teacher is simply too much distraction and the kids 'can't help it'?

Isn't any pretty teacher the same hormonal challenge?

They need to LEARN to 'help it'

Her civil rights aren't subservient to their hormones.

This all comes back to a fear of sex.

I wonder which parent had the tape that made the the discovery!

HOOK
March 10th, 2011, 03:49 PM
Female teachers with big boobs should NOT teach high school!!!


:vuvu::vuvu::vuvu::Roll eyes::very happy:


(We NEED a boob-smiley!!!)

HOOK

Wide-O
March 10th, 2011, 03:50 PM
I wonder which parent had the tape that made the the discovery!

Could have been a member of the school board...

"Hey" fap fap "isn't that" fap "Mrs. X???" fap fap. "OUTRAGE!"

:headpalm:

CloseToTheEdge
March 10th, 2011, 07:43 PM
Hey, I played in rock band that played in a club once... does that make me a rock star?:headpalm:



Cheers,
Aardvark



.

Yes. Yes, it does.

And let's not explore this any further.

CloseToTheEdge
March 10th, 2011, 07:44 PM
Female teachers with big boobs should NOT teach high school!!!


:vuvu::vuvu::vuvu::Roll eyes::very happy:


(We NEED a boob-smiley!!!)

HOOK

Here you go:

(.)(.)

or if you prefer...

( . ) ( . )

You pick.

Spock
March 10th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Hey, I played in rock band that played in a club once... does that make me a rock star?:headpalm:



Of course it does.

I'm at a technical event right now that has a theme of "Rock Stars of the Data Center". They have big posters around of classic bands, Who, AC/DC, Zep, etc. and are giving away shirts that say real big on the front Rock Star. The only thing worse than fat geeks that have a server room tan trying to be cool, is the marketing/sales dudes trying to play along with the theme of the event.

nobby
March 10th, 2011, 08:53 PM
Isn't any pretty teacher the same hormonal challenge?

I think it may be more about parents thinking that having a teacher as a former porn... actress?... would give the latter occupation a stamp of approval. Or that the buzz created by her past action would have a disruptive effect.

I would think that Christians would believe in forgiveness and redemption, particularly considering the dire circumstances the woman had to deal with at the time she did the movie, the (apparent) fact that it was just one flick, not a career, and, she has since picked herself up and made herself a productive member of society.

I think she's my new heroine... fuck teaching, give her a talk show! (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-parker-spitzer-marks-big-ratings-gains-while-kathleen-parkers-out-sick/)

As for internet exposure making it impossible for something like that not to become common knowledge, maybe enough people will have the skeletons in their closets exposed that people will stop paying attention, let the past be the past and move forward.

If she was a teacher in my school back in high school, I would probably have been sympathetic and considered her a strong person for having overcome considerable adversity.

After all, we had hotter looking teachers to distract us, and the female student body -- fuhgeddaboudit! :icon_eek:

eagan
March 10th, 2011, 09:08 PM
I'm at a technical event right now that has a theme of "Rock Stars of the Data Center". They have big posters around of classic bands, Who, AC/DC, Zep, etc. and are giving away shirts that say real big on the front Rock Star. The only thing worse than fat geeks that have a server room tan trying to be cool, is the marketing/sales dudes trying to play along with the theme of the event.

You poor bastard.

Seriously. That's painful to just read it.

Hang in there and fight the urge to gouge your brain out with a screwdriver. It will be over soon.

(I hope! If not and this horror is some multi-day event, post again, perhaps someone is close enough nearby to come and kill you now. No human should suffer so.)


JLE

Spock
March 10th, 2011, 10:10 PM
You poor bastard.

Seriously. That's painful to just read it.

Hang in there and fight the urge to gouge your brain out with a screwdriver. It will be over soon.

(I hope! If not and this horror is some multi-day event, post again, perhaps someone is close enough nearby to come and kill you now. No human should suffer so.)


JLE

I will be OK, thanks. It's one day and I think the open bar starts in about an hour or so, then I just found out that are having a 80s new wave cover band play. The place is setup for business theater, I'm not expecting a good FOH sound.

John Eppstein
March 11th, 2011, 02:17 AM
Hey, I played in rock band that played in a club once... does that make me a rock star?

Did you pay a roadie or sound man?

If so, yes.

Definition - rock star: he who makes jobs for the crew.

:Roll eyes:

John Eppstein
March 11th, 2011, 03:55 AM
It doesn't matter if she is a good teacher or not.

Being (among other things) a teacher myself (see my nickname) it is very obvious to me that something like having starred in a porn flick could be considered worse than (for example) a criminal record. Because it fuels certain fantasies. Human sexuality is something that "connects" extremely deep with adolescent kids. They probably would not see her as the "role model" we would like her to see. This is by no means her wrongdoing, but neither it's the kid's - they simply can't help it.

Having her teach for a different age group would probably not pose that much of a problem.
Bosh!

dwoz
March 11th, 2011, 06:51 PM
I imagine the teacher in question could come up with some good examples to demonstrate the bernoulli effect.

otek
March 11th, 2011, 07:59 PM
Let the schools hire whoever they want to hire, so long as parents who object are free to educate their children elsewhere. And aren't required to pay the teacher's salary.

While I think people should be allowed to have their children go to school wherever they want, those parents who would take their kids out of that school for THIS, based on their interpretation of religious doctrine, are part of the problem.

As I recall, Jesus received a few complaints about Mary Magdalene too, but he kept her around.


otek

E. Shaun
March 11th, 2011, 08:01 PM
As I recall, Jesus received a few complaints about Mary Magdalene too, but he kept her around.

I've often wondered why there's no Church of the Magdalene, teaching the value of prostitution and subsequent reformation...

weedywet
March 11th, 2011, 08:29 PM
again, making adult movies is a legal activity.
and quite a successful industry.


are we really going to pass judgment on sex on film being immoral, that it requires "reformation"?



I would think that Christians would believe in forgiveness and redemption, particularly considering the dire circumstances the woman had to deal with at the time she did the movie, the (apparent) fact that it was just one flick, not a career, and, she has since picked herself up and made herself a productive member of society.


she did nothing that requires forgiveness from anyone.
as I said, it's not like she was a Republiklan or in the military or clergy, or something else truly onerous.


she was a "productive member of society" when she made a film for a living.

carry on buying the puritan bullshit.

nobby
March 11th, 2011, 08:48 PM
I imagine the teacher in question could come up with some good examples to demonstrate the bernoulli effect.

Or create a vacuum in a bell jar during a power outage?

I thought we weren't going there :weedstore:

Johnny
March 11th, 2011, 10:04 PM
While I think people should be allowed to have their children go to school wherever they want, those parents who would take their kids out of that school for THIS, based on their interpretation of religious doctrine, are part of the problem.

otek
You can think that, but apart from calling them part of the problem, are you prepared to force them to do otherwise? People should be free to educate their kids wherever they like, for any reason. What if the public school starts teaching "intelligent design" (which I oppose, BTW)? I would have those with faith in spontaneous generation be free to take their kids out and not have to pay for the schools. Same with Weedy's objectionable right-wingers.

weedywet
March 11th, 2011, 10:22 PM
no
the right response is to bring the school to court as "intelligent design", being really religion and not science, is unconstitutional to teach in public schools

John Eppstein
March 11th, 2011, 10:24 PM
People should be free to educate their kids wherever they like, for any reason.

I agree. Parents should be free to EDUCATE their children in any way they choose. Parents should not, however, be free to INDOCTRINATE their children with ignorant bullshit. And if they choose home schooling their teaching should be held to rigorous standards of quality.

Johnny
March 11th, 2011, 10:47 PM
Indoctrination is simply teaching doctrine, which is inescapable. That you don't believe it is irrelevant, unless you believe you have rights which supersede those of the parents.

John Eppstein
March 11th, 2011, 11:07 PM
Indoctrination is simply teaching doctrine, which is inescapable. That you don't believe it is irrelevant, unless you believe you have rights which supersede those of the parents.

Parents should not have the right to teach their kids ignorant bullshit.

Do you believe that the teaching of racism should be allowed?

Teaching doctrine is only inescapable for those who believe that doctrine is part of education. The fact it that it is not.

E. Shaun
March 11th, 2011, 11:47 PM
Parents should not have the right to teach their kids ignorant bullshit.

Do you believe that the teaching of racism should be allowed?

Teaching doctrine is only inescapable for those who believe that doctrine is part of education. The fact it that it is not.

I agree with you in principle, but the problem is that there IS no universally accepted proof of virtually anything in this world. The Aristotelian "A is A" viewpoint is doctrine in and of itself. Personally, I love absolutes. But you're going to be hard pressed to get a random group of ten people to agree on everything, let alone close to seven billion. One man's absolute truth is another man's doctrine. One man's doctrine is another man's vision of folly.

I don't believe in god / gods / goddesses or anything of the sort, but I don't begrudge those who do, unless they espouse zealotry and dogma in their views. Who am I to proselytize my godless viewpoint on to others? Just because I have my own set of beliefs, I don't feel the need to push them on others. But when I have kids, they'll know my beliefs, and while I will do my level best to allow them to form their own beliefs, I'm sure that a lot of what I believe will play a role in theirs. Is that indoctrination?

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 12:22 AM
Parents should not have the right to teach their kids ignorant bullshit.
Apart from a rather large assumption there, who is going to decide what is and isn't ignorant? I believe you and I both don't buy a lot of global warming hysteria. We're both ignorant according to those in charge.

Do you believe that the teaching of racism should be allowed?
Allowed how? Made part of the curriculum? No, not in any school to which I would send my children. But that's equivocation. That's like asking on the other side if you believe porn should be shown to the kids in that teacher's class.

Teaching doctrine is only inescapable for those who believe that doctrine is part of education. The fact it that it is not.
The fact is that anything that is taught is taught from a point of view. Can't get around that. So, if you believe in that point of view, teach accordingly. That's my whole point here. I don't agree with the parents freaking out over the porn actress but I respect and defend their right to act on it. Just as I would respect anyone's right to do the same if the point of view at their local government school did not reflect the doctrine they mean to teach their children.

weedywet
March 12th, 2011, 12:41 AM
The Holocaust happened.
this isn't a "point of view"

that's a right wing trick, to make everything seem like there are "two sides to every story"

there is often an actual truth

for example, the world isn't only 6000 years old.
that's the truth. and no dancing about changes it.

Evolution is how organisms develop. inescapable. demonstrable.

removing children from exposure to these truths may be a parent's right but it's also fucking stupid.

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 01:03 AM
removing children from exposure to these truths may be a parent's right but it's also fucking stupid.

And I respect your right to say so. But the homeschool kids in our Parish can probably articulate the theory of spontaneous generation better than their government-school counterparts, so it's not like they aren't being taught.

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 01:59 AM
I agree with you in principle, but the problem is that there IS no universally accepted proof of virtually anything in this world. The Aristotelian "A is A" viewpoint is doctrine in and of itself. Personally, I love absolutes. But you're going to be hard pressed to get a random group of ten people to agree on everything, let alone close to seven billion. One man's absolute truth is another man's doctrine. One man's doctrine is another man's vision of folly.


Yes, but "god" should not be part of education. That's why we have separation of church and state.

And those who believe that "god" is part of education should not be permitted to pass the contagion on to their offspring.

jstuart
March 12th, 2011, 02:01 AM
government-school counterparts,


I've been seeing this "government school" phrase show up just recently . Always as a pejorative term. like the "govmint gonna take ourn kids an' make em homo/ commie/ welfare/ intellectual eggheads"

who put that out there?
j

nobby
March 12th, 2011, 02:06 AM
And I respect your right to say so. But the homeschool kids in our Parish can probably articulate the theory of spontaneous generation better than their government-school counterparts, so it's not like they aren't being taught.

Why are they being taught a theory that was disproved by the 19th century?

Are they being taught the theory of evolution as well?

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 02:08 AM
Apart from a rather large assumption there, who is going to decide what is and isn't ignorant? I believe you and I both don't buy a lot of global warming hysteria. We're both ignorant according to those in charge.

Well, I don't know about your reasons, but my reasons for having a certain amount of doubt about global warming is that I've seen scientifically credible evidence that could suggest otherwise. I've seen evidence that supports BOTH positions, so I'm undecided.

Since there is NO scientifically credible evidence to support ANY religion (including atheism), it should not be part of an educational curriculum.

Allowed how? Made part of the curriculum? No, not in any school to which I would send my children. But that's equivocation. That's like asking on the other side if you believe porn should be shown to the kids in that teacher's class.

There are those who claim that the anatomically accurate depiction of human (or any, in some cases) genetalia in a biology text constitutes pornography. I believe that a number of them are located in your own state.

The fact is that anything that is taught is taught from a point of view. Can't get around that. So, if you believe in that point of view, teach accordingly. That's my whole point here. I don't agree with the parents freaking out over the porn actress but I respect and defend their right to act on it. Just as I would respect anyone's right to do the same if the point of view at their local government school did not reflect the doctrine they mean to teach their children.

The only valid point of view for education is the point of view of science.

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 02:10 AM
removing children from exposure to these truths may be a parent's right but it's also fucking stupid.

No parent has the "right" to blight their child in this manner. That so-called "right" is the genesis of jihads and crusades.

Darth_Fader
March 12th, 2011, 02:14 AM
No parent has the "right" to blight their child in this manner. That so-called "right" is the genesis of jihads and crusades.

That's exactly what all the anti-sex-ed and anti-evolution-ed people are trying to poison this country with, in order to further their own attempt to reduce the USA to the same state as the post-jihad Moorish civilizations...

They're miserable, they want us all to live short, die young, and be miserable like then and their imaginary sky buddy.

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 02:17 AM
And I respect your right to say so. But the homeschool kids in our Parish can probably articulate the theory of spontaneous generation better than their government-school counterparts, so it's not like they aren't being taught.

Thereby proving my point. Those poor kids are being taught ignorant bullshit. They should be taken from their parents during school hours and provided with a proper education, not indoctrinated with ignorant superstition.

And then there's the matter of dead children caused by their parents superstitious belief in faith healing.

BTW, there is no "theory" of spontaneous generation. There was, but it was conclusively disproven. It is now the superstition of spontaneous generation.

Do you believe that stepping on the cracks of sidewalks induces maternal ill health?

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 05:09 AM
I don't think y'all are getting my point that a belief in evolution IS a belief in spontaneous generation. That amoeba just happened out of inanimate elements. Unless you believe we've been seeded by aliens, and then you're just pushing the problem back a notch.

So John, you'd take my kids away?

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 05:11 AM
They're miserable, they want us all to live short, die young, and be miserable like then and their imaginary sky buddy.

Actually, Darth, I would have you live a long, fruitful joyous life.

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 05:12 AM
I've been seeing this "government school" phrase show up just recently . Always as a pejorative term. like the "govmint gonna take ourn kids an' make em homo/ commie/ welfare/ intellectual eggheads"

who put that out there?
j

I mean it only in terms of that's who's running the schools and determining the curriculum. Place whatever value judgement on it what you will.

weedywet
March 12th, 2011, 05:19 AM
I don't think y'all are getting my point that a belief in evolution IS a belief in spontaneous generation. That amoeba just happened out of inanimate elements. Unless you believe we've been seeded by aliens, and then you're just pushing the problem back a notch.


whereas you think it's "magic"

that's either a naive or purposely disingenuous definition of spontaneous generation

and in any event... the moment of inception of the first life on earth isn't really proof or anti-proof of evolution SINCE then.
viruses and bacteria are evolving under our noses, quite demonstrably, every second.
you deny it only by wearing blinders of your own choosing


your conflating genesis of life with evolutionary theory is simply proof of a poor grasp of the science.
unless you do it as willful disinformation.
your choice.

are you seriously arguing god created all life forms, wholly formed, at genesis and nothing has evolved since?
otherwise, I don't see the relation between the first life and a theory of evolution.

there are life forms on this planet that didn't exist when I started typing this post.

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 05:27 AM
are you seriously arguing god created all life forms, wholly formed, at genesis and nothing has evolved since?

Things have obviously evolved since; we have even influenced it in breeding different animals within their species. One species to another? No.

But IF you belief that life occurred by chance, you are bound to believe that at some point it simply happened (spontaneously) and began to mutate into everything we now see in the world. An enormous leap of faith.

nobby
March 12th, 2011, 06:03 AM
Things have obviously evolved since; we have even influenced it in breeding different animals within their species. One species to another? No.

But IF you belief that life occurred by chance, you are bound to believe that at some point it simply happened (spontaneously) and began to mutate into everything we now see in the world. An enormous leap of faith.

But that's a distortion of what the theory of spontaneous generation was. It wasn't a Primordial Soup Theory (http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm), it was primitive quasi-science that was thoroughly discredited byt the 19th century.

spontaneous generation, also called abiogenesis, [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks there were mice in the rags. Many believed in spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots on decaying meat.

By the 18th century it had become obvious that higher organisms could not be produced by nonliving material. The origin of microorganisms such as bacteria, however, was not fully determined until Pasteur proved in the 19th century that microorganisms reproduce. See also biopoiesis.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/560859/spontaneous-generation

Background — Spontaneous Generation

Today, we take many things in science for granted. Many experiments have been performed and much knowledge has been accumulated that people didn’t always know. For centuries, people based their beliefs on their interpretations of what they saw going on in the world around them without testing their ideas to determine the validity of these theories — in other words, they didn’t use the scientific method to arrive at answers to their questions. Rather, their conclusions were based on untested observations.

Among these ideas, for centuries, since at least the time of Aristotle (4th Century BC), people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by spontaneous generation. This was the idea that non-living objects can give rise to living organisms. It was common “knowledge” that simple organisms like worms, beetles, frogs, amd salamanders could come from dust, mud, etc., and food left out, quickly “swarmed” with life. For example:

Observation: Every year in the spring, the Nile River flooded areas of Egypt along the river, leaving behind nutrient-rich mud that enabled the people to grow that year’s crop of food. However, along with the muddy soil, large numbers of frogs appeared that weren’t around in drier times.
Conclusion: It was perfectly obvious to people back then that muddy soil gave rise to the frogs.

Observation: In many parts of Europe, medieval farmers stored grain in barns with thatched roofs (like Shakespeare’s house). As a roof aged, it was not uncommon for it to start leaking. This could lead to spoiled or moldy grain, and of course there were lots of mice around.
Conclusion: It was obvious to them that the mice came from the moldy grain.

Observation: In the cities, there were no sewers, no garbage trucks, no electricity, and no refrigeration. Sewage flowed in the gutters along the streets, and the sidewalks were raised above the streets to give people a place to walk. In the intersections, raised stepping stones were strategically placed to allow pedestrians to cross the intersection, yet were spaced such that carriage wheels could pass between them. In the morning, the contents of the chamber pots were tossed out the nearest window. Food was purchased and prepared on a daily basis, and when people were done eating a meal, the bones and left-overs were tossed out the window, too. A chivalrous gentleman always walked closest to the street when escorting a woman, so if a horse and carriage came by and splashed up the filth flowing in the gutters, it would land on him, and not the lady’s expensive silk gown (many of these gowns were so ornately embroidered that they were not easily washable, and neither washing machines nor dry cleaners existed). Many cities also had major rat problems. People back then may or may not have not connected the presence of rats with the spread of Bubonic Plague (Black Death, a dreaded and fatal disease), but they were probably bothered by the rats chewing on things and by the rat fleas biting them (just as cat/dog owners, even now, are bitten by the offspring of their pet’s fleas). People may not have realized that the Plague was spread by the bites of those fleas, but I imagine they knew that if only they could get rid of the rats, the pesky fleas would soon disappear, too — hence the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Germany, leading all the rats out of town.
Conclusion: Obviously, all the sewage and garbage turned into the rats.

Observation: Since there were no refrigerators, the mandatory, daily trip to the butcher shop, especially in summer, meant battling the flies around the carcasses. Typically, carcasses were “hung by their heels,” and customers selected which chunk the butcher would carve off for them.
Conclusion: Obviously, the rotting meat that had been hanging in the sun all day was the source of the flies.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm

What is spontaneous generation?

By asking the question, what is spontaneous generation, we are asking: can life generate itself from non-living matter? For centuries, at least back to the 4th century BC until the late nineteenth century, people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by "spontaneous generation." It was "common knowledge" that simple organisms like worms, frogs, and salamanders could come from mud, dust, and unpreserved food.

Today we know that all apparent spontaneous generation of life has an explanation. We also know that what was thought to be simple life was extremely complicated life. What we have learned is that life comes from life!

For more than one hundred years, biologists have taught that spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was disproven by the work of Redi, Spallanzani, and ultimately Pasteur. This work was so conclusive; that biology codified the "Law of Biogenesis," which states that life only comes from previously existing life. Although, this doesn't prove absolutely that life couldn't ever have generated itself from non-living matter because it is impossible to prove a universal negative. However, the Law of Biogenesis is just as solid as the Law of Gravity. Even though we accept the law of gravity, we cannot prove that if you continued to drop apples forever, that at one point, one apple may not fall.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-spontaneous-generation-faq.htm

Darth_Fader
March 12th, 2011, 06:13 AM
I don't think y'all are getting my point that a belief in evolution IS a belief in spontaneous generation. That amoeba just happened out of inanimate elements. Unless you believe we've been seeded by aliens, and then you're just pushing the problem back a notch.

So John, you'd take my kids away?

Well, it's "spontaneous" if you think of a set of things that include forming proto-lipids via sunlight, ultraviolet, etc, then having some of them clump together in self-replicating bubbles that don't do anything except self-replicate until they use up the supply of lipids floating about, then over another excruciatingly long period of time a few reactions are captured inside the lipids, creating enough ionization to make more lipids, and thereby creating a very lame, fragile sort of "self-replication" that actually uses energy from chemo-autrophy, etc.

And, over about 3 or 4 billion years, we get to an amoeba. But first we get to archeobacteria, blue green algae, and have some kind of archeobacteria try to eat some kind of bluegreen algae, and turn out to be captured, creating an organism that captures sunlight and makes energy from it, and that leaks out energy that the archeobacteria uses, thereby establishing a weak form of eukarote, splitting the cell membrane into two parts, now we have a nucleus, a cell membrane, and chloroplasts (well, not chlorophyl by a long run yet). Then some of the chloroplasts turn out to be able to burn sugar, and we have mitochondria, and THEN we have an amoeba.

I wouldn't call that "amoeba from nothing".

Darth_Fader
March 12th, 2011, 06:18 AM
Things have obviously evolved since; we have even influenced it in breeding different animals within their species. One species to another? No.


Really? Define "species" carefully, please.


But IF you belief that life occurred by chance, you are bound to believe that at some point it simply happened (spontaneously) and began to mutate into everything we now see in the world. An enormous leap of faith.

No, I don't believe that, I conclude that via a path, involving an enormous number of steps and processes, over a very long time, created primitive life. Not believe, conclude. Conclude because the evidence is there. Belief does not require evidence. Conclusion does.

And these steps, some of them very primitive, are still visible in organisms today.

What's more, we have seen speciation happen in the wild in our lifetime, as well, so evolution has incontrovertably, absolutely, entirely been proven. No, we don't know all the details, we don't need to, because we can show it happened. Just the details involving Yersenia Pestis would suffice, but there is much, much more evidence.

If you're going to resort to the "complexity" argument, that's total bunk as well, we can trace the evolution of the eye all the way back to a euglena eyespot in a singlecelled organism. We can trace the cochlea and the ear back through swim bladders, etc, to a simple nerve fibre on a diaphram.

So, please.

Unfcknblvbl
March 12th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Yup, time to lock this thread.











.

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 07:09 AM
I don't think y'all are getting my point that a belief in evolution IS a belief in spontaneous generation. That amoeba just happened out of inanimate elements. Unless you believe we've been seeded by aliens, and then you're just pushing the problem back a notch.

So John, you'd take my kids away?

I'd try to educate you first.

And I'd only take 'em away during school hours - you know, like other folk's kids.

Evolution is NOT a belief in spontaneous generation - unless you're being very disingenuous with your semantics.

The more evidence we get the more it looks like evolution is essentially the way the universe works and there's nothing "spontaneous" about it. I'd be glad to discuss it with you some place where we won't be boring/irritating the other members.

Incidentally, I wouldn't really call myself an "atheist" in the conventional meaning of the word. However I keep my beliefs to myself and try not to inflict them on other people. They wouldn't believe me, anyway.

John Eppstein
March 12th, 2011, 07:27 AM
Things have obviously evolved since; we have even influenced it in breeding different animals within their species. One species to another? No.

But IF you belief that life occurred by chance, you are bound to believe that at some point it simply happened (spontaneously) and began to mutate into everything we now see in the world. An enormous leap of faith.

Johnny, there is CONCLUSIVE evidence of one species evolving to another. Not merely in the fossil record, but it has actually been observed in real time. You really need to read the actual scientific literature and not rely on what your buddies at church tell you. (No disrespect intended.)

And the fact is that life did not "happen spontaneously at one point" - in fact the designation between life and nonlife is becoming increasingly fuzzy the more we learn about it.

Keks
March 12th, 2011, 11:15 AM
Johnny, nice twist to take this discussion on evolution/creationsm.
But let's bring this back to the real core of the problem:

People should be free to educate their kids wherever they like, for any reason.

You do defend people who would like to teach their children in a racist and fascist way.
Are you fuckin' kiddin?
(this is a yes/no question)

If you should deem it not ok to teach children that it is fine and just to kill other people because of their skin colour or religious orientation,
where do you draw the line?
In which case parents should be allowed to teach, and in which case not?
Please tell me, in easy words.

And if you fail in that, then please explain me why it is better to allow parents to teach their children hate than to have one basic curriculum for all of them.


All the best,
the keks

Johnny
March 12th, 2011, 06:04 PM
Yup, time to lock this thread.

Please, no one do that. It's my fault, and I'll pipe down. I often let certain things that are written around here slide, because I genuinely like y'all and don't want to be argumentative. But I began answering back some specific things that were said about me (or people like me) and should not have taken it personally. I certainly hope I have not given offense to anyone either.

I'll try to get this back on topic here and bow out.

John, you don't need to educate me, because I once believed as you do and have argued the other side more times than I can count.

Nobby, I know what the real "spontaneous generation" is and was just being a little snarky. I do think believing maggots come from meat and believing microorganisms come from a happy coincidence of amino acids (yes, over time) are related. So it's a little joke that didn't land.

Weedy, this started with me answering you back in particular and I apologize for being a jackass about that.

Going back to the topic, thanks to keks, there's really only one way to try to prevent parents from teaching what we deem undesirable to their kids. I don't think any of y'all I've gotten to know through the years would really want to go down that road.

nobby
March 14th, 2011, 01:31 AM
Nobby, I know what the real "spontaneous generation" is and was just being a little snarky. I do think believing maggots come from meat and believing microorganisms come from a happy coincidence of amino acids (yes, over time) are related. So it's a little joke that didn't land.



Heh, I'll consider my chain yanked. I actually got a chuckle out of that once I realized you were punking us, but I'm sure there are home schoolers who are teaching spontaneous generation or some variation of it because it doesn't clash with their religious beliefs, and American academic performance stats lately have been no joke.

Sorry if I sold you short. You probably don't live in a trailer, either :grin: (NTTAWWT)

Fool me once, shame on you :vuvu:

Bivouac
March 14th, 2011, 04:14 AM
Going back to the topic, thanks to keks, there's really only one way to try to prevent parents from teaching what we deem undesirable to their kids.

Yes, and that's introducing children to the "aggregate whole", or society, if you will. Kids absorb ideas at home throughout their youth, find other ideas out in the world, and then decide which ultimately represent their own individual being.

School -- and specifically public school -- does such a great job of bringing together worldly ideas; I'd never deny any offspring I might produce that experience. It's made me who I am today, and I can't see myself having that opportunity sitting at my parents' house all day long.

You guys are all just skirting the REAL question, though:

Should science teachers be allowed to be porn stars?

In my experience? No.

John Eppstein
March 14th, 2011, 05:58 AM
You guys are all just skirting the REAL question, though:

Should science teachers be allowed to be porn stars?

In my experience? No.

No. The real question is "Should ex-pornstars be allowed to become science teachers?", which is an entirely different question from what you said.

And it's pretty clear that the answer should be "YES!". Or they shouldn't allow ex-CIA chiefs to be president. Seriously.

Keks
March 14th, 2011, 09:10 AM
Going back to the topic, thanks to keks, there's really only one way to try to prevent parents from teaching what we deem undesirable to their kids. I don't think any of y'all I've gotten to know through the years would really want to go down that road.

Sure I would not want that.
But I think it is overly simplistic to say that he, who breakes parents' decisions with force is alone guilty of traumatizing the kids.
I believe (and here I am as guilty of believe as you are) that there is compulsory education for a good reason.
And I am sure that there are situations, where not enforcing it is no valid alternative, cause you can't apply double standards,
though I'd try to get around it.
So, in my opinion it is not just the people who "go down that road" who are responsible for that,
but the parents as well, who decidedly break the law and bring their kids willingly in this situation.*

All the best,
the keks


*though I can easily imagine circumstances as well, that would make civil disobedience imho mandatory, too...
Difficult, that all.

Bivouac
March 15th, 2011, 02:48 AM
No. The real question is "Should ex-pornstars be allowed to become science teachers?", which is an entirely different question from what you said.

And it's pretty clear that the answer should be "YES!". Or they shouldn't allow ex-CIA chiefs to be president. Seriously.

Was my attempt at humor completely lost? Because all I was trying to say is that I had some ugly-ass science teachers :)

Of course, a woman should be able to hold a teaching position despite an isolated incident during a desperate time during her youth. I don't question that for a second.

If we were ALL held accountable for youthful debauchery, none of us would ever have jobs.

HOOK
March 15th, 2011, 12:40 PM
The real interesting question is whether we think that any present part time job (or hobby) is compatible with teaching our kids?

If not, which jobs would not be appropriate?


I´d say that any job that is some kind of "statement" would be out, as I want my kids school to be as objective as possible; I want to indoctrinate my kids by my own standards!! ;)

Politicians

Priests

....



But as always there are no absolutes...



HOOK

PS I got it Bivouac!! :very happy:

radiationroom
March 15th, 2011, 01:32 PM
DISCLAIMER: This thread took on a life of it's own so I have not been able to keep up with all of the posts.

Since there is NO scientifically credible evidence to support ANY religion (including atheism), it should not be part of an educational curriculum.

Disagree totally with you John.

Religion is a very important part of the human psyche and there is likely an evolutionary reason why humans have a tendency to create/seek religion. With more than 90% of humanity believing in some kind of faith system, religion will always be with us and it's important that all people understand what religion is and what it is not.

While I fully support the separation of church and state, comparative religion studies would be quite useful as part of a history/social science/world cultures class. Teaching children OBJECTIVELY about not just their own religion but other people's religions will enable them to think critically about the similarities and real differences between there own belief systems and the belief systems of others. Such a class should NOT be pro or anti religion either specifically or in general, but offer an intellectual, historical, and cultural background on the major world religions including the Abrahamic religions, Dharmic religions and Taoic religions as well as Pagenism.

But of course there will be some who object to teaching comparative religion studies for quite different reasons from yours. Teaching comparative religions will enable people to objectively question what they are being told about 1. other religions (including but not limited to Islam) and 2. cultural and moral issues; hence authority figures such as raving fundamentalist TV preachers, corrupt politicians, and Faux News bobbleheads will have a harder time convincing people to give up their liberties and declare war on 3rd world countries where the believers of "that other religion" live.

I rest my case.

nobby
March 15th, 2011, 04:49 PM
Theology is a fascinating subject but there's a reason they don't delve into it deeply in grade school. There are more basic, and, sorry, more relevant things to be learned.

Theology is usually taught in colleges and seminaries, and I think that's appropriate.

John Eppstein
March 15th, 2011, 11:33 PM
DISCLAIMER: This thread took on a life of it's own so I have not been able to keep up with all of the posts.



Disagree totally with you John.

Religion is a very important part of the human psyche and there is likely an evolutionary reason why humans have a tendency to create/seek religion. With more than 90% of humanity believing in some kind of faith system, religion will always be with us and it's important that all people understand what religion is and what it is not.

While I fully support the separation of church and state, comparative religion studies would be quite useful as part of a history/social science/world cultures class. Teaching children OBJECTIVELY about not just their own religion but other people's religions will enable them to think critically about the similarities and real differences between there own belief systems and the belief systems of others. Such a class should NOT be pro or anti religion either specifically or in general, but offer an intellectual, historical, and cultural background on the major world religions including the Abrahamic religions, Dharmic religions and Taoic religions as well as Pagenism.

But of course there will be some who object to teaching comparative religion studies for quite different reasons from yours. Teaching comparative religions will enable people to objectively question what they are being told about 1. other religions (including but not limited to Islam) and 2. cultural and moral issues; hence authority figures such as raving fundamentalist TV preachers, corrupt politicians, and Faux News bobbleheads will have a harder time convincing people to give up their liberties and declare war on 3rd world countries where the believers of "that other religion" live.

I rest my case.

Comparative religion is suitable for college level study. That is not the same thing as indoctrinating young impressionable children who lack the development to decide for themselves and who will likely carry attitudes impressed on them when young for life.

Nearly all so-called "comparative religion" classes taught at lower levels to younger students are thinly veiled indoctrination courses in why "our" religion/way of life/society is superior to others. Let's compare and see how benighted those barbarians are in the rest of the world.

Teaching children OBJECTIVELY about not just their own religion but other people's religions will enable them to think critically (etc.)

In most cases attempting to teach pre-college students OBJECTIVELY about their own religion is a good way to get lynched - or at least tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

Furthermore teachers below college level are almost uniformly not qualified to teach comparative religion, as they are not religious scholars. (Many of them are priests in one or another religion who are trained in the dogma of their own sect but are ignorant not only of others, but in many cases of the actual history of their own.) The main qualification for teaching high school is a "teaching credential" which is obtained by taking classes in "education", not by having expertise in, or even having studied, any specific area.

The fact is that all organized religions have evolved as mechanisms for population mind control, generally for political reasons. Children (and many adults) lack the mental development and training to deal with this effectively. And I'm saying this as the son of a scholar and professor of exactly this area.

Unfcknblvbl
March 15th, 2011, 11:48 PM
The fact is that all organized religions have evolved as mechanisms for population mind control, generally for political reasons.

That's fact? Really?

Yawn.

Isn't this horse dead and fully/completely beaten?



.

Johnny
March 16th, 2011, 12:05 AM
I'll never insult any of y'all by calling you brainwashed.

John Eppstein
March 16th, 2011, 02:02 AM
I'll never insult any of y'all by calling you brainwashed.

Thanks, Johnny. You are truly a real gentleman.

nobby
March 16th, 2011, 02:46 AM
I'll never insult any of y'all by calling you brainwashed.

I'm relieved to hear that :grin:

Bivouac
March 16th, 2011, 05:34 AM
Religion is a very important part of the human psyche and there is likely an evolutionary reason why humans have a tendency to create/seek religion.

Religion is not important to the human psyche, but FAITH is -- and I think it's important to make the distinction.

We need faith to supplement our natural disassociation with our own mortality. Religion is the politicization of common faith-based ideas.

Yes, a good portion of the world's population has chosen to place their faith in an intangible god; my faith, as an agnostic, is in human beings, or the world as it's seen by my own eyes. Yeah, humanity can be a lot more disappointing than an infallible god, but it also forces you to develop a worldly empathy that I've never felt in common with my religious friends.

And having studied comparitive religion in college, I'd argue there no where NEAR enough time to teach the subject in grade school. You couldn't assign that amount of reading or dedicate enough class time at once to even remotely address a single topic. The entire subject is geared for two hour lectures and a student body willing to read entire texts on single ideas. A brief paragraph on Islam/Hindu/Jainism/Daoism/whatever just isn't going to cut it.

We could certainly do a better job of teaching the historical implications of religious entitlement, and stop glorifying travesties like the Crusades, Colonialism, and Manifest Destiny as pious achievements for western civilization?

Skipping over a short chapter on basic genetic mutation in sophomore Biology isn't nearly as important as presenting historical facts outside of the artificial Christian light we've shed upon them since the inception of our modern school system. Perhaps start crediting the arab world with all the math, astronomy, and innovation they were responsible for instead as a bunch of savages, hellbent on destroying the world?

There are A LOT more controversial school subjects concerning christianity than evolution. You'd think someone would tackle those first?

nobby
March 16th, 2011, 03:53 PM
I'm thinking of forming my own religion. There's a lot of money in it, you know.

Not only the tithing (and when I get really big I'll be on tv asking people to send me what's left of their money and they'll be blessed in return.)

But also, one of the reasons property taxes are so high is that churches don't pay any.

Anyway, in nobbyism, each biblical day is a billion years.

After working his ass off for 6 billion years, God gets a day ( a billion years) off.

(Union regs, Miracle Workers Local #238)

So it's not that God couldn't prevent the Holocaust, couldn't oust Gadhafi, couldn't prevent the recent earthquake and tsunami, etc and so on ad infinitum.

It's his day off.

John Eppstein
March 17th, 2011, 12:11 AM
I'm thinking of forming my own religion. There's a lot of money in it, you know.

Not only the tithing (and when I get really big I'll be on tv asking people to send me what's left of their money and they'll be blessed in return.)

But also, one of the reasons property taxes are so high is that churches don't pay any.

Anyway, in nobbyism, each biblical day is a billion years.

After working his ass off for 6 billion years, God gets a day ( a billion years) off.

(Union regs, Miracle Workers Local #238)

So it's not that God couldn't prevent the Holocaust, couldn't oust Gadhafi, couldn't prevent the recent earthquake and tsunami, etc and so on ad infinitum.

It's his day off.

Please stop giving away the store.