Palin: Young Earth Creationist

We should ban books. Knowledge is dangerous. If you become too smart then you don't believe what you're told to believe at vital times. You get all skeptical and stuff. Skepticism makes for an uncontrollable populace. We can't have that now can we?

Just watch the interview she did with Couric...

...absolutely amazing. Very poor choice.

I am pretty sure there are links on YouTube (can't see here), the CBS site only shows some of it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

Maybe for a reason:

http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/09/couric-hides-embarrassing-palin-tape-in.html

aircooled wrote:

I have that picture hanging in my cubicle. No matter how bad a day I'm having, that poor conductor surely had a worse one.

Xceler8x wrote: We should ban books. Knowledge is dangerous. If you become too smart then you don't believe what you're told to believe at vital times. You get all skeptical and stuff. Skepticism makes for an uncontrollable populace. We can't have that now can we?

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts.

Read. Be evil.

walterj wrote: I think it is perfectly acceptable to belittle, poke fun at and generally mock anyone over the age of say... 12 that has all their faculties and still believes the earth is flat, 12000yrs old, and Jesus was riding around on dinosaurs like Fred Flinstone. As soon as I can find a way to make money off them I'll add 'exploiting' to the list as well.

Similarly, we know for a scientific fact that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist at any time. This is a scientific fact. It's not as blatant as believing the world is flat or that gravity doesn't exist.

It's more like believing sub-atomic particles don't exist.

Salanis wrote:

walterj wrote: I think it is perfectly acceptable to belittle, poke fun at and generally mock anyone over the age of say... 12 that has all their faculties and still believes the earth is flat, 12000yrs old, and Jesus was riding around on dinosaurs like Fred Flinstone. As soon as I can find a way to make money off them I'll add 'exploiting' to the list as well.

It's more like believing sub-atomic particles don't exist.

They don't. This Large Hardon Collider is just the Devil's work. Everything it proves is a lie.

"Science" is "Satan" spelled backwards!

Blasphemy Chamber! I just lold.

SVreX wrote: Beyond what Salanis already covered, most public libraries now have censoring software on their computers.

Not by choice, but by political threats from the right.

So, should there be maturity ratings on books like there is on movies and video games? Should a book be listed as for more mature audiences if it has language, sexual content, and/or violence? Then, if you're not old enough you can't check out a book without parental consent?

We do it for movies don't we?!

Yes, we do. However I read a book a while back, "Understanding Comics", that was analyzing some of the graphic-literature medium. The author referred to what he called the "Naked Buns" effect.

Few people will be bothered if a book uses the phrase "naked buns". But if you actually show a picture of naked buns, you'll get all kinds of outrage.

I'll give you an example:

Look! These people are having sweaty panting monkey sex with breasts penises flying everywhere!

Anyone offended? No? Want me to post pics?

Edit: My earlier question about putting ratings on books is a serious one. I'm not sure what I think. Violence and sex are not as titillating in the written word. But cuss words don't really lose their impact. That's why this forum won't let you say "He got berkeleyed in the shiny happy person". We can pervert Tommy with our sordid political discourse, but Margie will hunt us all down and refinish her patio if she finds Tommy learned language like that from us.

SupraWes wrote:

SVreX wrote: Beyond what Salanis already covered, most public libraries now have censoring software on their computers.

Not by choice, but by political threats from the right.

Hmmm...

OK. I was in my local public library several years back. The computers (there were only 2 of them then) were in the middle of the largest public room. I sat at one, while 2 teenage boys surfed porn on the other. They made no effort to hide it, and it was seriously hard core. They even printed several dozen pics that printed out at the main desk. This went on for over an hour. Plenty of kids checked it out.

I finally asked the librarian, and was told it was not the library's policy to have filters (which has since changed).

Is this an acceptable option?

Salanis wrote: Similarly, we know for a scientific fact that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist at any time. This is a scientific fact.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but can you explain that? What factual evidence do we have of that?

If the answer has anything to do with the timeframe of sedimentary rock layers, may I point out (just an observation) that while creatures MAY be buried in a timeline or in some relation to their Evolutionary development, they ARE also buried according to their mobility.

In a large cataclysmic event, humans would be able to move more freely to avoid, or at least prolong destruction (swim, run, think, hold onto a log, ride in a boat, etc).

Just a thought. Flame on.

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Here's the best source of info on Palin's book-banning question I've been able to find: http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

So, it is apparantly false, right?

The list of books is a fake. You'd know that if you read the text below the list. To save you the left-mouse-button work:

Snopes said: According to the Anchorage Daily News, around the time Sarah Palin first assumed the mayorship of Wasilla back in 1996, she initiated some speculative discussions with the city's librarian about the possibility of removing some "objectionable" books from the public library: In December 1996, [city librarian Mary Ellen] Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her — starting before she was sworn in — about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there. Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name. "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article. According to that same article, no evidence has been uncovered that any books were actually censored or removed from Wasilla's library as a result of these discussions: Were any books censored [or] banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files and came up empty-handed. Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.

You, Sir, are splitting hairs in a way that the Snopes site you quoted did not. You are also censoring the entire end of the article, which is not in your best interest.

I DID read the ENTIRE link. Did you?

It says the LIST was fake, and that NO BOOKS WERE BANNED.

Spin it how you like.

svrex is right.. I tried to blame her for book banning as well.. but after I started reading..

SVreX wrote:

Salanis wrote: Similarly, we know for a scientific fact that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist at any time. This is a scientific fact.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but can you explain that? What factual evidence do we have of that? If the answer has anything to do with the timeframe of sedimentary rock layers, may I point out (just an observation) that while creatures MAY be buried in a timeline or in some relation to their Evolutionary development, they ARE also buried according to their mobility. In a large cataclysmic event, humans would be able to move more freely to avoid, or at least prolong destruction (swim, run, think, hold onto a log, ride in a boat, etc). Just a thought. Flame on.

regardless, humans still die, and their remains have to go somewhere. this isn't like saying bob and jim didn't coexist because bob lived in scranton and jim lived in louisiana.

the oldest fossil of "human" man is about 160,000 years old, iirc(before the last ice age, which could bring up another of my favorites, "global warming"). the youngest known dinosaur fossil is around 64-65my old, or what is known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary(K-T) boundary.

so, the most recent known evidence of dinosaurs is almost 50 times older than the oldest known human fossil.

I think we've been through this dating argument before.

Yep, that's why I called Flounder earlier - nothing new here....

SVreX wrote: You, Sir, are splitting hairs in a way that the Snopes site you quoted did not. You are also censoring the entire end of the article, which is not in your best interest. I DID read the ENTIRE link. Did you? It says the LIST was fake, and that NO BOOKS WERE BANNED. Spin it how you like.

I wasn't trying to split hairs or spin anything. Nowhere did I suggest that she actually banned any books

SVreX wrote: In a large cataclysmic event, humans would be able to move more freely to avoid, or at least prolong destruction (swim, run, think, hold onto a log, ride in a boat, etc).

so, the most recent known evidence of dinosaurs is almost 50 times older than the oldest known human fossil.

25 million years is a long time to swim holding onto a log :)

Xceler8x wrote: We should ban books. Knowledge is dangerous. If you become too smart then you don't believe what you're told to believe at vital times. You get all skeptical and stuff. Skepticism makes for an uncontrollable populace. We can't have that now can we?

book burnings did wonders for Hitler...so did "preemptive wars"

edit ok, so no books where banned, but the fact that she sought out what it would take to do so is disturbing enough. It wouldn't suprise me to find out that no books where banned because it would have taken to much time, effort and contravesy, ie. impracticle

walterj wrote: 25 million years is a long time to swim holding onto a log :)

chuck norris does this before breakfast.

Salanis wrote: We can pervert Tommy with our sordid political discourse, but Margie will hunt us all down and refinish her patio if she finds Tommy learned language like that from us.

+100

Palin with a gun, or margie refinishing the patio...margie both scares me more and is more attractive than palin. Probly would be more inteligent in an interveiw as well

Salanis wrote:

SoloSonett wrote: Most often banned book? World wide? The Bible , King james version or other.

I'm less concerned about books banned worldwide. I can't really influence that. It would not surprise me if nations that are ardently religious ban books that disagree with them. I also wouldn't be surprised if that includes banning all versions of the bible except for a particular translation. I am interested in what books are systematically banned in this country. You know, the one where I get to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books

Here's a start.