Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If we can't talk about dinosaurs, how will we accurately describe our lord Jesus leading the Founding Fathers against Muhammad, the Romans and the Devil on his mighty T Rex 'Freedom', armed only with a minigun, burger and a will of iron, forged in the heart of Wallstreet?

The mental image I'm getting is... Beautiful.

 Jihadin wrote:
Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......

Nor have I. I have heard it in relation to women who are deemed as unattractive.

Lights out and a paper bag over her head and eyes closed shut

Got it in one

If these people really took 2 seconds to think about their wording they dont have to actually "offend" anyone about dinosaurs.

Q: How are fossils (like those of dinosaurs) formed?
A: The bone material is compressed in the earth, and hardened into stone over a period of time.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......

Nor have I. I have heard it in relation to women who are deemed as unattractive.

I'll have to say that I've never heard it as a racial term, either. I think it would have quietly died if these morons hadn't dragged it back into the light of day in the context they say it's used.

The only people who were aware of the term were the type of people who spend life looking for reasons to be offended anyways. Now that this will be "banned" they'll find some new non-sense word to get offended about.

I have heard the term, but it is fairly old and even then it was fairly regional and obscure. It also isn't really a term, but a description, as in "she couldn't pass the brown bag test", and was used pretty much between blacks criticizing others of either being to light skinned to be considered 'really' black. It does exist, but man are they reaching back for some really old, unused colloquialisms to be upset about.

What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

Dinosaur can still be used in NYC though, it just won't show up on city-wide issued standardized tests.

And Seattle is not incorrect when stating that refering to all the people as "citizens" is incorrect since there are legal-residents that are non-citizens living in the city who pay taxes and receive city services.

It really is just people getting angry for no reason.

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.

Yeah, in school we were taught evolution in grade 10 science (maybe even earlier but I can't remember) there's was little to no mentioning of creationism which makes sense as the course was about science in general and as far as I'm aware creationism is not a scientific theory, if you

want to learn about creationism there is plenty of options available visit some churches, search the web, read religious text, join a course that involves studying religion, etc as creationism has no place in science (other than maybe studying the history of science or how science and religion

effect each other).

 Fafnir wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.

Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, in school we were taught evolution in grade 10 science (maybe even earlier but I can't remember) there's was little to no mentioning of creationism which makes sense as the course was about science in general and as far as I'm aware creationism is not a scientific theory, if you

want to learn about creationism there is plenty of options available visit some churches, search the web, read religious text, join a course that involves studying religion, etc as creationism has no place in science (other than maybe studying the history of science or how science and religion

effect each other).

When I was in 5th grade, my Science teacher discussed creationism and evolution starting with the sentence he had us write, "All life came from the Sea". There followed a lively debate since the town I grew up in was located in an isolated part of Northern Maine and had a church on practically every block. It was the one decent Science class I remember this guy teaching among his many others.

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.

I think creationism would make more sense in a social studies class as social studies sort of groups most of the social sciences together (history, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc) and religion is an important concept in society.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.

I think creationism would make more sense in a social studies class as social studies sort of groups most of the social sciences together (history, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc) and religion is an important concept in society.

I think yours is a good idea.

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.

There are other classes to teach things such as religious viewpoints and politics.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.

Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.

To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.

There are other classes to teach things such as religious viewpoints and politics.

Science is true. The thing is what is believed might be mistaken.

Relapse are you a young earth creationist?

I like Cheescat's idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blokus wrote:
Relapse are you a young earth creationist?

I honestly don't know what the facts of Earth's creation are except for believing that God created it and the order things came into exsistence. As far as age, I believe the current evidence points to a far longer period of creation, but am open to the idea we all might one day be surprised to find different facts about it.

Relapse wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.

Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.

Just because some sizable portions of the population do not agree with observable, scientific fact, does not mean that creationism has any validity in any science course. It just means that some sizable portions of the population are poorly educated.

Relapse wrote:
Science is true. The thing is what is believed might be mistaken.

If this is an obtuse way of saying evolution is wrong, then do what those who are studying it all the time do: prove it. You say science is true, then you understand what you have to do. We have a hundred years of tested, retested, and reviewed data that backs up the idea evolution. It also doesn't claim to understand every element of how it works, which is why we still constantly test, retest, and review. If information changes we change with it. Science isn't static, it always is trying to prove and disprove things, including evolution. The problem with evolution, for a small group, is that it constantly proves that we are on the right track to understanding the origins of life. Unlike the Ten Commandments, the information isn't written in stone, it is always up for debate and discussion.

Saying "and god did it" isn't science, nor is it actually something you can measure, test, or verify. If it was, there wouldn't be a plurality of religious viewpoints, or atheists.

Relapse wrote:
I like Cheescat's idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blokus wrote:
Relapse are you a young earth creationist?

I honestly don't know what the facts of Earth's creation are except for believing that God created it and the order things came into exsistence. As far as age, I believe the current evidence points to a far longer period of creation, but am open to the idea we all might one day be surprised to find different facts about it.

I appreciate your candid answer

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Science is true. The thing is what is believed might be mistaken.

If this is an obtuse way of saying evolution is wrong, then do what those who are studying it all the time do: prove it. You say science is true, then you understand what you have to do. We have a hundred years of tested, retested, and reviewed data that backs up the idea evolution. It also doesn't claim to understand every element of how it works, which is why we still constantly test, retest, and review. If information changes we change with it. Science isn't static, it always is trying to prove and disprove things, including evolution. The problem with evolution, for a small group, is that it constantly proves that we are on the right track to understanding the origins of life. Unlike the Ten Commandments, the information isn't written in stone, it is always up for debate and discussion.

Saying "and god did it" isn't science, nor is it actually something you can measure, test, or verify. If it was, there wouldn't be a plurality of religious viewpoints, or atheists.

No need to get testy. We have decades and millenia of other scientific beliefs that were eventually proven wrong. To me, it makes as much sense that God created the Universe out of nothing as it does for others to believe that molocules and atoms suddenly sprang into existance and exploded, creating the Universe. To be fair, there are a plurality of different scientific beliefs that are openly hostile to each other over different areas, and these can be tested to an extent. The data just gets different interpretations.

Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.

 Blokus wrote:
Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.

I believe that. One of the statements that my religion has is, "The Glory of God is Knowledge." Whenever someone entirely closes their mind to a possibility, I think that knowledge dies a bit.