We Don’t Need No Education (In Evolution and Sex)
Sadly, No!’s favorite objectivist, Amber Pawlik, is here to reveal the two most destructive subjects taught in the public schools:
If I had to name the two most destructive subjects taught in public schools today, I would name: evolution and sex education.
And I would have named P.E. and band. It all goes to show you how opinions can differ.
I am opposed to teaching evolution in public schools. I say this not as a religious person but as a completely secular atheist. I certainly don?t believe in creationism, I lean towards evolution, but I have to admit: much of the scientific ?evidence? surrounding evolution has been wholly made up.
Well, I can sure see why she’d tend to believe in it, then. You know, I have to admit that much of the scientific “evidence” for the sun revolving around the Earth was wholly made up, but I still tend to believe that’s the way things work, because I’m sick and tired of science pushing me around.
But I wonder what Amber wants the schools to say about the origins of life, if both creationism and evolution are ruled out? Something to do with Ayn Rand, I bet.
The question that has to be asked: what benefit does the study of evolution have for man? Chemistry, biology, physics, etc., have clear benefits to man. But I propose evolution does not, and in fact does more harm than good.
The study of evolution projects the image of man as being an animalistic beast ? driven by nothing but instinct. This cuts right into and denies the need for the moral development of men. To evolutionists ? most of whom regard evolution as more of a religion, i.e. something meant to guide man, than a science ? the evolutionary process selects those traits that are best suited for survival naturally, by various means, therefore whatever species that is produced is naturally perfect. Therefore, there is no need to develop any kind of moral character in man.
Wow, it sounds like Amber went to public school back in the 1920’s (possibly at “Inherit the Wind” High). I wonder why she’s so worked up about evolution?
I have heard some people say they believe that our morals are developed based on evolution ? that through evolution, we developed some kind of knowledge that murder is wrong. If this is true, why should we bother teaching that murder is wrong? More dominant though, are men who use evolution as an excuse for not picking women of moral character, instead rationalizing that, by nature, evolution forces them pick only women of youth and attractiveness.
Oh, THAT’s why it’s a big deal to her — because her blind date told her that he wouldn’t be calling her again, because evolution required him to choose a younger, more attractive woman to take to the Linkin Park concert.
Now, let’s hear Amber’s gripes about sex ed:
The second most destructive subject taught today is sex education. Children who are put through the public school?s sex education program have a tendency to come out with a completely de-mystified and mechanical view of sex. They usually regard their right to attain immediate pleasure as paramount, and feel it is an almost duty that they be having sexual relationships at young ages. The practical result can be seen in the modern day ?hook up? scene on college campuses.
Yes, public school sex ed classes are to blame for the fact that men aren’t calling Amber, because it de-mystified sex for them, and so they just want to hook up with some slutty hottie instead of seeking out a quality woman like her.
So, what is the solution to the grave damage caused to young women like Amber, who can’t get dates because the public schools spend all their time teaching evolution and sex education?
First, let me give what the best, and ultimately, only effective solution is: to completely privatize the public schools.
THAT will teach them the perils of teaching men not to date Amber!
But Amber admits that under the free market, this might not work, since the terroristic teachers union would probably shut down any competition, probably via molotov cocktails.
But here is what you can do: home school your children.There is a home schooling revolution in this country. And the leftists know it. And it drives them nuts.
And that’s why you should quit your job and spend all day homeschooling your children: just to bug the leftists.
The reason people choose to home school their children are much as I listed above. They don?t want to send their children to the anarchy known as public schools, where justice, truth, and intellect are slandered daily. The person who home schools their children doesn?t believe that education is about the ?social,? obviously, but rather to develop the mind and various skills. The idea that the purpose of a school is to develop the ?social skills? of a student is absurd. Social skills are the easy part. I am not sure why they think that dating or socializing are Herculean efforts to overcome. They are not. Dating and socializing are leisure and should be simple and fun. Industriousness, reason, discipline: these are the hard parts, and should be prodded of students. And it is almost laughable to think that the students coming from public high schools have even an ounce of ?social skill? competence.
As demonstrated by the fact that they aren’t dating Amber.
Anyway, there’s a lot more, but it concludes with:
I wouldn?t let my child near the moral relativist, irrational, feminist, liberal public schools as they exist today. And, I know, because it wasn?t too terribly long ago that I was in the public school system. The home school revolution brings a huge sigh of relief to the irrational world of education, as it exists today. It is one step closer to providing children with what the precious little dears deserve: a rational education.
Of course, Amber has no children. But if she did, boy would the little dears be rational, believe you me!
<sarcasm>Yeah, most of the homeschooled children I know seem so well adjusted in social situations.</sarcasm>
I’m reposting this here, the entry ended up getting posted twice, and I’m going to delete one of them.
By Jove, you’ve got it! The whole subtext is her love life.
Look at the evolution section. She uses “man” and “men” throughout. Clearly, evolution can’t account for the kind of men she’s been meeting lately. Must be devolution from our promising alien past. And all that, even though she’s at pains to point out it hasn’t been that long since she herself was in public school.
I’m kinda surprised she didn’t give her number at the end.
Posted by Mad AZ Monk at March 17, 2004 03:47 PM
You know, for a person who by definition must reject religion, Amber’s arguments against evolution sure sound a lot like the Christian ‘winger arguments; that learning about evolution will make us all morally void, unrestrained animals with nothing to keep us from acting out our darker desires. Now, I live in Kansas, so I don’t know how to explain the high rate of drug and alcohol abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, violence, and general immorality among the youth population.
Also, I really wish Amber would have spoken with an actual scientist before she declared evolution to be without merit. They don’t call it the cornerstone of biology for nothing.
it wasn?t too terribly long ago that I was in the public school system.
I think Amber has unintentionally proven her point: look how fucked up she is.
The 1920’s comment was DEAD ON. It Is unfortunate that we did have a eugenics movement early in the 20th century but it was a matter of people exploiting the concept of “survival of the fittest for their own agenda” rather than a precept of evolutionary theory.
Okay, will someone please explain to me if she really believes this stuff, or if she’s one of those “look at me, I’m so outrageous” people? I’ve never heard of her, but her listing biology separately from evolution is telling – she had no actual knowledge of evolution.
This is a product of the public schools? Talk about scientific evidence: here is irrefutable proof that the nasty things should all be closed at once!
PLEEZ tell me she does not get paid for this drivel.
To quote Robin Williams (imitating Truman Capote): “That’s not writing, that’s just typing.”
You know, maybe if Amber learned the difference between “social skills” and “socializing”, she’d get more dates.
Well, if she actually was a true Randite she who have very different views on sex. Maybe if she got away from Objectivists (you know, the if it pleases me then I should do it) she may find fewer men willing to use her.
I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of people. My personal outlook is to assume everyone is a moron and let them try to prove otherwise. I’m rarely disappointed.
I just googled Amber to try to find out who the heck she is. I found her website, with this hilarious heading:
*Well, it’s about time I took down my website. It will be taken down any week now anyway. I know many of you have enjoyed my articles. I’m taking them down, mostly, because I plan on using some of them to make money off of. Anyway, this site is going to be dedicated to something I am passionate about: freeing the Iranian people.
I wouldn?t let my child near the moral relativist, irrational, feminist, liberal public schools…
Hey, Amber, you forgot “terrorist-controlled”…
…as a public school teacher, I can reveal that one of our big problems is that some students just haven’t quite evolved to the point of removing their ideological blinders long enough to learn anything…
Hey s.z., would it be a violation of the Blogger’s Code of Ethics if you were to fix up Amber with that fella that you wrote about a couple of weeks ago… the one who called Flush Limburger’s open-line show to complain about his Feminazi Sociology professor?
Sorry, Seb, but I think that he’s just the guy for Amber!!!
Why is that women who decry feminism are such ballbusters?
Looks like a few of you got to the same observation that I was going to make, that Amber Pawlik’s separation of evolution from biology indicates a lack of understanding of biology. Modern biology makes little sense without its evolutionary component.
And while it is true that there are evolutionary biologists (like Richard Dawkins) who would attribute everything about human existence to evolutionary imperatives, she totally oversimplifies the discussion in biology. The extent to which such things as emotion, morality, etc. are products of evolution is contested to this very day. It isn’t the simplified picture she paints.
Awww, give Amber a break. She’s just looking out for the rest of the human race. See, as an secular atheist, she doesn’t have a problem with being exposed to evolutionary teachings; in fact, through her extensive training in science, she has sifted through all the evidence and scholarly debate and found the proof sorely lacking without being swallowed by a nihilistic whirlpool. No, the problem is, if all the feeble-minded hoi polloi were told the awful truth about our origins, what would stop them from flinging feces at each other in public when upset? We must allow them their illusions, for their sake and ours. It’s a terrible burden, to be the guardian of truths heavy enough for the shoulders of Atlas (no Randian pun intended).
I don’t see how she can justify the teaching of physics since quantum theory clearly demonstrates that everything is just random chance. Surely that is a great moral vortex.
And how exactly is biology separate from evolution.
Clearly, I am ill-educated to not grasp these critical points.
If Amber does as good a job “freeing the Iranian people” as she does convincing people of her half-witted viewpoints, the Ayatollah’s got nothing to worry about.
Okay, I figured it out. Ann Coulter has had really horrible insomnia lately. She tried everything to get to sleep, but nothing worked. Then she met this girl named Amber Pawlick who said all the insane things that even she, Ann Coulter, could not bring herself to publish. They moved in together and Ann helped Amber begin an Objectivist revolution–but it turns out that AMBER IS ANN!!!! Amber is the dark(er) side of Ann.
Also, as opposed to Ann, Amber is a woman.
“…I am passionate about: freeing the Iranian people.”
Perhaps she would be happier if she lived in a harem as one of the sultan’s wives.
More dominant though, are men who use evolution as an excuse for not picking women of moral character, instead rationalizing that, by nature, evolution forces them pick only women of youth and attractiveness.
Does she even believe herself when she comes up with lines like this?
Aside from everything else wrong with this statement, if evolution is just the ‘excuse’ men use for going after hot young girls instead of moral, dependable, pudgy ones — then what does she think is the actual reason for said preferences?
She isn’t even a good objectivist. I’ve known plenty and not one would spout the drivel this chick is spouting. Ayn would have excommunicated her long ago.
“Much of the scientific ‘evidence’ surrounding evolution has been wholly made up.”
Just like those DNA thingies that every life form possesses for some reason. But since it is difficult for Amber to SEE them, like so many Grr-animals outfits on the racks at JC Penney, they must be made up by beastly immoral rakes out to take advantage of her nonevolved loveliness.
“I have heard some people say they believe that our morals are developed based on evolution ? that through evolution, we developed some kind of knowledge that murder is wrong.”
Um, nature, Mr Pawlik, is what we are put on earth to rise above. Or so says Rose Thayer, a fully evolving Hepburn on the African Queen.
“Children who are put through the public school?s sex education program have a tendency to come out with a completely de-mystified and mechanical view of sex.”
Hey, I saw that same South Park episode. It was kewl! The gerls were all like skeered of the boys cuz the boys would give them like STDs and stuff and the boys had to go out and get CONDOMS and put them on their heads, it was like sooo funnee. Sex had been completely de-mystified for them and it was such a shame because they would be warped for the rest of their cartoon lives. I cried as I imagined them in their college years, where much like Amber, they would lead bleak de-mystified college sex lives where only the bright garish cartoon colors cheer them up.
Isn’t it time for Amber to be rewarded with the moniker she has so obviously earned, “America’s Dumbest Libertarian”? She could team up with America’s Worst Mom (tm TBOGG) and they could fight terrorist liberals side by side.
Well………….that’s a typical cock lover for ya!
“The question that has to be asked: what benefit does the study of evolution have for man?”
Uh … dog breeding? Anyone who can look at a minature poodle and and an Irish Wolfhound standing side-by-side and not be convinced that evolution is real, is really dim. One is accomplished with human intervention, sure, but it’s the same biological mechanism at work.
The only people I know who taught their children at home did so because the math instruction at the local schools was not sufficiently rigorous. But then, they are Democrats.
djmm
“Hey s.z., would it be a violation of the Blogger’s Code of Ethics if you were to fix up Amber with that fella that you wrote about a couple of weeks ago… the one who called Flush Limburger’s open-line show to complain about his Feminazi Sociology professor?
Sorry, Seb, but I think that he’s just the guy for Amber!!!”
I propose a 4 way no holds barred cage match between that guy, Kyle Williams, Ben Shapiro, and Judson Cox for a chance to date Amber Pawlik.
“If she does start selling her work, we need to find out to whom so we can start eliminating those people from the gene pool”-Texan Embsd by Bush.
No way! We need to find out who’d by the drivel she writes so WE can submit stuff our own. If they buy HER stuff, they’ll buy ANYTHING!
It seems to me that making fun of Amber’s genuine stupidity is so easy that there’s no reason to resort to completely spurious counterarguments. To wit:
1) There’s nothing wrong with a preposition to use the end of a sentence of at.
2) Selective breeding has bugger all to do with evolution. Evolution can tell us why wolves/dogs are domesticable animals with extremely variable body plans, while foxes and coyotes are not, but it has nothing to do with getting a chihauhua and a mastiff from the same wolf/dog DNA.
Other than that, kudos to Wo’C.
Amber is a joke. We can have fun with her at her expense.