Dispatches from the Creation Wars

More DaveScot Stupidity

I know, that’s hardly worth noting. But it’s just amazing to watch someone be so completely disingenuous in making an argument. He can’t be dense enough not to realize how weak the arguments are. In a new comment on the thread over at Larry’s blog where he endorsed the bullying and intimidation of the children of the plaintiffs in Dover, he spews this crap too:

Blaming the old school board for violating the law is hindsight. They didn’t believe they were violating any laws and one lone district court judge’s opinion is hardly the definitive word on whether or not they actually did violate the law. It’s one man’s opinion.

Talk about confirmation bias. Dave has to ignore facts that he knows to be true. Like the fact that the Dover school board’s own attorney told them if they passed the policy they would lose the case (which is why their liability insurance won’t cover the legal fees in the case, because ignoring their legal counsel’s advice voided the policy – yet this moron still wants to absolve them of blame for it; it’s stunning). Even the Discovery Institute told them that if they passed the policy, they would lose in court.

Folks, having the DI tell you not to pass a pro-ID policy is like having your drug dealer suggest that you’ve got an addiction problem – it isn’t in their best interest to do that. But they knew that this was a losing case and they told the school board it was losing case and the school board still went forward with it. Early on in the case they were offered the opportunity to settle the case without costs; they refused that opportunity. And on top of that, at least two members then chose to commit perjury on the witness stand. Any sane and rational person would put the blame squarely on the school board for ignoring all of that advice and pressing on anyway. The folks in Dover did, which is why they voted them out of office in a clean sweep.

The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated religion so much they thought it was worth taking a million dollars from the school district so their children didn’t have to be burdened with either hearing that 60 second blurb or excusing themselves from it.

This is utter nonsense. The creationists always accuse the other side of being anti-religious, but it just ain’t so. Almost all of the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller were plain old churchgoing Christians. In both McLean and Edwards, the plaintiffs included ministers and bishops from mainline Christian denominations. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with being anti-religious, it has to do with understanding that religion has no place in a public school science classroom. Period.

What all could that million dollars have purchased for that tiny school district? We ought to make a list of the things that a million bucks will buy that these 11 parents decided to take from the school district to defeat a trivial concession granted to anti-evolutionists.

An interesting admission that ID advocates are anti-evolution. They keep trying to tell us that they’re not anti-evolution. In fact, how many times has DaveScot himself said that comment descent – which is the theory of evolution – is true and that ID only challenges the idea that it was purposeless and unguided? These guys just cannot keep their story straight on that one. The talking points keep getting mixed up with reality.

Comments

  1. #1 dogmeatIB
    July 9, 2006

    I think DaveScot’s problem is that he’s reached maximum lie density. He probably should have started a diary or journal of lies and then he would be able to check back and say “oh, I said this on xx/xx/xxxx, I better lie this way instead of that way to remain consistent.”

    It appears his only consistency is stupidity. You’ve already put up all the proof that the old school board is to blame. The judge found that they were guilty (in the sense that the policy violated the 1st amendment), the voters found them guilty (voting them out). Davescot CAN’T find them guilty because he likes the policy that they put into place. He doesn’t care that it is illegal, he’s said as much, he doesn’t care that it has no business in a science classroom, he doesn’t care that step by step it has been proven to be a violation. What he cares about is the fact that the policy fits into his “belief” structure. He’s anti-evolution and the statement, being anti-evolution, is just fine with him.

  2. #2 Dan
    July 9, 2006

    And he continues to demonstrate his true nature, even beyond what you’ve noted above. Now he’s on a mission to find the names of the Dover plaintiffs, because

    I intend to exercise my first amendment right to free speech and write about them.

    Got a problem with that?

    Dave “Constitutional Rights for Me, But Not for Thee” Scot at his finest.

    Oddly enough, DaveScot does illustrate the importance of the First Amendment. Stupid speech is constitutionally protected, as is hateful speech that doesn’t amount to incitement. We protect it because in doing so, we recognize that the antidote to that speech is not violence, but more speech. Indeed, I tell my students that I want the stupid people to speak loudly and often. Just like I want the criminals to speak, and those who live by hatred and bigotry to speak. As long as they’re speaking, we know where they are and can keep an eye on them. And when they speak, they’re making a record for all to see. It’s when they stop speaking that we need to worry. Stated differently, the First Amendment shines a light on those who would otherwise prefer to hide in the shadows. The DaveScots of the world can’t help themselves — they can’t keep their mouths shut to save themselves — and the First Amendment encourages them to do exactly that. Bravo, DaveScot…keep it coming.

  3. #3 _Arthur
    July 9, 2006

    That fateful $$$ million dollars was not squandered in vain. The creationist Dover board has now thoroughly dissuaded other schools from trampling their students constitutional rights, by forcing upon them theological doubts masquerading as a pseudoscience.

    The Board decided that their own religious outloook justified squandering the school funds that were entrusted to their care.

    In a sense, it was money well-wasted.

  4. #4 George Cauldron
    July 9, 2006

    I intend to exercise my first amendment right to free speech and write about them.
    Got a problem with that?

    Dave Scot, ridiculous pseudo-tough guy. Give me a break.

    Ooh, I guess DT finds the best defense is a good offense:

    Here I find you suggesting that someone dynamite a statue you don’t like. So you’re into bombing things are you?

    This is what ID types do instead of science. Googling their foes on the internet.

  5. #5 richCares
    July 9, 2006

    on google type in “DaveScot Stupid”
    there are so many hits that Dave should be embarrassed

  6. #6 Baka
    July 9, 2006

    DaveScot:

    “The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated religion so much they thought it was worth taking a million dollars from the school district … ”

    But, I thought Dover was about ID, and ID is in no way religious in nature … I think DS has gone and gotten himself confused again.

  7. #7 The_Savanna_King
    July 9, 2006

    The bottom line remains that 11 snotty parents hated religion so much…

    Hmm… I thought ID had nothing to do with religion. I thought it was all science.

  8. #8 Leni
    July 9, 2006

    The_Savanna_King wrote:

    Hmm… I thought ID had nothing to do with religion. I thought it was all science.

    Oh it is. Just like how davescot’s request for the names of the plaintiffs is purely innocent and merely to check up on the progress of the lynching he is so anxiously awaiting. You know, for “investigative purposes”.

    And am I losing it or did the blog get “prettier”? It looks different in this link than it did in the other. It is, I’m pleased to say, an appropriate and fitting shade of brown.

  9. #9 W. Kevin Vicklund
    July 9, 2006

    Larry hasn’t figured out how to make the ugly white with orange title text “Post a Comment” page look like the rest of his blog.

    I note that DaveScot comes very close to inciting language in his posts. I guess inciteful suggestions are about as close to insightful suggestions as he’ll ever get.

    I’m sighting in on your mama right now -ds

  10. #10 kehrsam
    July 9, 2006

    I don’t often get over to Fafarman’s blog, but it generally is an adventure in Wonderland, only without the clever wordplay. Dave clearly indicates that bad things should happen to the 11 plaintiffs and their families, and more or less exults that something really bad will occur. Then he repeatedly posts asking for the names and addresses of the 11 plaintiffs, for “investigative reporting” issues.

    I hate to throw around the “F” word lightly, but this is fascism, pure and simple. If you cannot win an argument fairly, you demonize the opponents and procede to ratchet up the pressure until they back down. It is no different from the Delaware case where the family was run out of town, or the blogs that have recently called for personal information about employees of the NY Times and other papers to be published. Pure fascism.

    If anyone does feel the need to pay Larry a visit, by all means read his thread about the Buchannon decision and how he believes it should have applied to Kitzmiller. A lawyer keeps trying to correct Larry, and Larry just keeps coming back saying he is right, even though the cases deal with separate fee shifting language (42 USC § 1988 vs 42 USC § 12205) and in Buchannon there was no possible award for damages whereas nominal damages were available in Kitzmiller. These distinctions made no impression on Larry whatsoever. He’s right…well, because he said so.

  11. #11 Ed Brayton
    July 9, 2006

    That truly is Larry’s modus operandi, and it’s exactly why I banned him from posting here. It doesn’t matter how wrong he is, how clearly documented it is that he is wrong, he absolutely refuses to ever change his position. And he’ll drop 50 comments saying the exact same thing, ignoring all of the evidence against him, in order to defend a clearly indefensible position. He’s simply impervious to reason and evidence.

  12. #12 mark
    July 9, 2006

    It’s one man’s opinion.

    and
    It’s only a theory.

    Fortunately, that one man’s (Judge Jones) theory counts, whereas DaveScot’s theory is worthless codswallop.

  13. #13 Matthew
    July 9, 2006

    DaveScot makes it unnecessary to build strawmen against creationists. He is a walking strawman himself.

  14. #14 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    July 10, 2006

    DaveScot isn’t concerned with facts nor is he concerned when people outside the UD / ID crowd show him for the liar and idiot that he is. His audience is the readership at UD and the vast majority of those eat his spewings up like it is fact no matter how many times he has been shown as the insanly moronic dolt that he is.

  15. #15 Bill C
    July 10, 2006

    Your description of Larry has him nailed. I have wasted a bit of time on his blog and he has repeated the same falsehoods endlessly with the belief each time that he is presenting new evidence. He has proven without doubt the reasons that his legal career has been unmatched. (He has lost every case that he has ever filed. He explains his lack of success:

    “You are very naive, You just don’t know how the courts operate. In my lawsuits, I saw obvious collusion between the government attorneys and the courts — and no, it was not just paranoia. Part of their strategy is to intimidate pro se litigants by making the collusion glaringly obvious….The attorney and the judge had it all planned in advance.”

    The title of his blog “I’m From Missouri” was certainly a poor choice since he cannot be shown anything. Many of us are referring to the blog as “Larry’s Cry Room”, perhaps a more appropriate title.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.