|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate?
When it is a matter of science, it is not opinion. If studies have been done, it not opinion. With respect to vaccines, there is no ambiguity. All people in the US should be vaccinated, no exceptions.
|
On January 30 2015 12:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? When it is a matter of science, it is not opinion. If studies have been done, it not opinion. With respect to vaccines, there is no ambiguity. All people in the US should be vaccinated, no exceptions.
Well other than those who can't be for medical reasons of course (kids on chemo, and such).
|
Is measles really that bad though guys?
|
On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate?
It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults.
|
On January 30 2015 10:11 farvacola wrote:
There's nothing quite like seeing someone on an internet gaming forum belittle the notion that quality internet access should be available to everyone.
Poor doesn't look like I want it to, so fuck 'em, right?
Nothing like a debater on an Internet gaming forum stopping the exercise of the brain at free internet for all, damn the consequences. If 25 Mbps grew on trees, then your demagoguery might find place. I mean, I have trouble not laughing at the logical leaps here: I'm belittling a notion now, not an agency, service, and means. Quality Internet is defined by simply you, end debate. The king declares thy Internet art shit, you deserve more for free. Criticizing a regulatory agency move to legislate internet subsidies is belittling the notion that your idea of quality needs to match your idea of access.
Pardon me if I don't step aside to accept your framing of quality and access to suit your own fancy. Not everything in this world is gotten by bureaucratic dictate, and not every ideological opponent of yours has a mean-spirited urge to deny pleasures, that's child talk.
|
On January 30 2015 10:22 IgnE wrote:
Please don't act like internet access isn't a public utility. It's a bit silly for you to come in beating the Big Government drum as if Comcast and Time Warner are small business entrepreneurial heroes battling Uncle Sam's overreach.
It almost makes you think me just took this shit hook, line, and sinker, from some talking idiot, because who in their right mind could come here and complain about it like you did? Internet access isn't a public utility. The FCC also isn't who I call if the Internet goes down. I don't care if I'm buying my products from a corporation or some small business; markets have prices not heroes and heroines.
|
On January 30 2015 13:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 10:22 IgnE wrote:
Please don't act like internet access isn't a public utility. It's a bit silly for you to come in beating the Big Government drum as if Comcast and Time Warner are small business entrepreneurial heroes battling Uncle Sam's overreach.
It almost makes you think me just took this shit hook, line, and sinker, from some talking idiot, because who in their right mind could come here and complain about it like you did? Internet access isn't a public utility. The FCC also isn't who I call if the Internet goes down. I don't care if I'm buying my products from a corporation or some small business; markets have prices not heroes and heroines.
It is not technically considered a public utility, but I think you are being dishonest by trying to say it is not filling the same role as a public utility serves. The world is constantly changing and advancing. A part of the recent changes and advancements in the world is the internet becoming so incredibly essential that it should be considered a utility.
|
On January 30 2015 13:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 10:11 farvacola wrote:
There's nothing quite like seeing someone on an internet gaming forum belittle the notion that quality internet access should be available to everyone.
Poor doesn't look like I want it to, so fuck 'em, right? Nothing like a debater on an Internet gaming forum stopping the exercise of the brain at free internet for all, damn the consequences. If 25 Mbps grew on trees, then your demagoguery might find place. I mean, I have trouble not laughing at the logical leaps here: I'm belittling a notion now, not an agency, service, and means. Quality Internet is defined by simply you, end debate. The king declares thy Internet art shit, you deserve more for free. Criticizing a regulatory agency move to legislate internet subsidies is belittling the notion that your idea of quality needs to match your idea of access. Pardon me if I don't step aside to accept your framing of quality and access to suit your own fancy. Not everything in this world is gotten by bureaucratic dictate, and not every ideological opponent of yours has a mean-spirited urge to deny pleasures, that's child talk.
Changing the definition of what qualifies as broadband doesn't equate to giving out more internet for free. This seems intended to spur ISPs to actually invest in increasing their infrastructure. Who would you rather define quality internet? ISPs who have a vested interest in keeping what is deemed quality low to maximize profits?
|
On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults.
Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking.
And if it did? Still not the government's business at all.
|
On January 30 2015 13:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 13:50 Danglars wrote:On January 30 2015 10:22 IgnE wrote:
Please don't act like internet access isn't a public utility. It's a bit silly for you to come in beating the Big Government drum as if Comcast and Time Warner are small business entrepreneurial heroes battling Uncle Sam's overreach.
It almost makes you think me just took this shit hook, line, and sinker, from some talking idiot, because who in their right mind could come here and complain about it like you did? Internet access isn't a public utility. The FCC also isn't who I call if the Internet goes down. I don't care if I'm buying my products from a corporation or some small business; markets have prices not heroes and heroines. It is not technically considered a public utility, but I think you are being dishonest by trying to say it is not filling the same role as a public utility serves. The world is constantly changing and advancing. A part of the recent changes and advancements in the world is the internet becoming so incredibly essential that it should be considered a utility.
Analogies are rough. Rural areas don't always get the same public utility services as urban residents do (ex. town vs. well water). And you still need to pay your water bill, so affordability issues aren't necessarily solved. A lot of the complaints that exist today are owed in part to FCC decisions a decade ago, so I hope everything decided is a bit more figured out this go-a-round.
|
On January 30 2015 13:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 10:22 IgnE wrote:
Please don't act like internet access isn't a public utility. It's a bit silly for you to come in beating the Big Government drum as if Comcast and Time Warner are small business entrepreneurial heroes battling Uncle Sam's overreach.
It almost makes you think me just took this shit hook, line, and sinker, from some talking idiot, because who in their right mind could come here and complain about it like you did? Internet access isn't a public utility. The FCC also isn't who I call if the Internet goes down. I don't care if I'm buying my products from a corporation or some small business; markets have prices not heroes and heroines.
Water wasn't a public utility before someone made it so.
|
On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all.
Sources on home schooler outcomes? Would be interesting to see the statistics. Is there even criteria for home schooling? Or can any parent do it regardless of their own educational background/skills do it.
Its also not just about accepting evolution as true, its about the home schooled kids having their already small exposure to the world get even smaller since the pool of ideas/skills/etc are likely to be restricted to only those the parent ascribes to. If its religious then they can even send them to a university that ascribes to the same belief system and that just makes for an individual with a very small conception of the world who can't think outside their own box.
What disturbs me most is that religious stuff leaks into some institutions that are affiliated with some religion or another. This break one of my cousins who went to Valparaiso University got into an argument with me because he was convinced that Lucy (the Australopithecus afarensis skeleton) had been debunked because he heard it in a biology class at college. Granted he was drunk as fuck and I am pretty sure he was mixing up Lucy with Piltdown man (even though he says he swears he wasn't). I am a biological anthropologist so it was literally my field of study and he would not believe ANYTHING I said about it.
|
On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all.
If every home-taught individual received that quality education, then more power to the family, even if home schooling is still a bad idea (by the way, this isn't just an issue with home schooling, but also with families and legislators influencing and dictating what is taught in schools and how).
Unfortunately, that definitely isn't the case. Plenty of kids get to college or adulthood with no concept of essential critical thinking skills or even some incredibly basic knowledge when they're home schooled or sent to an extremely sheltered/ignorant community for education.
It's the government's job to protect the rights of individuals. Children have a right to a certain level of education. Just because someone is your child doesn't mean they're your property to do what you will with. Personal preferences (such as religion) shouldn't be an excuse to give a child a poor education.
|
^ To be fair, I had a student this week who thought that DNA was only in humans and animals lol. So its not exactly like our education system is the greatest.
|
On January 30 2015 12:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? When it is a matter of science, it is not opinion. If studies have been done, it not opinion. With respect to vaccines, there is no ambiguity. All people in the US should be vaccinated, no exceptions.
I'm not disagreeing, but it is disingenuous to ignore that there WAS a scientific study that purported to link vaccines to autism, and it took more than a decade to retract the study and disgrace the researcher (Andrew Wakefield), who continues to maintain his innocence and fight it out in court.
On a different note, religion and education have little to do with this, because these aren't people denying vaccines for religious reasons or out of ignorance, they tend to appeal to scientific authority and focus in on side effects that are broadly ignored. It is true that their science is very flimsy and obscure, and they tend to exaggerate minimal side effects that don't outweigh the greater good of avoiding the suffering and deaths from preventable illnesses. But that's very different from dismissing their concerns as though they were simply religious whack jobs or uneducated fools.
|
On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys?
depends, is blindness and death a bad thing?
|
On January 30 2015 15:04 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all. Sources on home schooler outcomes? Would be interesting to see the statistics. Is there even criteria for home schooling? Or can any parent do it regardless of their own educational background/skills do it.
For starters
Another
And another
If you need more just google. It's a not-so well known fact.
There is an incredible amount of ignorance related to homeschooling, most of which are old notions of "homeschoolers aren't socialized" or "somehow since a kid doesn't spend all day in class with geniuses his own age he will never know how to think critically". Just think about what you are saying and you will realize how truly dumb it sounds. Besides, if socialization is a pregnant 13 year old, I'm glad my kids are missing out on it.
|
On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:depends, is blindness and death a bad thing?
And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Measles is easily treated by today's medicine.
Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases in the western world, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. Even in the above article it states that the disease was first contracted in a third world country. Not to mention some of the other more dangerous outbreaks as of late, outbreaks that were conveniently swept under the rug, were due to all of these illegal aliens flooding over the border.
|
On January 30 2015 05:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Americans are a special kind of stupid.
Our culture is extremely anti-intellectual and we have (relatively) huge parts of our population that are anti-science...
Because the rest of the world is so different. GMOs and witch doctors say hi.
|
On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program.
obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak.
Personal hygiene improves decrease of spread, but it doesn't do much when you've already gotten sick, which was what he was mentioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
