|
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 February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true".
Your entire last paragraph is the embodiment of everything wrong with the "anti-science" crowd.
You see science as a social belief, some kind of ideology on a spectrum. But that's now how science works. Science, by definition, includes intense and constant scrutiny of ideas. It isn't an ideology that you can have faith in. Science isn't on a spectrum like conservative or liberal ideas are. Accepting science is accepting empirical evidence and facts. The variation that occurs in science is due to interpretation.
Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality.
Yeah there is the scientific process and that's great. But I was initially responding to someone above who was making the point that things aren't just taken "on faith" in science education, everything is a rigorous process. I'm just saying in practise this isn't how things are actually taught to kids, they pretty much have to take *most* theories on faith because there is no reasonable way for them to actually rigorously verify these theories to the same extent that real scientists can.
For the most part if feels like recitation, practically they will feel identical. The teacher can always say that there is a rigorous process behind it, but just trusting that because they told you is obviously not a very strong piece of reasoning. Which is why I think there needs to be a probabilistic argument made (thats the best you can do). Anyway I think my point is made, I'll let you continue talking about homeschooling.
If you really want to go down this road, then take an epistemology class. Sooner or later you'll realize that just about all knowledge that you don't hold an advanced degree in is based on faith in some other expert.
How do you know the sky is actually blue? How do you know the earth revolves around the sun? How do we actually know that Israel and the rest of the Middle East hate each other? How do we actually know that World War II happened? These questions could go on forever, but it's the basis of a well-educated public.
As for "public schools are just as bad", improving public schools is actually a separate issue. "It's bad, therefore keep the worse option" is incredibly stupid. It's like conservatives being against unions, "They're poorly structured and need significant reform, so we'll just completely destroy the workers ability to collectively bargain because we don't like how unions are now", or healthcare, "We don't like Obamacare, so we'll just destroy it and try to return to the objectively worse situation we were in before instead of offering up any good solutions".
Not only this, but not all public education is bad. I received a fantastic public education where I grew up, and I know that the vast majority of schools in my state (MN) are at least good enough, even if they aren't as good as the school I happened to grow up near.
|
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
|
On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours.
|
With all that being said, let's remember that the LDS church just released a pro gay-marriage decree.
|
On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours.
Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development.
On February 01 2015 04:49 farvacola wrote:
With all that being said, let's remember that the LDS church just released a pro gay-marriage decree.
Gotta love the internet!
But lets not get to ahead of ourselves, it was anti-gay discrimination not really pro gay-marriage. They still don't think two men or two women can be married in the eyes of God.
There are a lot of questions about the extent of the religious exemptions they are considering also.
|
On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development.
I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group.
|
On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development.
Who exactly is arguing against this?
|
On February 01 2015 04:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development. I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group.
Not every group, the issue I was highlighting is not that they don't learn the cues of EVERY other group it's that they tend not to learn the cues of ANY other groups.
|
On February 01 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:59 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development. I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group. Not every group, the issue I was highlighting is not that they don't learn the cues of EVERY other group it's that they tend not to learn the cues of ANY other groups.
I'm not seeing how that's a problem. So they stick to themselves, is that so bad?
|
On February 01 2015 05:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:59 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development. I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group. Not every group, the issue I was highlighting is not that they don't learn the cues of EVERY other group it's that they tend not to learn the cues of ANY other groups. I'm not seeing how that's a problem. So they stick to themselves, is that so bad?
lol... Yes. For instance, they might run for president and say something like this when they see a group of black people...
+ Show Spoiler +
Or any of these gems
+ Show Spoiler +
Or just end up in any of the countless encounters where understanding people from groups different than your own (or at least being able to believably fake it) is important.
It's not a phenomena unique to Home schooling or religious communities. There is a similar issue between poor and rich people. Money is one of the main things poor people talk about, yet it's considered faux pas in wealthy communities (even though brandishing their wealth [to their wealthy peers] is practically a second job for many of them).
If you know this, than you can interact better with those in the other community. If not, any potential relationship could be dead before it leaves the womb over some really dumb social ques.
I don't have a problem with people choosing to isolate and insulate their own world from the rest of society but trapping children in that world absent the ability to choose is pretty twisted imo.
|
On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. .
I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters,
One
Two
Three
If this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future!
Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least.
|
On February 01 2015 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:13 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:59 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development. I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group. Not every group, the issue I was highlighting is not that they don't learn the cues of EVERY other group it's that they tend not to learn the cues of ANY other groups. I'm not seeing how that's a problem. So they stick to themselves, is that so bad? lol... Yes. For instance, they might run for president and say something like this when they see a group of black people... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4 Or any of these gems + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzkSxxSfEuo Or just end up in any of the countless encounters where understanding people from groups different than your own (or at least being able to believably fake it) is important. It's not a phenomena unique to Home schooling or religious communities. There is a similar issue between poor and rich people. Money is one of the main things poor people talk about, yet it's considered faux pas in wealthy communities (even though brandishing their wealth [to their wealthy peers] is practically a second job for many of them). If you know this, than you can interact better with those in the other community. If not, any potential relationship could be dead before it leaves the womb over some really dumb social ques.
I'm not seeing how it causes any harm to anyone. Romney lost, big whoop if he was an idiot. If these little communities want to stay isolated, why should we try to force them to integrate?
|
On February 01 2015 05:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 05:13 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:59 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 04:47 Millitron wrote:On February 01 2015 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think one of the main communities people are talking about without mentioning by name is the Mormon community. They produce a lot of studious intelligent people who believe some of the most insane things. They also tend to be socially oblivious to many of the social cues most children pick up by mixing with many communities.
Anyone who knew an escaped/excommunicated Mormon growing up knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Mormonism is referred to as a "cult", even by other Christians. Of course there are also people like Warren Jeffs who run outright cults where the children are basically captives. Children in these cults are taught that anyone who isn't a member of their cult should be avoided other than when proselytizing, doing charity work, or something similar. They are also taught things like was said by that Republican that was on the Science committee that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" and that anyone (like scientists) who tries to tell them that their cult doctrine isn't true is an agent of the devil.
I think those are some the problems with "home schooling" that people are dancing around. These parents are crippling their children's inter-community social skills and critical thinking skills, sometimes beyond repair.
Or maybe Mormons just have a different culture and that's why they don't pick up on social cues. Their social cues are different than ours. Every group has different social cues that's why interacting with different groups in settings where you are peers is important to social development. I'm not sure I agree. There's no need for anyone to understand the social cues of every other group. I'm sure I wouldn't fit in in a Mormon social group, and I'm not going to expect them to fit into my social group. Not every group, the issue I was highlighting is not that they don't learn the cues of EVERY other group it's that they tend not to learn the cues of ANY other groups. I'm not seeing how that's a problem. So they stick to themselves, is that so bad? lol... Yes. For instance, they might run for president and say something like this when they see a group of black people... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4 Or any of these gems + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzkSxxSfEuo Or just end up in any of the countless encounters where understanding people from groups different than your own (or at least being able to believably fake it) is important. It's not a phenomena unique to Home schooling or religious communities. There is a similar issue between poor and rich people. Money is one of the main things poor people talk about, yet it's considered faux pas in wealthy communities (even though brandishing their wealth [to their wealthy peers] is practically a second job for many of them). If you know this, than you can interact better with those in the other community. If not, any potential relationship could be dead before it leaves the womb over some really dumb social ques. I'm not seeing how it causes any harm to anyone. Romney lost, big whoop if he was an idiot. If these little communities want to stay isolated, why should we try to force them to integrate?
The kid can lose out on important relationships because they don't have the basic skills to build them outside of their own community. Like I edited my above post if adults want to fine, but trapping children in those communities without a choice, and to punish them for trying to escape (or interact in the previously mentioned instances) is damaging to them.
So they effectively trap them for life in the only community they know how to operate in and rob them of the choice. The children have to overcome significant mental/social burdens placed on them by their families and peers just to get the basic social freedom/skills they need in order to have a chance at ever leaving the community they had no choice of being born into.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a wsj editorial and stuff from globalresearch.ca
and you wonder why this is not taken serious
|
On January 31 2015 18:52 zlefin wrote:
Opinion question: how many hours of minimum wage work per week should it take for a person to support just themself?
How many to support a family of four?
Tough to answer. On one side of the ledger it depends on prices (rent in NYC, vs. rural Alabama) but also subjective things like what standard of living you want to support. You can raise a family of 4 on $10 per day if you're willing to roll with third world poverty, but I don't think we want to go there  , nor do I think a middle class lifestyle is a reasonable expectation on min wages.
On the other side of the ledger you'll need to take into account what public support is available. If you're trying to support a family you'll get your wages, but also pay negative taxes (EITC), qualify for food stamps, etc.
If you're working full time you should be able to support yourself. For a family of four you should need more than a single full time job at min wages, so 60+ at least.
|
On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least.
Your 2nd source is not from a credible source. The other 2 sources (if true, guess we just take their word for it?) still don't even show "widespread" fraud or w/e your implying. No one ever said Science was perfect or that topics don't become politicized.....something we have said over and over its a process thats self correcting.
When the overwhelming majority of scientific publications (it was like 97+%) that took a position on climate change support the position of a global warming phenomenon. You clearly are just going through a big case of confirmation bias.
|
On February 01 2015 05:52 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. Your 1st source is not from a credible source. The other 2 sources (if true, guess we just take their word for it?) still don't even show "widespread" fraud or w/e your implying. No one ever said Science was perfect or that topics don't become politicized.....something we have said over and over its a process thats self correcting. When the overwhelming majority of scientific publications (it was like 97+%) that took a position on climate change support the position of a global warming phenomenon. You clearly are just going through a big case of confirmation bias.
WSJ not a credible source? What planet are you from? Talk about confirmation bias...
I am highlighting examples of censorship in the scientific community regardless of the credentials of those doing the research. Not very scientific. However, it's very telling that you can't acknowledge the existence of such or how scary this prospect is.
You purport that this is a process that is self-correcting, but that falls in the face of the behavior. To be self-correcting, one must admit there is an issue. Silencing dissent and opposing view points is hardly going to bring about self-correction.
|
Anything on the WSJ opinion pages is not inherently credible. Fuck, I've read things from the likes of Chavez and Putin there.
|
On February 01 2015 05:57 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:52 Slaughter wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. Your 1st source is not from a credible source. The other 2 sources (if true, guess we just take their word for it?) still don't even show "widespread" fraud or w/e your implying. No one ever said Science was perfect or that topics don't become politicized.....something we have said over and over its a process thats self correcting. When the overwhelming majority of scientific publications (it was like 97+%) that took a position on climate change support the position of a global warming phenomenon. You clearly are just going through a big case of confirmation bias. WSJ not a credible source? What planet are you from? Talk about confirmation bias... I am highlighting examples of censorship in the scientific community regardless of the credentials of those doing the research. Not very scientific. However, it's very telling that you can't acknowledge the existence of such or how scary this prospect is. You purport that this is a process that is self-correcting, but that falls in the face of the behavior. To be self-correcting, one must admit there is an issue. Silencing dissent and opposing view points is hardly going to bring about self-correction.
Wow this stuff is getting pretty ridiculous. You have any idea how much money scientists could make from people like the Koch brothers if they could come up with credible research that refuted the consensus on climate change? Or how much money they would spend to spread that message? Scientists wouldn't be able to silence it if they tried.
I mean how many countless things has the self-correcting nature of science already addressed, yet some blogs tell you otherwise and you believe them wholeheartedly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a wsj opinion piece with heavily slanted 'reporting.' the other two blogs you posted might as well be alternet.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
