|
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 02:46 Simberto wrote:
I am slightly confused in the wording in the snippet posted above "in defense of the schools property". Are you really allowed to shoot someone dead "In defense of property"? I would assume that the only acceptable reason is to prevent danger to your own life, or the life of others.
Castle doctrine is the theory here. Basically, castle doctrine means the "duty to retreat" is waved within one's home or certain workplaces.
Certain places of work are included under some definitions of this. Someone comes into your store with a gun or breaks in after dark, you can kill them. No idea why schools would need a specially written law.
|
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.
We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here.
Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole.
So, lets talk about your three "sources.
For the first one, you are talking about a report in the EPA, which is a US agency. Not a scientific Journal. Even then, the wikipedia article on this guy paints a distinctly different light on the situation. I don't really care enough to actually dive into the backgrounds of this whole things since it is pretty inconsequential to anything. Even if there is corruption and suppression of evidence inside a US agency, that says little about "the scientific community" as a whole. It just means that there are problems in your government, but nothing about the validity of science in general.
The second one, once again. Obama is the president of the US. He is not a scientist. And all that article writes about is that it does not like Obamas authorative stance on the issue. But once again, he is not "the scientific community" and simply does not have the power to end a scientific debate if he doesn't like it. Interestingly enough, for a site that appears to be very biased ("climatechangedispatch, because the debate is NOT over", totally an unbiased source), this article wasn't even too bad. It even acknowledges the existance of global warming, it just questions the extents of it and it's effects. Other than that, there are mostly a lot of appeals to authority not to accept appeals to authority. Which i found quite funny. Once again, all of this is irrelevant, because Obama does not really have anything to do with science except for listening to it to make decisions in his job as a president.
The last one is harder, mostly because it just doesn't give a lot of details, but from my reading of it it appears that the author is very personally involved in the whole situation, since he complains multiple times about how unfair others are treating him.
|
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.
The WSJ opinion page is objectively not a credible source... it says "Opinion" right there at the top of it.
As for the nonsense about climate change skepticism being suppressed, I don't think you understand how lucrative it is to produce studies arguing against climate change being caused by human activity. Just do a quick google search, there are hundreds of papers commissioned by energy companies and other similar interests. Even the US Senate has commissioned studies on climate change skepticism: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1
If anything, studies by skeptics are encouraged because of the powerful political and economic interests that benefit from them, which is why the small percentage of scientists who don't agree with the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by humanity is so prolific.
|
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?
So I take it you don't have problems with people who take their kids into cult communities? David Koresh? Jim Jones?
|
The problem with Koresh or Jones was not separation from the larger world. It was being murderous fuckheads.
By contrast, take a "mainstream cult" like the Amish. They're super segregated from the world, and it really isn't a problem.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
even 'mainstream' cults or 'community' becomes a problem when they coerce individuals who try to leave/shape their world in a controlling way
|
especially because I thought the US was all about freedom and stuff, I think it's a bit hypocritical if that doesn't extend to persons under the age of 18.
|
With you on the coercion, but I'm having a hard time defining "shape their world in a controlling way" that doesn't have all sorts of problems. Lots of people shape the worldviews of others. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and can be a good thing.
|
On February 01 2015 07:30 Yoav wrote:
The problem with Koresh or Jones was not separation from the larger world. It was being murderous fuckheads.
By contrast, take a "mainstream cult" like the Amish. They're super segregated from the world, and it really isn't a problem.
Yeah it isn't really a problem for kids who "decide" to stay Amish. However using extreme isolation mixed with a brief moment of extreme unguided freedom to manipulate and scare children and leave them without the tools to effectively interact with the outside world as adults seems like a huge problem for me and Amish that never wanted to be forced/manipulated into being Amish.
|
On February 01 2015 06:19 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:57 hannahbelle wrote: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. The WSJ opinion page is objectively not a credible source... it says "Opinion" right there at the top of it. As for the nonsense about climate change skepticism being suppressed, I don't think you understand how lucrative it is to produce studies arguing against climate change being caused by human activity. Just do a quick google search, there are hundreds of papers commissioned by energy companies and other similar interests. Even the US Senate has commissioned studies on climate change skepticism: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1If anything, studies by skeptics are encouraged because of the powerful political and economic interests that benefit from them, which is why the small percentage of scientists who don't agree with the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by humanity is so prolific.
Money serves all masters. It's equally lucrative for the otherside of the fence to keep the governmental grants rolling in. There are numerous article about higher ed research being skewed by what the grant underwriters want to see.
|
On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto 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. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole.
Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon.
Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools.
|
On February 01 2015 08:17 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 06:19 Mercy13 wrote:On February 01 2015 05:57 hannahbelle wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science.
[quote]
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. The WSJ opinion page is objectively not a credible source... it says "Opinion" right there at the top of it. As for the nonsense about climate change skepticism being suppressed, I don't think you understand how lucrative it is to produce studies arguing against climate change being caused by human activity. Just do a quick google search, there are hundreds of papers commissioned by energy companies and other similar interests. Even the US Senate has commissioned studies on climate change skepticism: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1If anything, studies by skeptics are encouraged because of the powerful political and economic interests that benefit from them, which is why the small percentage of scientists who don't agree with the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by humanity is so prolific. Money serves all masters. It's equally lucrative for the otherside of the fence to keep the governmental grants rolling in. There are numerous article about higher ed research being skewed by what the grant underwriters want to see.
You missed my point entirely : (
|
On February 01 2015 08:17 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 06:19 Mercy13 wrote:On February 01 2015 05:57 hannahbelle wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science.
[quote]
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. The WSJ opinion page is objectively not a credible source... it says "Opinion" right there at the top of it. As for the nonsense about climate change skepticism being suppressed, I don't think you understand how lucrative it is to produce studies arguing against climate change being caused by human activity. Just do a quick google search, there are hundreds of papers commissioned by energy companies and other similar interests. Even the US Senate has commissioned studies on climate change skepticism: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1If anything, studies by skeptics are encouraged because of the powerful political and economic interests that benefit from them, which is why the small percentage of scientists who don't agree with the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by humanity is so prolific. Money serves all masters. It's equally lucrative for the otherside of the fence to keep the governmental grants rolling in. There are numerous article about higher ed research being skewed by what the grant underwriters want to see.
Well one difference that comes to mind is that one side has 97% of people competing for that source of money while there is virtually no competition to be a scientist who supports the Koch brothers position on climate change. They aren't the federal government but again if a scientist provided them with reliable research that refuted climate change they could retire more wealthy than 99% of Americans the day the check cleared. Hell they could probably get a hundred million for whatever research they wanted (provided it didn't mess up the Koch's businesses bottom lines).
If there is a scientist out there that could thoroughly prove the Koch brothers position on climate change or man's impact on it they would have to be the dumbest scientist alive to not be wealthy/well funded for research and roundly celebrated by conservatives already.
|
Kansas collected $47 million less than anticipated this month, signaling that Gov. Sam Brownback and legislators may have to be more aggressive with spending cuts or other measures to balance the budget.
But the Department of Revenue said Friday that a key factor was greater-than-expected income tax refunds during the month, with the federal government processing returns more quickly than it did last year. Department spokeswoman Jeannine Koranda said the state waits on the federal government to process each set of returns first, so faster federal processing means more state refunds earlier in the tax season — and the possibility that refunds could "even out" later.
The Republican-dominated Legislature is working on proposals to eliminate a projected $279 million shortfall in the current budget, which ends June 30. Brownback's budget director has said if lawmakers don't pass a budget-balancing bill by Feb. 13, the state may not be able to pay its bills on time.
House Speaker Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican, said his chamber's Appropriations Committee would build unspecified "additional contingencies" into its budget plan. Brownback has proposed selected cuts, but his plan relies heavily on diverting funds from highway projects and special funds into the state's main bank account, where the projected deficit occurs.
Budget gaps in this and the next fiscal year arose after lawmakers aggressively cut personal income taxes in 2012 and 2013 at Brownback's urging to stimulate the economy. The state dropped its top rate by 29 percent and exempted the owners of 191,000 businesses altogether.
Source
|
On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto 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. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools.
You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't.
You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level.
A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here.
With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself.
By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself.
|
On February 01 2015 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 07:30 Yoav wrote:
The problem with Koresh or Jones was not separation from the larger world. It was being murderous fuckheads.
By contrast, take a "mainstream cult" like the Amish. They're super segregated from the world, and it really isn't a problem. Yeah it isn't really a problem for kids who "decide" to stay Amish. However using extreme isolation mixed with a brief moment of extreme unguided freedom to manipulate and scare children and leave them without the tools to effectively interact with the outside world as adults seems like a huge problem for me and Amish that never wanted to be forced/manipulated into being Amish.
You gotta stop watching Amish Mafia, man.
|
On February 01 2015 09:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2015 07:30 Yoav wrote:
The problem with Koresh or Jones was not separation from the larger world. It was being murderous fuckheads.
By contrast, take a "mainstream cult" like the Amish. They're super segregated from the world, and it really isn't a problem. Yeah it isn't really a problem for kids who "decide" to stay Amish. However using extreme isolation mixed with a brief moment of extreme unguided freedom to manipulate and scare children and leave them without the tools to effectively interact with the outside world as adults seems like a huge problem for me and Amish that never wanted to be forced/manipulated into being Amish. You gotta stop watching Amish Mafia, man.
I've heard of the show but I only watched about 5 minutes before I couldn't take the bullshit "reality"
I studied the Amish in a Alternatives to Capitalism class I took. I also watched this interesting documentary.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2200745636/
Did you have a point btw?
EDIT: I have to say I envy a lot about Amish life. I think they take some stuff to the extreme and some of their biblical interpretations are a bridge too far for myself. I actually wouldn't be nearly as bothered if the kids went to public schools even if it was only an hour or few in addition to Amish school.
EDIT 2: Re-watching the piece with a different lens it's kind of ironic how the Amish are the "religious conservative's" best rhetorical selves in actual human form. The Amish are the personification of everything religious conservatives think/claim they are or strive to be.
2:31
Tourist 2: Is there an identity as Americans, or...
Tour Guide: I'm sure the Amish would see themselves that way. They're not always seen that way by the surrounding community, and sometimes there's a little friction! They won't fly the flag, they won't pledge allegiance, they won't... you know, they don't vote on a regular basis.
5:30
Amish Man 3: The Amish people are the so called salt of the Earth. And I'm not saying that we are, I'm just saying that we're supposed to be. And if we go back to Genesis, and the beginning of the Bible, why, we soon realize that man was driven out of the Garden of Eden, out on the land, and there he was to serve his time. And work the soil, with the sweat of his brow. When a man is working the soil, he is as close to God as he can get. That's the closest you can get to God, working the soil. And now we live in days where 85 percent of our people are no longer on the soil. So now what do we do?
31:15
Amish Man 5: We haven't bought into American consumerism! Staying with the horse, for instance, has determined the distance we travel. It's preserved all the small towns, that's where we go to do business. You go outside Amish communities in the Midwest and small towns are all dying, because there's a Walmart on the outskirts siphoning all of that money out of that community, and overnight into Arkansas.
By not having electricity, imagine all the aisles I don't have to walk down in a department store! Aisles of hair blowers, and dryers, and toasters, and all that. Hey! I don't have to walk down that, that's liberation! I don't have to make many decisions, the community has made the decisions. To me, that's liberation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 01 2015 07:45 Yoav wrote:
With you on the coercion, but I'm having a hard time defining "shape their world in a controlling way" that doesn't have all sorts of problems. Lots of people shape the worldviews of others. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and can be a good thing.
i mean trying to capture a person within some special bubble community with propaganda. north korea etc does this stuff too,
|
I'm mildly against pure homeschooling, and would prefer if there was some outside sources involved in education. Mostly just because it means there's more eyes and independent sources to watch out for problems (e.g. abuse).
|
On February 01 2015 10:25 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 07:45 Yoav wrote:
With you on the coercion, but I'm having a hard time defining "shape their world in a controlling way" that doesn't have all sorts of problems. Lots of people shape the worldviews of others. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and can be a good thing. i mean trying to capture a person within some special bubble community with propaganda. north korea etc does this stuff too,
Just to use the video to kind of show what I'm talking about.
Keep in mind they are effectively home schooled through "grade 8" (pretty much only in the things they need to know in their society).
And then....
Slate: In their late teens, young Amish must decide if they want to be baptized and join the church.
Donald B. Kraybill, Sociologist: Baptism is a very important step. It's probably the most important decision they will make in their life. They are on their bended knees, and they're making this lifelong pledge to God that they will stick with the Christian faith and they will stick with the Amish church for the rest of their life. It's an enduring commitment.
If listening to the actual audio of this part doesn't break your heart you might want to check your pulse...lol
I half joke, but this girl legit sounds and looks like a depressed and broken hostage. I don't know maybe the producers told her to read it like that, but it doesn't seem like you tell the Amish what to do when you are a guest.
13:50
Video link
Amish Teen 1: I was standing in the kitchen, and my dad came up the stairs and came over to me and was like, "You know, you make me the happiest dad in the world." And put his arm around me, and gave me a hug. And I was all confused, because I didn't know what he was talking about. He was like, "I didn't know you were going to join church this fall!" And I was like, "Oh. Yeah. I guess I am!" He's happy that I'm joining church, and -- then it made me really happy too. I tried to tell myself, you know, during the service that, "It's just any normal church, I don't have to be nervous." But if I let myself think about it, and think of every step, I kinda get nervous.
When I was kneeling down on the floor, I remember thinking my feet hurt because I was sitting on them. And then I was like, "Man, all these people are praying for me." and just, wow! It just felt good. And I'm still down on my knees, and then one of the ministers brings the bucket of water and cups their hands above my head, and he says, "I baptize you in the name of the father," and then they pour water, "Son," pours more, and then "the Holy Ghost." I remember thinking "Whoa, there's a lot of water in my lap!" And then I'm baptized, and then he helps me stand up and says, you know, now I'm a member of the church, and "You are no more a stranger, you're a sister in the church now." I just wanted to go... flutter around and be happy, I guess. On the way home, I just wanted to sing.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
