|
|
On November 20 2012 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 00:14 semantics wrote:
Cutting spending flat out esp the military would call economic contractions for the US, saying flat out cutting will stimulate the economy is so out wrong for so many reasons. You'd be putting a lot of government contractors out of work, although i don't really care for some of them who use prison labor for less then minimum wage all while charging full competitive pricing because the way the laws are written. Conservatives have still failed to explain why, under their non-Keynesian worldview, massively cutting spending and reducing the deficit via the fiscal cliff is suddenly not a good idea after all. Who knew?
I've already addressed this many times.
1) Your assertion that conservatives are 100% anti-Keynesian is false. Republicans have enacted stimulus plans of their own plenty of times the last one that I can recall being in '08.
2) There's more to the fiscal cliff than just the macro level austerity. For example, conservatives don't like the Bush tax cuts expiring or the military budget being cut.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
nice to see the religious right is still stronk
|
United States42393 Posts
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people.
|
On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people.
Are you serious? That has to be one of the least intelligent responses a teacher could have.
|
To be frank, I thought Marco Rubio not a bad choice for the Republican nomination in 2016, that is until I saw an article like Acker linked. What a joke.......I mean I guess if he wants a shot at the ticket he needs to gather support from that demographic, but at what cost? In the eyes of this voter, the cost is his credibility.
|
On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people.
But KwarK you're devaluing our country's morals by suggesting we teach facts in schools!
I'm all for people taking their own religious spins on the facts we have available to us, like God guiding the evolutionary process so that we ended up here, or the spontaneous event that created the universe being sparked by God, but when people want to teach their children flat out lies because it falls in line with religious texts written thousands of years ago, it makes me facepalm.
The scientific community is willing to constantly adapt and change their stance when factual evidence proves them wrong, but the religious community insists that their specific religious document is 100% correct and always has been. If they were to revise it and admit that some things may be outdated, they'd have to throw the whole thing out because there is no factual basis for any of it. And we wonder why it's so difficult for America to get its fat ass into the 21st Century.
|
On November 20 2012 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people. Are you serious? That has to be one of the least intelligent responses a teacher could have.
I doubt he was serious about the exact wording, as no teacher should respond to a child that way. But as far as sentiment goes, he's right on the mark. Instead, I'd phrase it as "Well sorry Timmy, but your mummy isn't an expert on that particular topic," which would be true unless she was some sort of fundamentalist Christian geologist, which I feel are far and few between.
Religions are great for instilling morals, creating community, and making people feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. But they shouldn't be lying to children in order to stay in line with whatever holy book they subscribe to. People should think of them as guidelines, not gospel, and be open to saying "You know what, maybe they were mistaken about the origins of Earth and the human species when they wrote this two thousand years ago."
|
On November 20 2012 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people. Are you serious? That has to be one of the least intelligent responses a teacher could have.
Not sure, if you are responding to the exact sentence or the idea here. The exact sentence is a hyperbole anyway. As for the what he is suggesting: The age of the earth should always be taught as scientific age. Believing that earth is a lot younger will seriously make the persons learning difficult since basically anything in or before the stone age will be in conflict with the persons world view. It would invalidate all dating technologies in biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Without a belief of an earth that is older than 8000 years you are basically invalidating even the main theory for why climate change is not man-made! Keep the religious class about ethics and moral so we do not have to deal with people lacking basic knowledge of the world.
Here, the schools teaching that s*** lost funding 20-30 years ago. Dont get me wrong; there are still some schools with obligatory prayers, daily service and religious classes, but they do not get to touch natural science in the slightest and even their religion classes are more about moral and ethics than a literal interpretation.
|
On November 20 2012 06:59 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people. Are you serious? That has to be one of the least intelligent responses a teacher could have. Not sure, if you are responding to the exact sentence or the idea here. The exact sentence is a hyperbole anyway. As for the what he is suggesting: The age of the earth should always be taught as scientific age. Believing that earth is a lot younger will seriously make the persons learning difficult since basically anything in or before the stone age will be in conflict with the persons world view. It would invalidate all dating technologies in biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Without a belief of an earth that is older than 8000 years you are basically invalidating even the main theory for why climate change is not man-made! Keep the religious class about ethics and moral so we do not have to deal with people lacking basic knowledge of the world. Here, the schools teaching that s*** lost funding 20-30 years ago. Dont get me wrong; there are still some schools with obligatory prayers, daily service and religious classes, but they do not get to touch natural science in the slightest and even their religion classes are more about moral and ethics than a literal interpretation.
Science should certainly be taught in science classes but what KwarK posted went beyond into promoting intolerance toward differing cultures and beliefs.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that woman may not be discriminated against when it comes to her status as a person but you can certainly dispute her 'culture' and specific wrong beliefs in an education setting.
|
On November 20 2012 07:31 oneofthem wrote:
that woman may not be discriminated against when it comes to her status as a person but you can certainly dispute her 'culture' and specific wrong beliefs in an education setting.
That sounds needlessly destructive. During a science class non-scientific discussion should be excluded, not disputed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc based on god, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world.
|
On November 20 2012 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world.
but would it be a problem for the teacher to explain to them the scientific facts and theories, in full, and take as disinterested a tone as possible as to whether she/he personally believes it or not? and why should the kid have to be bullied into believing it, as long as he/she is well-versed in the facts and theories and findings of the scientific arena.
in my opinion the teacher should respond to the statement: "but my mommy believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old" is to say:
"Well, there are a lot of theories about the origins of the earth and life, but you're talking about a religious theory, and we're talking about scientific theories. When discussing scientific theories, we have to look at the evidence objectively and then make our determination based solely on the evidence. You and I can believe whatever we want, religiously, personally, spiritually; but even if we disagree with the scientific theory, or feel that it is incomplete, we should still examine the evidence and know the processes by which the theory was created. And if you still feel that it is incorrect, or incomplete, than the burden is on you to find the scientific evidence for your position. Basically, believe whatever you want, but understand that I'm grading you on your knowledge of this subject, and also understand that no one will take your position seriously in the scientific arena unless you have the evidence to back it up, so start studying."
I don't know, I just always preferred a dispassionate fact-machine over a deeply interested partisan (so to speak) as a teacher. maybe other people feel different.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
using the religious/science distinction to do work is unnecessary and does not promote the understanding of either. there is no epistemic authority apart from what the world is, understood by the best methods of inquiry available.
nowhere in science do scientists say, 'let's make a scientific theory.' people always say, whether [the content of a particular theory] is wrong or right, what degree of confidence etc. science has no theory of science v religion. it's just transparent inquiry. a religious theory like say ID does not gain extra credit or operate under a different standard of rigor.
|
On November 20 2012 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc based on god, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world.
There's a difference between telling a kid that their answer is wrong and telling the kid that he or she holds the wrong beliefs. Any decent teacher should be able to understand the difference and handle the situation appropriately.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
um, if your answer is wrong you are holding the wrong beliefs if you believe in your answer. encouraging dissonance just to accommodate certain religions is not a part of the duty of an educator.
|
On November 20 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 06:59 radiatoren wrote:On November 20 2012 06:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:
Sigh,
Of course parents can teach their children whatever they want but if a teacher asks how old the earth is and little Timmy goes "my mummy says God made it 7000 years ago" then the teacher ought to turn around and say "Timmy, your mummy is retarded". Any other approach isn't fair to Timmy who might not know his mother is retarded and could potentially go years accepting information based on faulty logic or a complete lack of evidence unless the school system teaches him both a grounding in facts and the skills for rational analysis.
I am amazed your country elects these people. Even hardcore Christians in this country would be embarrassed by association with those people. Are you serious? That has to be one of the least intelligent responses a teacher could have. Not sure, if you are responding to the exact sentence or the idea here. The exact sentence is a hyperbole anyway. As for the what he is suggesting: The age of the earth should always be taught as scientific age. Believing that earth is a lot younger will seriously make the persons learning difficult since basically anything in or before the stone age will be in conflict with the persons world view. It would invalidate all dating technologies in biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Without a belief of an earth that is older than 8000 years you are basically invalidating even the main theory for why climate change is not man-made! Keep the religious class about ethics and moral so we do not have to deal with people lacking basic knowledge of the world. Here, the schools teaching that s*** lost funding 20-30 years ago. Dont get me wrong; there are still some schools with obligatory prayers, daily service and religious classes, but they do not get to touch natural science in the slightest and even their religion classes are more about moral and ethics than a literal interpretation. Science should certainly be taught in science classes but what KwarK posted went beyond into promoting intolerance toward differing cultures and beliefs.
Perhaps he is intolerant towards the indoctrination of children into two thousand year old cults.
|
On November 20 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world. but would it be a problem for the teacher to explain to them the scientific facts and theories, in full, and take as disinterested a tone as possible as to whether she/he personally believes it or not? and why should the kid have to be bullied into believing it, as long as he/she is well-versed in the facts and theories and findings of the scientific arena. in my opinion the teacher should respond to the statement: "but my mommy believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old" is to say: "Well, there are a lot of theories about the origins of the earth and life, but you're talking about a religious theory, and we're talking about scientific theories. When discussing scientific theories, we have to look at the evidence objectively and then make our determination based solely on the evidence. You and I can believe whatever we want, religiously, personally, spiritually; but even if we disagree with the scientific theory, or feel that it is incomplete, we should still examine the evidence and know the processes by which the theory was created. And if you still feel that it is incorrect, or incomplete, than the burden is on you to find the scientific evidence for your position. Basically, believe whatever you want, but understand that I'm grading you on your knowledge of this subject, and also understand that no one will take your position seriously in the scientific arena unless you have the evidence to back it up, so start studying." I don't know, I just always preferred a dispassionate fact-machine over a deeply interested partisan (so to speak) as a teacher. maybe other people feel different.
Your response, while comprehensive and correct, is really tailored towards high-school/college level students. What would you tell an elementary school student who asks the same question? I'm not sure I would have understood the distinction at that age...if my teacher is telling me the Earth is billions of years old, and my mom is telling me that the Earth is several thousand years old, then one of them is lying or wrong. I know at that age I probably would have believed my mother over my teacher.
Just a couple years ago, my girlfriend was living with a friend of hers who grew up in a poor, religious area of the state, but joined the Marines after high-school and did well there. After she returned from Iraq and got into school, her very first class was Anthropology for some reason. Since she immediately disregarded the majority of the class as bunk because it dealt with human evolution during time periods that don't co-exist with Creationism, she couldn't take it seriously and ended up resenting the entire academic process.
Granted, this is an anecdote and she wasn't particularly intelligent to begin with, but it's my belief that when you teach science as being "just another theory" in order to pander to religious people, you are devaluing the importance of the scientific method. Religion in general needs to step away from making concrete, scientific claims like when the Earth was created or how humans came into existence, because they have no factual evidence for any of it. Religion is great for instilling morals and building communities, but the holy books themselves are taken far too literally.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
