• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:07
CEST 17:07
KST 00:07
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20258Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced24BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 742 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1502

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Next
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.

The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 01:24:23
November 20 2012 01:23 GMT
#30021
On November 20 2012 10:11 frogrubdown wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote:
doesn't need to go that far. look at stem cell.




But I'm talking (and think that the other two posters are talking) about a much larger thesis according to which religion's existence has been a net detriment to progress, conceived in terms of our increasing understanding of the world. This thesis is a lot messier and harder to make sense of.


Precisely, I am simply of the mind that there are better means with which to frame a cogent historical inquiry; imprecise reductionism leaves oh so much to be desired, at least insofar as the study of history is concerned.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 01:36:08
November 20 2012 01:30 GMT
#30022
in the present day that rule is valid though as a rationale for limiting scientific inquiry. whenever there is a religious reason to either limit experiments, or 'guide' theories, it is never a good thing.

to do a bit more work on this, even present day opponents of religious influence on science do not object to the existence of religious institutions or people. it's an action based objection to religiously motivated rationales or ideas behind many of the actions impeding science.

distinguishing between religious rationale/action and the social impact of religious institutions or whatever, you can get a better working attack on religion's slowing of science.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 01:43:30
November 20 2012 01:43 GMT
#30023
On November 20 2012 10:30 oneofthem wrote:
in the present day that rule is valid though as a rationale for limiting scientific inquiry. whenever there is a religious reason to either limit experiments, or 'guide' theories, it is never a good thing.

to do a bit more work on this, even present day opponents of religious influence on science do not object to the existence of religious institutions or people. it's an action based objection to religiously motivated rationales or ideas behind many of the actions impeding science.

distinguishing between religious rationale/action and the social impact of religious institutions or whatever, you can get a better working attack on religion's slowing of science.

If we are talking explicitly, then I agree with you. My problem has more to do with a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that issues of faith helped to "guide" many of mankind's greatest minds, and continue to do so, with a different scope and influence than in past days no doubt. I'm not interested in the minister changing the science books, that is a predicament with an obvious answer. I'm interested in the scientist who prays before sleeping.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 01:53:17
November 20 2012 01:46 GMT
#30024
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.

prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as

"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."

my philosophical trinity are all theists in one way or another
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
November 20 2012 01:53 GMT
#30025
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
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.

Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.


The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.

So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.

Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.

Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!

She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".

KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.

I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.

Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.

What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.

Drawing the distinction between religious and scientific beliefs, without being disrespectful, is not hard. You should have to only do it a couple times, at most, and that's the end of it.
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
November 20 2012 01:54 GMT
#30026
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
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.

Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.


The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.

So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.

Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.

Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!

She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".

KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.

I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.

Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.

What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.


There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student.

We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so.

Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts.
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
November 20 2012 01:56 GMT
#30027
On November 20 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.

prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as

"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."

I think you presume a bit much in terms of what constitutes a prayer, and though I share your distaste for typical prostrations such as praying the Rosary, there are plenty of people who "pray" in very interesting and personal ways that are very different from typical portrayals of Christianity.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
frogrubdown
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
1266 Posts
November 20 2012 01:58 GMT
#30028
On November 20 2012 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
rest assured i have plenty of respect for 'religious' intuitions especially in ethics. but i think these things can be naturalized.

prayer...not so much respect. i do respect religious metaphors i think they are quite irreplaceable. such as

"well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train."

my philosophical trinity are all theists in one way or another


Ooh, one way or another. Give me a tiny, tiny hint and I'll guess.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
November 20 2012 02:04 GMT
#30029
On November 20 2012 09:54 oneofthem wrote:
back on the topic of econodoom. here's a troublesome report about the expansion of hte freedom driven banking sector

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/shadow-banking-grows-to-67-trillion-industry-regulators-say.html


you know, where they do the money washing business alongside the bad debt washing business.

'Freedom driven' or Fed driven?

William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here.

McBengt
Profile Joined May 2011
Sweden1684 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 02:15:46
November 20 2012 02:12 GMT
#30030
On November 20 2012 10:54 NicolBolas wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
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.

Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.


The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.

So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.

Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.

Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!

She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".

KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.

I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.

Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.

What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.


There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student.

We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so.

Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts.


What the hell? Not agreeing with proven facts is just about a textbook definition of stupidity. Would you respect the opinion of someone who didn't believe in gravity? Or Oxygen? There not two sides to every debate, and both sides don't always have a point. Sometimes, or more often than not perhaps, someone is just right and someone else is just wrong. Appeasement of absurd beliefs in the guise of tolerance is counter-productive and inhibits development.
I realise being told that your view of the world is incorrect can be profoundly unsettling, but it is a necessary development process that everyone goes through at some point.

If someone is telling a student nonsense, no matter who that may be, a teacher has a moral and professional duty to inform that student that the people telling them said nonsense are wrong. No insult is inferred or necessary. There is nothing shameful or demeaning in being wrong.
"My twelve year old will out-reason Bill Maher when it comes to understanding, you know, what, uh, how to logic work" - Rick Santorum
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 03:44:28
November 20 2012 03:22 GMT
#30031
On November 20 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 09:54 oneofthem wrote:
back on the topic of econodoom. here's a troublesome report about the expansion of hte freedom driven banking sector

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/shadow-banking-grows-to-67-trillion-industry-regulators-say.html


you know, where they do the money washing business alongside the bad debt washing business.

'Freedom driven' or Fed driven?

William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here.


takes two to tango.

yes, easy monetary policy doesn't help things, but seems to me that these guys are just moving what used to be legit business down under the table, fearful of regulatory (or even market) oversight.

i'd say the shadow banking market grows as new shadow banking connections are made, and these connections in turn generate more connections. so basically it grows following a geometric formula, relying on the expansion of private information links.

the pattern of shadow banking transactions moving away from the u.s. to europe and asia is a show of this. an anthropologist may say it's the return of traditional societal ties of omerta and the clans against anglo saxon public markets.

btw that paper also makes this claim

"However, [continued near 0 bound monetary policy]was also due to the growing reluctance to use more fiscal stimulus to support demand, given growing market concerns about the extent to which sovereign debt had built up during the economic downturn."
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
November 20 2012 04:11 GMT
#30032
On November 20 2012 12:22 oneofthem wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:54 oneofthem wrote:
back on the topic of econodoom. here's a troublesome report about the expansion of hte freedom driven banking sector

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/shadow-banking-grows-to-67-trillion-industry-regulators-say.html


you know, where they do the money washing business alongside the bad debt washing business.

'Freedom driven' or Fed driven?

William White has made some pretty convincing arguments that the shadow banking sector grew in no small part due to ultra easy Fed policy here.


takes two to tango.

yes, easy monetary policy doesn't help things, but seems to me that these guys are just moving what used to be legit business down under the table, fearful of regulatory (or even market) oversight.

i'd say the shadow banking market grows as new shadow banking connections are made, and these connections in turn generate more connections. so basically it grows following a geometric formula, relying on the expansion of private information links.

the pattern of shadow banking transactions moving away from the u.s. to europe and asia is a show of this. an anthropologist may say it's the return of traditional societal ties of omerta and the clans against anglo saxon public markets.

btw that paper also makes this claim

"However, [continued near 0 bound monetary policy]was also due to the growing reluctance to use more fiscal stimulus to support demand, given growing market concerns about the extent to which sovereign debt had built up during the economic downturn."


Isn't shadow banking replacing traditional banking more so than the public markets? If so your anthropologist has it backwards.

As to the fiscal stimulus comment - it could very well be better to strike a balance that relies less heavily on monetary policy and more heavily on fiscal policy. That said, I doubt fiscal policy is any more immune to unintended consequences. In other words the cure could (or could not) turn out to be worse than the disease.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 04:40:15
November 20 2012 04:30 GMT
#30033
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.

but yea public investment can have unexpected outcomes, oftentimes unexpectedly good outcomes. such as GI bill,, new deal roads and dams etc
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 04:40:52
November 20 2012 04:39 GMT
#30034
On November 20 2012 11:12 McBengt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 10:54 NicolBolas wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:
On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well.


The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim.

So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you.

Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief.

Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive!

She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says".

KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence.

I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.

Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary.

What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other.


There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student.

We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so.

Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts.


What the hell? Not agreeing with proven facts is just about a textbook definition of stupidity. Would you respect the opinion of someone who didn't believe in gravity? Or Oxygen? There not two sides to every debate, and both sides don't always have a point. Sometimes, or more often than not perhaps, someone is just right and someone else is just wrong. Appeasement of absurd beliefs in the guise of tolerance is counter-productive and inhibits development.
I realise being told that your view of the world is incorrect can be profoundly unsettling, but it is a necessary development process that everyone goes through at some point.

If someone is telling a student nonsense, no matter who that may be, a teacher has a moral and professional duty to inform that student that the people telling them said nonsense are wrong. No insult is inferred or necessary. There is nothing shameful or demeaning in being wrong.


I didn't say that they shouldn't say that the wrong information was wrong. There's a difference between "that is wrong" and "the people who told you that are retarded". One of these is a fact, the other is drawing conclusions for the child.
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
November 20 2012 04:40 GMT
#30035
On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.

Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization).
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 05:09:53
November 20 2012 04:53 GMT
#30036
On November 20 2012 13:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.

Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization).

but it would be amistake to assume that securitization is driven mainly by central bank actions. distinct financial engineering 'inventions' that allow for risk alchemy played a large role in the expansion of securitization at least pre crisis. (with these asset backed securities, more loans could then be made, and that rate of security production was the limiting factor on loan production, at least during a bubble) when it comes to shadow banking, the short term nature of the swaps is probably pretty instrumental. i've not looked at how this stuff works though
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 05:11:52
November 20 2012 05:11 GMT
#30037
On November 20 2012 13:53 oneofthem wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 13:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On November 20 2012 13:30 oneofthem wrote:
shadow banking relies on non-public information and ties, so in that sense it is replacing an open price market.

Aspects are more secretive (avoids regulators) but it also relies more heavily on financial markets (securitization).

but it would be amistake to assume that securitization is driven mainly by central bank actions. distinct financial engineering 'inventions' that allow for risk alchemy played a large role in the expansion of securitization at least pre crisis. (with these asset backed securities, more loans could then be made, and that rate of security production was the limiting factor on loan production, at least during a bubble) when it comes to shadow banking, the short term nature of the swaps is probably pretty instrumental. i've not looked at how this stuff works though

My point is that securitization uses public markets, not that its driven by central banks.

Edit: it was a refutation of the "shadow" aspect of shadow banking.
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 05:56:40
November 20 2012 05:22 GMT
#30038
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
November 20 2012 13:24 GMT
#30039
Make sure to include a link to this thread in the new one then! :-)
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-20 14:07:40
November 20 2012 14:06 GMT
#30040
On November 20 2012 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 20 2012 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:
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.


Yes, you have addressed this previously... with Keynesian arguments.
Prev 1 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
14:00
Bracket Day 2 - Final
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
Lambo vs GeraldLIVE!
Clem vs SKillous
Reynor vs TBD
RotterdaM1995
ComeBackTV 1604
IndyStarCraft 567
WardiTV321
CranKy Ducklings196
Rex149
3DClanTV 89
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 1995
IndyStarCraft 567
Rex 149
BRAT_OK 68
MindelVK 29
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 46945
Barracks 1810
EffOrt 1416
Larva 1088
Stork 854
BeSt 628
firebathero 517
Nal_rA 383
Soulkey 254
Rush 153
[ Show more ]
Hyun 140
Dewaltoss 129
Sharp 92
sorry 58
Movie 57
sSak 56
Shinee 50
Free 36
Shine 34
zelot 27
yabsab 21
Terrorterran 13
IntoTheRainbow 4
Dota 2
Gorgc5692
qojqva4102
XcaliburYe407
420jenkins320
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
fl0m2077
oskar192
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor567
Other Games
B2W.Neo1888
Beastyqt1672
Hui .312
DeMusliM242
Fuzer 167
KnowMe100
QueenE63
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV41
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 4
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 52
• poizon28 18
• Dystopia_ 1
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 4134
• WagamamaTV729
League of Legends
• Nemesis3581
• Jankos1566
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2h 53m
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Wardi Open
19h 53m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 18h
WardiTV European League
2 days
Online Event
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.