I don't buy the argument that sex offender registries should exist, but even if you do, these people don't belong on them.
Wrong. These people need to be made examples of. The types of people who strip search 13 year old girls for prescription drugs are the same types of people who want to put 19 year old boys on sex offender lists for dating 17 year old girls. It's these people who are always talking about how we need to make examples of criminals so that we can deter people from misbehaving. They clearly need a taste of their own medicine, and a 10 to 20 year jail sentence.
Correction. The article that you link to is merely a vague abstract. "School Refusal", according to Wikipedia, is a British phenomena, and it is the Wikipedia article that states that home schooling is a possible solution.
and I provided you with an academic article on the very topic you wished to discuss.
The topic of the thread is socialization, and specifically with home schooling. The article that you referenced is about an anxiety disorder that relates to going to public school. Interestingly enough it states that home schooling is a possible solution. So the article is not only off-topic, but it said something positive about what you were arguing against.
It's really these type of arguments that depress me and make me feel like I'm wasting my time. I don't mind being told that I'm wrong, but I need to be convinced. I don't want to go through (for example) all your points, however poor they may be, only to have you contradict me with more poor arguments.
Well at least you may see where I am coming from. Maybe not. Perhaps I'm right-the-fuck-out-of-there. At any rate I don't see this conversation going very far.
On the other hand, it's a guarantee that when they step into "the real world" they're going to have to deal with jerks, liars, and blowhards. If you want science, I suggest you read..
I've spent enough time in what you people claim to be the "real world" to know that I would rather live in "reality" than the "real world".
"If you want science, I suggest you read..." If you want to talk with me I suggest you stop the bullshit and ignorant patronizing. If you are intelligent then you would be without an agenda and would use good arguments to back up your claims. So far you are wasting my time and my patience. I'm calling you out on this just to make sure the casual reader reads you more carefully and doesn't take you too seriously.
You can argue all you want, but argumentation does not change reality. Your linking article "The Coping Mechanisms of Children with School Refusal" is a nice Troll (not the article itself, but the fact that you referenced it). And your poorly worded rhetorical arguments about "the real world" expose themselves for what they are. I'm not here for a series of contradictions, I'm not even here for an argument. I'm here to discuss and enlighten, and hopefully be enlightened. Agenda's are more suitable for Usenet.
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
You are giving examples of how poorly socialized those church-going, public school children are. Your church-reared children are obviously anti-social and they are not well socialized. Trying to convince parents to put their children in these anti-social environments so that they can learn to be as anti-social as their peers, and to ostracize and accuse other people who are not members of their clique that "they didn't seem to understand reality" is wrong, immoral, and unethical.
I'll reword what you said (just to show you how incredibly arrogant you make yourself sound. And yes, to attempt to put some reality into your brain as well):
As the parent of public-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
And you also said;
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that.
You are defeating your own argument. Make a case for either socializing kids through public school or not, but don't do what most people here on Slashdot do and just argue through opinion and folklore. I have been through the public school system, and I personal don't have any strong opinions on either home-schooling or public schooling. What I have been doing here (in this thread) is commenting out the obvious fallacies.
Whether you can use the words "abuse", "negative experiences", whatever; I do know that I have seen zero evidence that exposing children (or adults) to negative experiences somehow leads to a positive.
I don't know why people are arguing that sheltering children is wrong. I'm not going to, for example, beat the shit out of my children just so they will get used to the pain of being beaten up. All the arguments in favour of this have so far not made any sense. If somebody could point to any science validating their points then I would take their arguments more seriously. As it is, people I have found tend to believe what they are taught my their parents, schools, and friends, which usually doesn't have much to do with reality and a lot to do with simple and common folklore.
Your using the learn-from-gutter-experience argument. I suspected it would come up eventually. Unfortunately I have only heard anecdotes but have seen no evidence to support this hypothesis. One example I do remember very well, is an academic military journal I read once. There was an article that observed whether people who are born and raised in rough environments make better infantry soldiers. The results are that people who are not exposed to abusive situations handle abusive situations much better when they are adults. In fact the street-wise kids were more likely to get eight balled from the army because of psychological problems.
I have personal anecdotes of this myself, but at least I have seen formal evidence of what I am talking about in a scientific journal.
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
and
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
and
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
1.There is nothing reasonable or doubtful that thinking that two advils would do serious harm, or even minor harm to a 13 year old girl. 2. There is also nothing reasonable about strip searching a 13 year old girl who was minding her own business 3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy and practice towards children (and adults as well, but that's another topic). They are continuing to normalize and escalate these nasty and unwarranted attitudes and behaviours.
I can see that the Troll Moderators are at it again with the down-mods on my post. If you don't like what I have to say then don't read it. Moderating reality downward won't get rid of it. And BTW I'm not going anywhere, even if I have to post at -1, that just means I'll will be motivated to post more. As is always the case, if you Moderation Trolls down mod this post, then I will keep on posting until you loose your Moderation points.
Home schooling fucks up your social skills. We need good public schools.
No. Socializing children fucks up their social skills. Have you ever been a child before? You should remember what it was like. Children are not good at teaching each other morals or good social skills. What they do learn from each other is Human Nature, which isn't a very good thing to learn if you are being taught by human children. Go to a football game in England to see what socialization does.
In Canada, as an adult, these things are completely illegal. I could presume these arbitrary strip searches would be illegal for adults in the USA as well. But when it comes to think-of-the-children conservativism, then hypocrisy is more important than reality. It's not just the fight against drugs and sex for these conservatives, it's a fight against freedom, and it is a fight for an authoritarian society. And don't let the people that are most likely to deny this convince you otherwise. They do get found out every once in a while, and sometimes they even go to jail. In the mean time we shouldn't be letting these people hurt children.
Myth used correctly should not be a negative term.
Yes. True. And I think (for a happy change) that the Moderators got it more right this time with my post. My literal comment is bogus, but the Moderation is correct.
These tests are designed (or should be if they're done properly) to be extremely difficult to lie to. By asking you each question 5 times, in completely unrelated wording (and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question)
"... and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question". There's the problem. Somebody like myself would likely notice the similarities. Yeah and I'm also the type of person who would read the entire 75 questions and would read the remaining ones as well, just out of curiosity and my obsessive/compulsive nature to learn. Probably the average person wouldn't be able to game the test (or it would be picked up if They were trying to). For those more perceptive and outside of the bell curve it would be much more easy.
Since they don't use DRM anymore it doesn't (or shouldn't matter) where you log in, because without Digital Rights Management you will be able to play your game on any computer, with any Internet connection you want. There are no Internet Servers involved needed to support DRM because DRM is not used. Steam gets rid of DRM. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.
No you come on. In this context the test is discussed (in the article) about joining the police force. And it would seem reasonable to presume that it is probably used by many police departments. It would be doubtful if most "normal" companies would bother to pay to have a two hour, copy-righted and computer administered test to be done on job candidates. I in no way said the test was designed by and for the police department specifically. I could probably have worded that better, but in context my point stands.
Uhm, no. The nearly 600 questions are carefully designed to make it very difficult to lie and be consistent about it, by examining the same issues from multiple different, and somewhat complementary, perspectives.
Then how do cops get on the police force then? Don't tell me that cops are honest.
Sometimes just pointing out illogic with illogic has its point. I am self-aware. There's method to my madness. It does bring out the hypocrisy in the Moderation process.
Bullshit. If you see demons/spirits/angels running around you're delusional and not suited for most work.
From what I know from theory (and from personal experience); people who are delusional don't tend to lie, and it becomes more apparent the more you talk to them. If they are seeing evil spirits, then chances are they're seeing and experiencing a lot of other things that will eventually be picked up. Such tests are also useful in picking up people who are faking insanity (for criminal purposes for example), because most non-insane people can't fake insanity very well.
As a person who was in the military I know They can and will ask a lot more personal questions then normal employers would. This is for the minimal security clearance needed. I would assume it's the same for the police force, where They would likely also interview your friends and neighbours for example, to see what type of a person you are. The questions here may be bogus, but I (think I) can understand the rationale behind them. Realize that I don't live in the US, and I am very aware that in Canada our privacy legislation is much more restrictive than in the US.
It would have taken much longer, or perhaps never, for such items to ever make it to the free market because the free market does not like to spend money on short-term money pits like the technology which has been brought to us by the "space age."
OK; a reasonable argument. Minimally it costs $450 million to launch a space shuttle (that's assuming nothing goes wrong like explosions, etc). Now, lets take some of the spin-off technologies that were mentioned: artificial limbs. Now it would seem like artificial limbs could be researched for far less than $450,000,000.00 a day (or the hour or so it takes to fly a space shuttle into space). Of course I'm making assumptions, but I could assumed that the government could just as easily spend 450 million dollars on Earth (and without the transportation and training costs) to subsidize all sorts of artificial and bionic limbs. Realize that this would be money that is not being diverted from scientific research, but it is merely being diverted from transportation into space.
The same could be said for Zip-lock bags. As for me, I'm a big NASA fan and I hope they do a lot of exploration and science. What I don't want to see is Fanboys who ignorantly tout that we wouldn't have zip-lock bags without spending billions upon billions of dollars on what is mainly just transportation costs. I personally think spending billions of dollars for R & D for the possible spin-off of a civilian use product like a zip-lock bag is inefficient and probably something that, like artificial limbs, could just as easily be produced by private industry. It is far cheeper to fun a war, and wars are the mechanism that inspired the prosthetics industry. If people have moral hang-ups on war than they could just spend a money on things like prevention and education (at the very least) and robotics that directly effects little children getting real robot arms. A one day flight into space would certainly pay for a lot of research and development that wouldn't be just a lucky civilian spin-off. But hey, NASA is better at PR than cripples are. If you asked somebody that was paralyzed if they would rather have the money spent on spinal research or on NASA for possible spin-off effects that could possibly help spinal research, I'm guessing people would choose NASA because NASA fanboys have better arguments and get modded Insightful. Or maybe not. Maybe its just a disingenuous argument that is lacking in thoughtfulness and honesty, and maybe, just maybe people people are getting upset because I'm calling them out on reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy the argument that sex offender registries should exist, but even if you do, these people don't belong on them.
Wrong. These people need to be made examples of. The types of people who strip search 13 year old girls for prescription drugs are the same types of people who want to put 19 year old boys on sex offender lists for dating 17 year old girls. It's these people who are always talking about how we need to make examples of criminals so that we can deter people from misbehaving. They clearly need a taste of their own medicine, and a 10 to 20 year jail sentence.
Correction. The article that you link to is merely a vague abstract. "School Refusal", according to Wikipedia, is a British phenomena, and it is the Wikipedia article that states that home schooling is a possible solution.
Just setting the record straight.
My apologies,
UTW
and I provided you with an academic article on the very topic you wished to discuss.
The topic of the thread is socialization, and specifically with home schooling. The article that you referenced is about an anxiety disorder that relates to going to public school. Interestingly enough it states that home schooling is a possible solution. So the article is not only off-topic, but it said something positive about what you were arguing against.
It's really these type of arguments that depress me and make me feel like I'm wasting my time. I don't mind being told that I'm wrong, but I need to be convinced. I don't want to go through (for example) all your points, however poor they may be, only to have you contradict me with more poor arguments.
Well at least you may see where I am coming from. Maybe not. Perhaps I'm right-the-fuck-out-of-there. At any rate I don't see this conversation going very far.
Best regards,
UTW
What kind of activities are you involved in that make the real world seem like such a bad place to you?
I'm assuming he is a Banker.
On the other hand, it's a guarantee that when they step into "the real world" they're going to have to deal with jerks, liars, and blowhards. If you want science, I suggest you read..
I've spent enough time in what you people claim to be the "real world" to know that I would rather live in "reality" than the "real world".
"If you want science, I suggest you read..."
If you want to talk with me I suggest you stop the bullshit and ignorant patronizing. If you are intelligent then you would be without an agenda and would use good arguments to back up your claims. So far you are wasting my time and my patience. I'm calling you out on this just to make sure the casual reader reads you more carefully and doesn't take you too seriously.
You can argue all you want, but argumentation does not change reality. Your linking article "The Coping Mechanisms of Children with School Refusal" is a nice Troll (not the article itself, but the fact that you referenced it). And your poorly worded rhetorical arguments about "the real world" expose themselves for what they are. I'm not here for a series of contradictions, I'm not even here for an argument. I'm here to discuss and enlighten, and hopefully be enlightened. Agenda's are more suitable for Usenet.
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
You are giving examples of how poorly socialized those church-going, public school children are. Your church-reared children are obviously anti-social and they are not well socialized. Trying to convince parents to put their children in these anti-social environments so that they can learn to be as anti-social as their peers, and to ostracize and accuse other people who are not members of their clique that "they didn't seem to understand reality" is wrong, immoral, and unethical.
I'll reword what you said (just to show you how incredibly arrogant you make yourself sound. And yes, to attempt to put some reality into your brain as well):
As the parent of public-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
And you also said;
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that.
You are defeating your own argument. Make a case for either socializing kids through public school or not, but don't do what most people here on Slashdot do and just argue through opinion and folklore. I have been through the public school system, and I personal don't have any strong opinions on either home-schooling or public schooling. What I have been doing here (in this thread) is commenting out the obvious fallacies.
Whether you can use the words "abuse", "negative experiences", whatever; I do know that I have seen zero evidence that exposing children (or adults) to negative experiences somehow leads to a positive.
I don't know why people are arguing that sheltering children is wrong. I'm not going to, for example, beat the shit out of my children just so they will get used to the pain of being beaten up. All the arguments in favour of this have so far not made any sense. If somebody could point to any science validating their points then I would take their arguments more seriously. As it is, people I have found tend to believe what they are taught my their parents, schools, and friends, which usually doesn't have much to do with reality and a lot to do with simple and common folklore.
So your argument is that people need to learn the world is full of gentlemen and that violence solves nothing?
I'm so glad my fists work.
It's more like I'll let my kids read your post and learn from it, but I would never let me kids meet up with you with you in person.
Your using the learn-from-gutter-experience argument. I suspected it would come up eventually. Unfortunately I have only heard anecdotes but have seen no evidence to support this hypothesis. One example I do remember very well, is an academic military journal I read once. There was an article that observed whether people who are born and raised in rough environments make better infantry soldiers. The results are that people who are not exposed to abusive situations handle abusive situations much better when they are adults. In fact the street-wise kids were more likely to get eight balled from the army because of psychological problems.
I have personal anecdotes of this myself, but at least I have seen formal evidence of what I am talking about in a scientific journal.
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
and
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
and
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
1.There is nothing reasonable or doubtful that thinking that two advils would do serious harm, or even minor harm to a 13 year old girl.
2. There is also nothing reasonable about strip searching a 13 year old girl who was minding her own business
3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy and practice towards children (and adults as well, but that's another topic). They are continuing to normalize and escalate these nasty and unwarranted attitudes and behaviours.
I can see that the Troll Moderators are at it again with the down-mods on my post. If you don't like what I have to say then don't read it. Moderating reality downward won't get rid of it. And BTW I'm not going anywhere, even if I have to post at -1, that just means I'll will be motivated to post more. As is always the case, if you Moderation Trolls down mod this post, then I will keep on posting until you loose your Moderation points.
Home schooling fucks up your social skills. We need good public schools.
No. Socializing children fucks up their social skills. Have you ever been a child before? You should remember what it was like. Children are not good at teaching each other morals or good social skills. What they do learn from each other is Human Nature, which isn't a very good thing to learn if you are being taught by human children. Go to a football game in England to see what socialization does.
In Canada, as an adult, these things are completely illegal. I could presume these arbitrary strip searches would be illegal for adults in the USA as well. But when it comes to think-of-the-children conservativism, then hypocrisy is more important than reality. It's not just the fight against drugs and sex for these conservatives, it's a fight against freedom, and it is a fight for an authoritarian society. And don't let the people that are most likely to deny this convince you otherwise. They do get found out every once in a while, and sometimes they even go to jail. In the mean time we shouldn't be letting these people hurt children.
How do you know they are not? [not telling the truth]
I don't. And I would never make such assumptions.
Myth used correctly should not be a negative term.
Yes. True. And I think (for a happy change) that the Moderators got it more right this time with my post. My literal comment is bogus, but the Moderation is correct.
These tests are designed (or should be if they're done properly) to be extremely difficult to lie to. By asking you each question 5 times, in completely unrelated wording (and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question)
"... and hopefully without you noticing it's the same question". There's the problem. Somebody like myself would likely notice the similarities. Yeah and I'm also the type of person who would read the entire 75 questions and would read the remaining ones as well, just out of curiosity and my obsessive/compulsive nature to learn. Probably the average person wouldn't be able to game the test (or it would be picked up if They were trying to). For those more perceptive and outside of the bell curve it would be much more easy.
Thank you, Mr. Uninformed Ranter. It has been said, again and again that if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.
How do you know they are telling the Truth?
Since they don't use DRM anymore it doesn't (or shouldn't matter) where you log in, because without Digital Rights Management you will be able to play your game on any computer, with any Internet connection you want. There are no Internet Servers involved needed to support DRM because DRM is not used. Steam gets rid of DRM. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.
The MMPI is not 'for' the police force.
No you come on. In this context the test is discussed (in the article) about joining the police force. And it would seem reasonable to presume that it is probably used by many police departments. It would be doubtful if most "normal" companies would bother to pay to have a two hour, copy-righted and computer administered test to be done on job candidates. I in no way said the test was designed by and for the police department specifically. I could probably have worded that better, but in context my point stands.
Uhm, no. The nearly 600 questions are carefully designed to make it very difficult to lie and be consistent about it, by examining the same issues from multiple different, and somewhat complementary, perspectives.
Then how do cops get on the police force then? Don't tell me that cops are honest.
Sometimes just pointing out illogic with illogic has its point. I am self-aware. There's method to my madness. It does bring out the hypocrisy in the Moderation process.
I don't think it is just the legal profession. You're getting into Human Nature here, which is pretty hard to fight against.
Bullshit. If you see demons/spirits/angels running around you're delusional and not suited for most work.
From what I know from theory (and from personal experience); people who are delusional don't tend to lie, and it becomes more apparent the more you talk to them. If they are seeing evil spirits, then chances are they're seeing and experiencing a lot of other things that will eventually be picked up. Such tests are also useful in picking up people who are faking insanity (for criminal purposes for example), because most non-insane people can't fake insanity very well.
As a person who was in the military I know They can and will ask a lot more personal questions then normal employers would. This is for the minimal security clearance needed. I would assume it's the same for the police force, where They would likely also interview your friends and neighbours for example, to see what type of a person you are. The questions here may be bogus, but I (think I) can understand the rationale behind them. Realize that I don't live in the US, and I am very aware that in Canada our privacy legislation is much more restrictive than in the US.
It would have taken much longer, or perhaps never, for such items to ever make it to the free market because the free market does not like to spend money on short-term money pits like the technology which has been brought to us by the "space age."
OK; a reasonable argument. Minimally it costs $450 million to launch a space shuttle (that's assuming nothing goes wrong like explosions, etc). Now, lets take some of the spin-off technologies that were mentioned: artificial limbs. Now it would seem like artificial limbs could be researched for far less than $450,000,000.00 a day (or the hour or so it takes to fly a space shuttle into space). Of course I'm making assumptions, but I could assumed that the government could just as easily spend 450 million dollars on Earth (and without the transportation and training costs) to subsidize all sorts of artificial and bionic limbs. Realize that this would be money that is not being diverted from scientific research, but it is merely being diverted from transportation into space.
The same could be said for Zip-lock bags. As for me, I'm a big NASA fan and I hope they do a lot of exploration and science. What I don't want to see is Fanboys who ignorantly tout that we wouldn't have zip-lock bags without spending billions upon billions of dollars on what is mainly just transportation costs. I personally think spending billions of dollars for R & D for the possible spin-off of a civilian use product like a zip-lock bag is inefficient and probably something that, like artificial limbs, could just as easily be produced by private industry. It is far cheeper to fun a war, and wars are the mechanism that inspired the prosthetics industry. If people have moral hang-ups on war than they could just spend a money on things like prevention and education (at the very least) and robotics that directly effects little children getting real robot arms. A one day flight into space would certainly pay for a lot of research and development that wouldn't be just a lucky civilian spin-off. But hey, NASA is better at PR than cripples are. If you asked somebody that was paralyzed if they would rather have the money spent on spinal research or on NASA for possible spin-off effects that could possibly help spinal research, I'm guessing people would choose NASA because NASA fanboys have better arguments and get modded Insightful. Or maybe not. Maybe its just a disingenuous argument that is lacking in thoughtfulness and honesty, and maybe, just maybe people people are getting upset because I'm calling them out on reality.