Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole.
They may or may not be correct, but since you stated it as a fact, I'll ask for some evidence.
But even if that is the case, your comment above seemed to suggest (to me, at least) that all you need to do is look for comments containing those words and then mod them down based on that.
What happens if two people who have such a moral code meet?
Then... I guess one of them dies and/or they disagree?
If you don't want to die and you believe that killing you is immoral, you better believe that killing anyone else who doesn't want to die is also immoral.
But there's nothing inconsistent about that. "I believe that killing me is wrong, but killing others is okay." You're not other people. There's nothing inconsistent there.
Now, to other people, that might (and probably would) appear very selfish and they probably wouldn't like you, but that doesn't make it wrong or inconsistent.
So you believe in absolute morals, then? It sounds like some things are absolutely wrong to you.
But I'm going to disagree. I think all morals are subjective. I see no evidence to suggest that killing someone is universally wrong, and I really don't see how any atheist could believe that, either (magical moral fairies and such). If someone thought that lying is wrong in all circumstances, I wouldn't say that they are absolutely wrong. That's just their opinion, and I can't exactly say it's wrong.
Usually it is very easy, just look for words like stupid, ignorant, asshole, shithead, or other words along those lines.
To me, that is just an idiotic reason to mod something down. A post can be highly informative or insightful even if it sometimes resorts to such language. The fact that you don't like the language they used doesn't mean that the post needs to be modded down, in my opinion.
But that's not technically correct. If you want to say that you believe in god, I don't think you should say, "God exists." That's a statement of a fact.
If you're talking about maths and programming, your opinion is entirely wrong in my opinion.
In my family, I know only a single person that uses advanced math or programming (anecdotal evidence). That's it. Math has been incredibly useful in your life. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the average person who probably doesn't even remember anything about it is using advanced math? I don't believe that at all.
And even in the future where computers are more common, I do not believe that most people will need to know how to program. Some people just don't have the aptitude for it, and I doubt more than a minority of people find it interesting to begin with. Knowing how to program is not and likely won't be a necessity by any means.
If you ask school children what they'd like to learn (as you advocate here), it won't include any of those abstract skills, but that doesn't make them any less essential or useful.
I'm seriously going to need some citations that show that the majority of people actually use advanced math. I just don't believe it. Not only that, but if they need to know it, then they can take the optional classes. If they don't, then too bad for them. They screwed up. Now they can either learn it on their own time or find a class for adults.
It's just too much of a waste of time for people that actually don't need it. And I certainly don't believe in some future where the average person (who doesn't know how to use a computer beyond accessing their Facebook account) knows how to program (even writing a "hello world" program).
And while plumbers do need some 'advanced' math, I certainly wouldn't say it's enough to justify forcing year-long classes about it. In other words, even if what you said is true, I still view mandatory classes as a complete waste of time.
Oh. In my opinion, lying is wrong. I was just saying that someone could believe otherwise. And without proof of absolute morals (and the ability to determine which set of morals is 'correct'), I wouldn't state that they are absolutely wrong.
Well, if stating your beliefs is the same thing as trolling, then I guess you're right. But, from what I see, "troll" is now a meaningless insult to be used against people you disagree with.
Do you believe that god said that lying is not wrong?
I don't believe in god anyway.
Saying it is not wrong "just because" is not an argument, I want to know your reasoning.
Saying "lying is wrong" is, to me, just a statement of an opinion. I don't believe in absolute morals.
But, unfortunately, I can't give you a definite answer other than "I believe that morals are subjective" because I can't prove that absolute morals don't exist. I only believe that they don't because morals seem like nothing more than opinions to me.
I wasn't playing word games. I'm a moral relativist.
And I never said that I don't think that lying is wrong. I just feel that that is an opinion, not an absolute fact established by the magical moral fairy.
If this is really what you think education is about, your education has failed you.
Did I say that that's what I think education is about?
I was just stating what I think would be the end result.
The reason for teaching students interesting topics like programming or maths which may not be of immediate practical use are twofold:
"Interesting" is completely subjective. "May not be of immediate practical use" should be changed to, "probably won't ever be of any practical use," in my opinion.
It teaches them that learning can be an end in itself - rewarding, and a pleasure (if they are taught well)
Yes, yes. They can do that on their own time. If you want to be a rocket scientist, then I suggest not forcing everyone else to take the same classes just so they can potentially learn that learning is 'fun'.
Later in life they may find that programming (for example) becomes essential to their daily life, or would at least make it immensely more satisfying.
Then things are going to change drastically extremely fast. Because, as far as I know, a majority of the population can't do that now.
What if everyone needs to be a rocket scientist in the future? Plumbers? Roofers? Why is programming getting special treatment?
Arguments such as those are wholly unconvincing to me. They rely on "maybes" and "mights" in order to try to argue that people should waste tremendous amounts of time learning things that they probably won't even use. You might not think it's a waste of time, but that is subjective in the first place. I don't have anything against learning, but I do think these classes should be optional. Otherwise, you're just taking time away from classes that they do think they'll use later.
I have some news, every class in high school is like that.
Yeah. I disagree with that, too.
How could kids decide what they want to do in life without trying?
By trying it for themselves. By already knowing. If they aren't sure, then too bad for them. Stop wasting everyone else's time.
Even if it turns out that you don't like the subject, there's no way to back out of it. Every single class is mandatory. Besides, if their goal is to help people decide what they want to do (which I don't believe), then why don't they have classes on everything? It's only a select few generic classes which teach things that will be forgotten if not used.
Interesting anecdotal evidence. Now let me share a bit of mine. I know a few people who either dropped out of school entirely (and never learned much of anything beyond basic math) or just never understood it to begin with. They don't use it or need it (the more advanced math). At all.
I've seen people mention that learning about it makes you more intelligent (or something to that effect) even if you do not need it. My question is, how much more intelligent? Will that work for everyone? A majority? Is it worth making people learn things that they won't need just so they can see slightly higher test scores (if that)? In my opinion, no.
Forcing students to take courses that 'teach' them things that they are unlikely to ever use because there is a chance that they will use them and/or it might have a tiny impact on their intelligence.
If it's optional, I don't have a problem with it. But I doubt most people are going to actually use this knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole.
They may or may not be correct, but since you stated it as a fact, I'll ask for some evidence.
But even if that is the case, your comment above seemed to suggest (to me, at least) that all you need to do is look for comments containing those words and then mod them down based on that.
What happens if two people who have such a moral code meet?
Then... I guess one of them dies and/or they disagree?
If you don't want to die and you believe that killing you is immoral, you better believe that killing anyone else who doesn't want to die is also immoral.
But there's nothing inconsistent about that. "I believe that killing me is wrong, but killing others is okay." You're not other people. There's nothing inconsistent there.
Now, to other people, that might (and probably would) appear very selfish and they probably wouldn't like you, but that doesn't make it wrong or inconsistent.
So you believe in absolute morals, then? It sounds like some things are absolutely wrong to you.
But I'm going to disagree. I think all morals are subjective. I see no evidence to suggest that killing someone is universally wrong, and I really don't see how any atheist could believe that, either (magical moral fairies and such). If someone thought that lying is wrong in all circumstances, I wouldn't say that they are absolutely wrong. That's just their opinion, and I can't exactly say it's wrong.
If you say "Windows is prettier than Linux", well, that's true.
No, that's subjective.
Usually it is very easy, just look for words like stupid, ignorant, asshole, shithead, or other words along those lines.
To me, that is just an idiotic reason to mod something down. A post can be highly informative or insightful even if it sometimes resorts to such language. The fact that you don't like the language they used doesn't mean that the post needs to be modded down, in my opinion.
Sure. The damage has already been done (the rape). Censorship is pointless to me.
But that's not technically correct. If you want to say that you believe in god, I don't think you should say, "God exists." That's a statement of a fact.
If you're talking about maths and programming, your opinion is entirely wrong in my opinion.
In my family, I know only a single person that uses advanced math or programming (anecdotal evidence). That's it. Math has been incredibly useful in your life. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the average person who probably doesn't even remember anything about it is using advanced math? I don't believe that at all.
And even in the future where computers are more common, I do not believe that most people will need to know how to program. Some people just don't have the aptitude for it, and I doubt more than a minority of people find it interesting to begin with. Knowing how to program is not and likely won't be a necessity by any means.
If you ask school children what they'd like to learn (as you advocate here), it won't include any of those abstract skills, but that doesn't make them any less essential or useful.
I'm seriously going to need some citations that show that the majority of people actually use advanced math. I just don't believe it. Not only that, but if they need to know it, then they can take the optional classes. If they don't, then too bad for them. They screwed up. Now they can either learn it on their own time or find a class for adults.
It's just too much of a waste of time for people that actually don't need it. And I certainly don't believe in some future where the average person (who doesn't know how to use a computer beyond accessing their Facebook account) knows how to program (even writing a "hello world" program).
And while plumbers do need some 'advanced' math, I certainly wouldn't say it's enough to justify forcing year-long classes about it. In other words, even if what you said is true, I still view mandatory classes as a complete waste of time.
To do nothing is what would help the downfall.
I don't see how such a small thing could be the downfall of... much of anything.
"Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with.
What does that have to do with counterfeit goods?
Oh. In my opinion, lying is wrong. I was just saying that someone could believe otherwise. And without proof of absolute morals (and the ability to determine which set of morals is 'correct'), I wouldn't state that they are absolutely wrong.
Personally, I can't think of any.
Well, if stating your beliefs is the same thing as trolling, then I guess you're right. But, from what I see, "troll" is now a meaningless insult to be used against people you disagree with.
What? That absolute morals don't exist? I can't prove that they don't anymore than someone can prove that moral relativism isn't true.
why would this belief of yours be valuable
Who said it was valuable? And "valuable" is subjective, anyway.
Do you believe that god said that lying is not wrong?
I don't believe in god anyway.
Saying it is not wrong "just because" is not an argument, I want to know your reasoning.
Saying "lying is wrong" is, to me, just a statement of an opinion. I don't believe in absolute morals.
But, unfortunately, I can't give you a definite answer other than "I believe that morals are subjective" because I can't prove that absolute morals don't exist. I only believe that they don't because morals seem like nothing more than opinions to me.
If you do not agree that killing people is immoral, then I regret to inform you that I intend to kill you.
And? As a moral relativist, I believe that someone could have a moral code that said, "Killing other people is fine. However, killing me is wrong."
That and someone's personal feelings (that they don't want to die) don't, as far as I know, determine whether something is 'immoral' or not.
I wasn't playing word games. I'm a moral relativist.
And I never said that I don't think that lying is wrong. I just feel that that is an opinion, not an absolute fact established by the magical moral fairy.
Indeed. But I think you're forgetting the fact that all of my opinions are 100% fact. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.
"I don't believe that lying is wrong."
Even someone who believes in absolute morals could make that argument (After all, who knows what the 'correct' set of morals are?).
No. I was just stating what I thought should be in the quote.
lying is wrong
... in your opinion.
If this is really what you think education is about, your education has failed you.
Did I say that that's what I think education is about?
I was just stating what I think would be the end result.
The reason for teaching students interesting topics like programming or maths which may not be of immediate practical use are twofold:
"Interesting" is completely subjective. "May not be of immediate practical use" should be changed to, "probably won't ever be of any practical use," in my opinion.
It teaches them that learning can be an end in itself - rewarding, and a pleasure (if they are taught well)
Yes, yes. They can do that on their own time. If you want to be a rocket scientist, then I suggest not forcing everyone else to take the same classes just so they can potentially learn that learning is 'fun'.
Later in life they may find that programming (for example) becomes essential to their daily life, or would at least make it immensely more satisfying.
Then things are going to change drastically extremely fast. Because, as far as I know, a majority of the population can't do that now.
What if everyone needs to be a rocket scientist in the future? Plumbers? Roofers? Why is programming getting special treatment?
Arguments such as those are wholly unconvincing to me. They rely on "maybes" and "mights" in order to try to argue that people should waste tremendous amounts of time learning things that they probably won't even use. You might not think it's a waste of time, but that is subjective in the first place. I don't have anything against learning, but I do think these classes should be optional. Otherwise, you're just taking time away from classes that they do think they'll use later.
I have some news, every class in high school is like that.
Yeah. I disagree with that, too.
How could kids decide what they want to do in life without trying?
By trying it for themselves. By already knowing. If they aren't sure, then too bad for them. Stop wasting everyone else's time.
Even if it turns out that you don't like the subject, there's no way to back out of it. Every single class is mandatory. Besides, if their goal is to help people decide what they want to do (which I don't believe), then why don't they have classes on everything? It's only a select few generic classes which teach things that will be forgotten if not used.
Interesting anecdotal evidence. Now let me share a bit of mine. I know a few people who either dropped out of school entirely (and never learned much of anything beyond basic math) or just never understood it to begin with. They don't use it or need it (the more advanced math). At all.
I've seen people mention that learning about it makes you more intelligent (or something to that effect) even if you do not need it. My question is, how much more intelligent? Will that work for everyone? A majority? Is it worth making people learn things that they won't need just so they can see slightly higher test scores (if that)? In my opinion, no.
Forcing students to take courses that 'teach' them things that they are unlikely to ever use because there is a chance that they will use them and/or it might have a tiny impact on their intelligence.
If it's optional, I don't have a problem with it. But I doubt most people are going to actually use this knowledge.