Yeah, Lomborg does a very good job of smacking Friel around.
I don't have the time or desire to figure out both sides, so I'll remain, as per usual, undecided.
Some people think, "if I can't figure it out, I'll just believe the group of people I like better or otherwise agree with more." I do not understand such thinking. What's so hard or wrong with just saying "I don't know"?
So you are contending that hiding research from the public, especially when the claims made based on that research are widely used for public policy around the world, is NOT dishonest?
Wow.
The hatred of science around here runs deeper than I thought.
I read the article. Maybe you should? The article says that there is an as-yet unpublished book that asserts that Lomborg was wrong. But we don't have the evidence, just an assertion. Further, there's no assertion in the article at all that he was dishonest, only wrong. (Perhaps the use of "deception" and "flimsy" and so on is meant to imply dishonesty, but another explanation is incompetence, so I don't assume an implication of dishonesty).
Yell louder and use more CaPItAL LEtteRS and people will take you seriously.
I didn't yell. Capital letters are for emphasis, not yelling, per se. I could use bold, but I am lazy.
Ad hominem much?
The one thing I miss about real science was the the ability for people to develop hypothesis's go out and test them with valid test and have others perform independent tests and everyone go back and look at the results and then if the results don't match the hypothesis you change the hypothesis go back and retest and review , retest and review until the data supports a hypothesis than then can be a theory and more testing and more reviewing.
Exactly the problem I have with this whole thing: AGW doesn't follow this. The work of AGW scientists does not follow the scientific method.
We are discussing a scholarly work which has shown Loborg's work to be dishonest.
Yes, exactly. And since it has not yet been published, and since the poster asserted, as fact, that Lomborg was dishonest... I asked how the poster KNEW that Lomborg was dishonest.
Isn't that reasonable? To ask for a citation?
Assuming even that this scholarly work is correct
That's the problem: the poster apparently DID assume it was correct (or made the claim based on some other information, which also was not provided).
None of us have, have we? So we necessarily need to work on a (rebuttable) presumption.
I don't. I work from a lack of presumption. But that's me: if someone wants to work from the presumption that Lomborg is dishonest, fine, they should therefore be prepared to answer the question, "based on what?"
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF.
Incorrect. We have emails that clearly demonstrate these "scientists" covering up their research and threatening to destroy it rather than turn it over, even though they are required to by law. This is clear, and undeniable, dishonesty.
an occasional slip like that needs to be seriously addressed
Yes, except for where you call it an "occasional slip." It was a dishonest and malicious attempt to hide research that the whole world is relying on in its collective attempt to arrive at conclusions about this issue.
I draw no conclusions about the research itself, I am simply referring to their behavior.
Out of thousands of independent studies done by thousands of scientists that generally lead to the conclusion that climate change is happening and man is most likely the cause, you would ignore all of that because a few scientists might have been dishonest
a. They undeniably WERE dishonest. They conspired to keep their research from public view and said they would destroy it rather than turn it over.
b. You are misrepresenting me. I never said I would ignore anything. I was simply contrasting the notion that one skeptic was dishonest, to the fact that some proponents were dishonest. Now, I am all for not throwing out an argument, such as Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, just because one of its believers is dishonest; but that means, of course, that if Lomborg was dishonest, you can't throw out the skeptics' claims based on his dishonesty, either.
If you are truly skeptical you should throw his work too.
Why? I've not seen any argument against his work (which is the point of my post: I was asking for actual evidence!).
That still leads to many, many more scientists who have hard data that climate change is happening.
Yes, just like most scientists believed the Earth was flat, and was at the center of the universe. Yawn. I am interested in truth, not what most people think truth is.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions... right?
And I suppose you can point to this HARD PROOF, right?
Yep. Google "East Anglia" and "Climategate." I (obviously inappropriately) assumed everyone would know what I was referring to. You will find the letters where those scientists explicitly assert they will cover up their research, and reject requests to turn it over (including one "scientist" who said he would destroy his research rather than turn it over). This is dishonesty, by any measure.
Anyone with any idea about climate science has known for years that Lomborg's work is an exercise in propoganda.
Riiiiiight.
The Latin term for that style of assertion is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I find it ironic that self proclaimed skeptics consistently fail to spot obvious propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
No one pointed it out here. That's my point. It was merely asserted. And that's all you did, too: merely assert it.
If you want to provide arguments (even links to arguments), great. I am not defending Lomborg's research, conclusions, etc. I am just saying, if you're going to make that charge -- in a discussion about an as-yet unpublished book that supposedly documents the evidence for that charge -- then perhaps you should provide evidence backing it up.
If you want to talk facts, fine. I was not defending Lomborg's research or conclusions, I was simply attacking that poster for blanketly assuming Lomborg was wrong, apparently based on the as-yet unpublished words of another author, and without citing any facts to back up the claim.
As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research.
Incorrect. They conspired to cover up their research: this is dishonesty, no matter how you slice it. (Note: I did not imply they faked their research, only that they were dishonest about it, which isn't the same thing. I think they may have faked it, but I didn't care enough to spend the time to really investigate it, and so I won't make such an assertion.)
That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
And I never implied it was EVERY researcher, I only said, and meant, that it was a few that were dishonest. Which is undeniably true.
So what you're saying is you're not going to read Yale's research that proves Lomborg was wrong, but you will make completely uncited and unfounded accusations that there's "hard proof" the IPCC was wrong.
No, I never said there was hard proof the IPCC was wrong. Read much?
I said there was hard proof that the East Anglia scientists were dishonest, and, further, that the IPCC relied on their research for its conclusions. This is not, in any way, saying, that the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions.
I thought it was obvious I was referring to the people at East Anglia who, literally, and undeniably, covered up their research, and lied about it. They even talked about shredding their work rather than turning it over as the law required, and making sure they didn't tell anyone that they had any legal obligation to turn it over. It was undeniable dishonesty.
This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
You know he was WRONG? Based on what?
Maybe Lomborg was wrong, but you didn't read or research Friel's work, you're just assuming it's correct, which is precisely what the AGW folks are complaining about in regard to Lomborg's work.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions... right?
Even if Lomborg was dishonest -- and you have no evidence of that -- the AGW side has been dishonest too, so by your own argument, anyone else could say, "grant-receiving scentists pushing AGW feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point."
I'm seeing these kinds of comments a lot on this site and I can't believe it.
I find it odd that you can't step outside of your own experience and understand the experiences of others.
I just don't see how if a kid is brought up right and taught how to take care of himself, he'll have any problems in High School.
Yeah... again, you act like you have a broad range of experiences and interactions with people, but then you say something like this that makes me think you need to get out a lot more.
you seem to be forgetting that kids, specifically teenagers, are genetically inclined to rebel. So no shit they act like they disrespect authority.
Those are two mostly unrelated things, in fact. Indeed, it's the child who isn't "brought up right" who tends to conflate them, incorrectly thinking that "rebelling" means "disrespecting."
Then again, many authority figures make the same mistake: I remember a time in high school when I "rebelled" by asserting to a teacher that his last-minute group assignment that had to be done that very evening could not be done by me, since I had plans; he asked what those plans were, and I -- as respectfully as I could -- told him it was none of his business, and he considered that to be disrespectful, when it wasn't anything of the sort. I respected his authority, where it extended -- the classroom -- and was not inclined to give him something -- personal information -- that did not fall under his purview.
You're a liar. I never stated or implied any such thing.
Maybe for mindless religious crackpots such as yourself
If I am mindless, what does that say about you, since I completely destroyed every argument you made against me?
You claim... poor people can simply rot without receiving needed healthcare, while you refuse to even acknowledge they have a problem, let alone help them.
You're a liar. I never stated or implied any of those things.
You think it is perfectly ok to teach children religious dogma
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with "religious dogma." No evidence has been presented against teaching religious dogma other than the thoroughly unconvincing "I disagree with it."
... and racist bullshit...
Legally, yes, of course it is OK. It MUST be, if we have freedom.
... and to justify killing other people
Um. So if someone breaks into my house, and tries to kill my family, and my best way of protecting my family is to kill the assailant... that's not justified? YOU are the one who is sick.
Your arguments are circular and consist on nothing more than stating truisms.
Then you should have been able to demonstrate this. You could not.
It's clear you know nothing about religion, law or the constitution
Then you should have been able to demonstrate this. You could not.
Open your eyes and your mind and really try to understand the world around you
That's MY line to YOU. You want to bury the things you dislike in society, so that those things you dislike CANNOT BE understood. I want to allow freedom to bloom, so that everyone might have the greatest understanding of everyone else possible.
I will pray for your soul and those of your family to hope that you will eventually see a better life, free of the hatred and prejudice that you now have.
You're a liar. I never expressed, in the slightest bit, any hatred or prejudice, toward any person or group of people.
On the other hand, you are the one has consistently, including in this very comment I am replying to, demonstrated vile hatred of people who disagree with you.
Just because you answer an argument with a non-sequitur...
I didn't.
... doesn't diminish the logic or reasoning of the person you are responding to.
I responded with arguments proving your reasoning was flawed. You responded to those with insults, because you couldn't respond with, you know, logic.
You will not listen to anything I say
You're lying. What actually happened is that I shot down your arguments, and you threw a hissy fit.
You "know" things that simply aren't true.
Then ARGUE that. If you can. Which you can't.
Whether it's the right of parents to abuse their children by sheltering them from the truth
See, like this... you utterly failed to show this is "abuse." It's a ridiculous statement on its face, and you could not back it up.
... and hiding them away for the express purpose of causing them harm
YOUR idea of harm is not actually "harm." Again, you utterly failed to demonstrate harm.
... or that you are smarter than me
That much if obvious.
You have all sorts of "knowledge" that is simply false.
If it is false, and simply... then you must be REALLY stupid, because you couldn't demonstrate that.
Since you are constantly wrong
Shrug. You didn't show I was wrong even a single time.
... and refuse to substantiate any of your ramblings...
And now you're just lying again. So pathetic.
To win, you have to convince someone.
Incorrect. That has nothing to do with winning an argument, in fact. But that you think so is unsurprising. In fact, winning an argument can be done in various ways, and most of them have to do with simply arguing a better case... which I did, clearly, because I backed up all of what I said, and refuted everything you said against my arguments.
Your tiny mind is closed
Except that you're the one with the closed mind here. YOU are the one attacking people you disagree with. YOU are the one trying to force everyone to be forced to learn the same things. YOU are the one who sees no room for disagreement.
On the other hand, I am the one arguing explicitly for open-mindedness, for tolerance, for freedom to choose.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe you advocate brainwashing of children to kill.
There's no such thing as brainwashing. When you use the word "brainwashing" I substitute it with its actual meaning in real life: "teaching."
And what's wrong with killing? There's nothing wrong with hunting, and there's nothing wrong with killing in defense of your own life, or that of others.
How Christian of you.
Shrug. Show me in the Bible where it says killing is wrong. MURDER is wrong, of course, but you didn't talk about teaching children to MURDER.
You keep bringing up the amendments (actually you just added to the list) but I dont see how any of that applies to a minimum standard of education
Yes, you don't.
First - freedonm of religion and speech. Nothing about education.
My religious beliefs are such that I believe the government has no role in the education of my children.
Fourth - guards against unreasonable searches - nothing about education
Government has no right to take from me evidence of whether or not I am instructing my children according to their standards.
Fifth - due process in the judicial suystem - nothing about education
Government has no right to force me to prove that I am educating my children according to their standards.
Fourteenth - citizenship, right to vote, and you cannot question the federal debt - nothing about education
Again, due process. This is the same amendment used to give women the "right to privacy" in abortion. And for the exact same reasons, I have the right to privacy in the education of my children.
If you want to make up excuses to keep your children stupid
Don't make yourself look like more of a clown than you already have: my children being homeschooled would have a far better, broader, and successful education than the overwhelming majority of children going to public schools.
I really dont see what the problem is.
Yes, because you know very little about law and rights.
I don't think you know much about law (and you've already clearly demonstrated you know almost nothing about rights).
To anyone who knows anything about law, what I said makes perfect sense. There's room for disagreement, but its very clear. If you really don't understand it, perhaps you could tell me what you're having trouble with and I could explain it to you.
Your argument is circular: Islam is different than Christianity because they don't believe in Christ.
That's not circular at all. That's sorta like saying that "because I have been programming in Perl for many years, I am a Perl programmer" is circular. It's not circular, it's identity. Very different.
However, that's not what I actually said. If you actually read the words I used, you would see that the meaning I expressed that they have is actually irrespective of Christ, but has everything to do with whether not we can have justification and the assurance of salvation here on Earth. If Islam believed in such things without Christ, but through some other sacrifice of God to redeem and justify us, then we could say the difference is not as significant. But it is very significant.
So by your logic, it is perfectly acceptable for certain Muslim children to be brainwashed that America is evil and to be taught how to use a weapon and kill, and that they will be rewarded b y sacrificing their life?
Legally acceptable? Yes, of course. If the line is crossed to where they are encouraged in any way to commit a crime (I did not read in your description any such encouragement), then that's obviously a different story.
Note that I have absolutely no problem with teaching kids how to use a weapon and kill. And I have no problem with teaching kids that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for sacrifices made on Earth. I see nothing wrong, legally or practically, with any of that.
I assume you mean that it is a matter of context, but again, that's where we need to see whether any actual encouragement is made to commit criminal acts.
It's not hard, really: if parents commit a crime... then they commit a crime. Nothing I said implied that you can commit crimes with or against your children. Homeschooling is not justification for criminal activity. But homeschooling ITSELF is not a criminal activity, nor evidence of such, and as such, government has no business weaseling its way into it... because that's what the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments say.
Like I said, I believe home schooling CAN be a very good thing, and some children will prosper under home schooling vs institution learning. The ONLY thing I asserted is that ALL learning institutions must conform to a minimum standard of care and curriculum for the children.
But those two sentences are incompatible.
If homeschooling is not inherently bad, then the very act of homeschooling is not evidence of any wrongdoing. This is obviously a true statement.
And if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, under our Constitution, the government has no right to force me to provide them with any information about what is happening in my home. This is also an obviously true statement.
So you're stuck. You can think that I should have to conform to a "minimum standard" of education, but constitutionally, you have no way to enforce it, unless you are going to claim that homeschooling itself is evidence of wrongdoing.
I don't see why you are opposed to such a thing.
If nothing else, because government simply has no right to do it.
Practically, what if I am against testing? There's very good educational reasons to be against them, but pretty much all states use them to see if standards are being met. What if I decide that certain things are not worth teaching? For example, I think that -- for most people -- learning a foreign language is a gigantic waste of time (not that it is a bad thing, but that the time can be used in much better ways, if English is your native tongue); what if the government decided I had to teach it?
I know better than anyone else what is best for my kids in their education. I am doing a disservice to my kids, and failing my obligations as a parent, to subject my will for what is best for them to the government's will, especially when it has no right to enforce its will in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain me this Mr Sarcastic, what makes the balance beam, pummel horse, etc worthy of being in the olympics but not the pole?
Strawman.
Pole fitness is actually a very good exercise and not only limited to exotic dancers ya know.
So is stripping. So is the Wii. So is skydiving. So are any number of things.
Explain me this Mr Sarcastic, what makes the balance beam, pummel horse, etc worthy of being in the olympics but not the pole?
Strawman.
Pole fitness is actually a very good exercise and not only limited to exotic dancers ya know.
Soisstripping.SoistheWii.Soisskydiving.Soareanynumberofthings.
It's hard to know how to respond to that muddle ... so, I won't.
have you seen the moves the girls perform at national-level competition? It's every much as strenuous and technical as other Olympic gymnastic events.
"As strenuous and technical as other Olympics gymnastic events" is orthogonal to whether it should be in the Olympics.
Yeah, Lomborg does a very good job of smacking Friel around.
I don't have the time or desire to figure out both sides, so I'll remain, as per usual, undecided.
Some people think, "if I can't figure it out, I'll just believe the group of people I like better or otherwise agree with more." I do not understand such thinking. What's so hard or wrong with just saying "I don't know"?
Yes, also the number of people doing Pilates, and Yoga, and Step Aerobics, and Wii, and ...
I hope she doesn't seriously believe such a stupid thing. That would be sad.
Um.
So you are contending that hiding research from the public, especially when the claims made based on that research are widely used for public policy around the world, is NOT dishonest?
Wow.
The hatred of science around here runs deeper than I thought.
Ummmm.
I read the article. Maybe you should? The article says that there is an as-yet unpublished book that asserts that Lomborg was wrong. But we don't have the evidence, just an assertion. Further, there's no assertion in the article at all that he was dishonest, only wrong. (Perhaps the use of "deception" and "flimsy" and so on is meant to imply dishonesty, but another explanation is incompetence, so I don't assume an implication of dishonesty).
Yell louder and use more CaPItAL LEtteRS and people will take you seriously.
I didn't yell. Capital letters are for emphasis, not yelling, per se. I could use bold, but I am lazy.
Ad hominem much?
The one thing I miss about real science was the the ability for people to develop hypothesis's go out and test them with valid test and have others perform independent tests and everyone go back and look at the results and then if the results don't match the hypothesis you change the hypothesis go back and retest and review , retest and review until the data supports a hypothesis than then can be a theory and more testing and more reviewing.
Exactly the problem I have with this whole thing: AGW doesn't follow this. The work of AGW scientists does not follow the scientific method.
We are discussing a scholarly work which has shown Loborg's work to be dishonest.
Yes, exactly. And since it has not yet been published, and since the poster asserted, as fact, that Lomborg was dishonest ... I asked how the poster KNEW that Lomborg was dishonest.
Isn't that reasonable? To ask for a citation?
Assuming even that this scholarly work is correct
That's the problem: the poster apparently DID assume it was correct (or made the claim based on some other information, which also was not provided).
None of us have, have we? So we necessarily need to work on a (rebuttable) presumption.
I don't. I work from a lack of presumption. But that's me: if someone wants to work from the presumption that Lomborg is dishonest, fine, they should therefore be prepared to answer the question, "based on what?"
Well I for one don't, and I've been following the issue with some interest. Nothing in the selection of emails stolen from CRU could reasonably said to constitute HARD PROOF.
Incorrect. We have emails that clearly demonstrate these "scientists" covering up their research and threatening to destroy it rather than turn it over, even though they are required to by law. This is clear, and undeniable, dishonesty.
an occasional slip like that needs to be seriously addressed
Yes, except for where you call it an "occasional slip." It was a dishonest and malicious attempt to hide research that the whole world is relying on in its collective attempt to arrive at conclusions about this issue.
I draw no conclusions about the research itself, I am simply referring to their behavior.
Out of thousands of independent studies done by thousands of scientists that generally lead to the conclusion that climate change is happening and man is most likely the cause, you would ignore all of that because a few scientists might have been dishonest
a. They undeniably WERE dishonest. They conspired to keep their research from public view and said they would destroy it rather than turn it over.
b. You are misrepresenting me. I never said I would ignore anything. I was simply contrasting the notion that one skeptic was dishonest, to the fact that some proponents were dishonest. Now, I am all for not throwing out an argument, such as Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, just because one of its believers is dishonest; but that means, of course, that if Lomborg was dishonest, you can't throw out the skeptics' claims based on his dishonesty, either.
If you are truly skeptical you should throw his work too.
Why? I've not seen any argument against his work (which is the point of my post: I was asking for actual evidence!).
That still leads to many, many more scientists who have hard data that climate change is happening.
Yes, just like most scientists believed the Earth was flat, and was at the center of the universe. Yawn. I am interested in truth, not what most people think truth is.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions ... right?
And I suppose you can point to this HARD PROOF, right?
Yep. Google "East Anglia" and "Climategate." I (obviously inappropriately) assumed everyone would know what I was referring to. You will find the letters where those scientists explicitly assert they will cover up their research, and reject requests to turn it over (including one "scientist" who said he would destroy his research rather than turn it over). This is dishonesty, by any measure.
Anyone with any idea about climate science has known for years that Lomborg's work is an exercise in propoganda.
Riiiiiight.
The Latin term for that style of assertion is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I find it ironic that self proclaimed skeptics consistently fail to spot obvious propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
No one pointed it out here. That's my point. It was merely asserted. And that's all you did, too: merely assert it.
If you want to provide arguments (even links to arguments), great. I am not defending Lomborg's research, conclusions, etc. I am just saying, if you're going to make that charge -- in a discussion about an as-yet unpublished book that supposedly documents the evidence for that charge -- then perhaps you should provide evidence backing it up.
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
Based on the fact ...
If you want to talk facts, fine. I was not defending Lomborg's research or conclusions, I was simply attacking that poster for blanketly assuming Lomborg was wrong, apparently based on the as-yet unpublished words of another author, and without citing any facts to back up the claim.
As for your statement "that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research", that's not true either. The closest thing that has been demonstrated is that some researchers are human and petty in their responses to other people's requests and research.
Incorrect. They conspired to cover up their research: this is dishonesty, no matter how you slice it. (Note: I did not imply they faked their research, only that they were dishonest about it, which isn't the same thing. I think they may have faked it, but I didn't care enough to spend the time to really investigate it, and so I won't make such an assertion.)
That's a long way from demonstrating that EVERY researcher has faked his research.
And I never implied it was EVERY researcher, I only said, and meant, that it was a few that were dishonest. Which is undeniably true.
You'd have done much better to link to Lomborg's response, than going off on your speculative aura.
I didn't speculate. Perhaps you don't know what "speculate" means?
So what you're saying is you're not going to read Yale's research that proves Lomborg was wrong, but you will make completely uncited and unfounded accusations that there's "hard proof" the IPCC was wrong.
No, I never said there was hard proof the IPCC was wrong. Read much?
I said there was hard proof that the East Anglia scientists were dishonest, and, further, that the IPCC relied on their research for its conclusions. This is not, in any way, saying, that the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions.
un-cited "other people"
I thought it was obvious I was referring to the people at East Anglia who, literally, and undeniably, covered up their research, and lied about it. They even talked about shredding their work rather than turning it over as the law required, and making sure they didn't tell anyone that they had any legal obligation to turn it over. It was undeniable dishonesty.
This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
You know he was WRONG? Based on what?
Maybe Lomborg was wrong, but you didn't read or research Friel's work, you're just assuming it's correct, which is precisely what the AGW folks are complaining about in regard to Lomborg's work.
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions ... right?
Even if Lomborg was dishonest -- and you have no evidence of that -- the AGW side has been dishonest too, so by your own argument, anyone else could say, "grant-receiving scentists pushing AGW feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point."
I'm seeing these kinds of comments a lot on this site and I can't believe it.
I find it odd that you can't step outside of your own experience and understand the experiences of others.
I just don't see how if a kid is brought up right and taught how to take care of himself, he'll have any problems in High School.
Yeah ... again, you act like you have a broad range of experiences and interactions with people, but then you say something like this that makes me think you need to get out a lot more.
you seem to be forgetting that kids, specifically teenagers, are genetically inclined to rebel. So no shit they act like they disrespect authority.
Those are two mostly unrelated things, in fact. Indeed, it's the child who isn't "brought up right" who tends to conflate them, incorrectly thinking that "rebelling" means "disrespecting."
Then again, many authority figures make the same mistake: I remember a time in high school when I "rebelled" by asserting to a teacher that his last-minute group assignment that had to be done that very evening could not be done by me, since I had plans; he asked what those plans were, and I -- as respectfully as I could -- told him it was none of his business, and he considered that to be disrespectful, when it wasn't anything of the sort. I respected his authority, where it extended -- the classroom -- and was not inclined to give him something -- personal information -- that did not fall under his purview.
You dont believe in brainwashing ...
That's only because there's never been an example of it found, in any way that could be scientifically verified.
Why do you hate science?
... and you don't believe in mental abuse
You're a liar. I never stated or implied any such thing.
Maybe for mindless religious crackpots such as yourself
If I am mindless, what does that say about you, since I completely destroyed every argument you made against me?
You claim ... poor people can simply rot without receiving needed healthcare, while you refuse to even acknowledge they have a problem, let alone help them.
You're a liar. I never stated or implied any of those things.
You think it is perfectly ok to teach children religious dogma
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with "religious dogma." No evidence has been presented against teaching religious dogma other than the thoroughly unconvincing "I disagree with it."
... and racist bullshit ...
Legally, yes, of course it is OK. It MUST be, if we have freedom.
... and to justify killing other people
Um. So if someone breaks into my house, and tries to kill my family, and my best way of protecting my family is to kill the assailant ... that's not justified? YOU are the one who is sick.
Your arguments are circular and consist on nothing more than stating truisms.
Then you should have been able to demonstrate this. You could not.
It's clear you know nothing about religion, law or the constitution
Then you should have been able to demonstrate this. You could not.
Open your eyes and your mind and really try to understand the world around you
That's MY line to YOU. You want to bury the things you dislike in society, so that those things you dislike CANNOT BE understood. I want to allow freedom to bloom, so that everyone might have the greatest understanding of everyone else possible.
I will pray for your soul and those of your family to hope that you will eventually see a better life, free of the hatred and prejudice that you now have.
You're a liar. I never expressed, in the slightest bit, any hatred or prejudice, toward any person or group of people.
On the other hand, you are the one has consistently, including in this very comment I am replying to, demonstrated vile hatred of people who disagree with you.
It's called "projecting."
Just because you answer an argument with a non-sequitur ...
I didn't.
... doesn't diminish the logic or reasoning of the person you are responding to.
I responded with arguments proving your reasoning was flawed. You responded to those with insults, because you couldn't respond with, you know, logic.
You will not listen to anything I say
You're lying. What actually happened is that I shot down your arguments, and you threw a hissy fit.
You "know" things that simply aren't true.
Then ARGUE that. If you can. Which you can't.
Whether it's the right of parents to abuse their children by sheltering them from the truth
See, like this ... you utterly failed to show this is "abuse." It's a ridiculous statement on its face, and you could not back it up.
... and hiding them away for the express purpose of causing them harm
YOUR idea of harm is not actually "harm." Again, you utterly failed to demonstrate harm.
... or that you are smarter than me
That much if obvious.
You have all sorts of "knowledge" that is simply false.
If it is false, and simply ... then you must be REALLY stupid, because you couldn't demonstrate that.
Since you are constantly wrong
Shrug. You didn't show I was wrong even a single time.
... and refuse to substantiate any of your ramblings ...
And now you're just lying again. So pathetic.
To win, you have to convince someone.
Incorrect. That has nothing to do with winning an argument, in fact. But that you think so is unsurprising. In fact, winning an argument can be done in various ways, and most of them have to do with simply arguing a better case ... which I did, clearly, because I backed up all of what I said, and refuted everything you said against my arguments.
Your tiny mind is closed
Except that you're the one with the closed mind here. YOU are the one attacking people you disagree with. YOU are the one trying to force everyone to be forced to learn the same things. YOU are the one who sees no room for disagreement.
On the other hand, I am the one arguing explicitly for open-mindedness, for tolerance, for freedom to choose.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe you advocate brainwashing of children to kill.
There's no such thing as brainwashing. When you use the word "brainwashing" I substitute it with its actual meaning in real life: "teaching."
And what's wrong with killing? There's nothing wrong with hunting, and there's nothing wrong with killing in defense of your own life, or that of others.
How Christian of you.
Shrug. Show me in the Bible where it says killing is wrong. MURDER is wrong, of course, but you didn't talk about teaching children to MURDER.
You keep bringing up the amendments (actually you just added to the list) but I dont see how any of that applies to a minimum standard of education
Yes, you don't.
First - freedonm of religion and speech. Nothing about education.
My religious beliefs are such that I believe the government has no role in the education of my children.
Fourth - guards against unreasonable searches - nothing about education
Government has no right to take from me evidence of whether or not I am instructing my children according to their standards.
Fifth - due process in the judicial suystem - nothing about education
Government has no right to force me to prove that I am educating my children according to their standards.
Fourteenth - citizenship, right to vote, and you cannot question the federal debt - nothing about education
Again, due process. This is the same amendment used to give women the "right to privacy" in abortion. And for the exact same reasons, I have the right to privacy in the education of my children.
If you want to make up excuses to keep your children stupid
Don't make yourself look like more of a clown than you already have: my children being homeschooled would have a far better, broader, and successful education than the overwhelming majority of children going to public schools.
I really dont see what the problem is.
Yes, because you know very little about law and rights.
That argument makes absolutely ZERO sense.
I don't think you know much about law (and you've already clearly demonstrated you know almost nothing about rights).
To anyone who knows anything about law, what I said makes perfect sense. There's room for disagreement, but its very clear. If you really don't understand it, perhaps you could tell me what you're having trouble with and I could explain it to you.
Your argument is circular: Islam is different than Christianity because they don't believe in Christ.
That's not circular at all. That's sorta like saying that "because I have been programming in Perl for many years, I am a Perl programmer" is circular. It's not circular, it's identity. Very different.
However, that's not what I actually said. If you actually read the words I used, you would see that the meaning I expressed that they have is actually irrespective of Christ, but has everything to do with whether not we can have justification and the assurance of salvation here on Earth. If Islam believed in such things without Christ, but through some other sacrifice of God to redeem and justify us, then we could say the difference is not as significant. But it is very significant.
I don't think you know much about religions.
So by your logic, it is perfectly acceptable for certain Muslim children to be brainwashed that America is evil and to be taught how to use a weapon and kill, and that they will be rewarded b y sacrificing their life?
Legally acceptable? Yes, of course. If the line is crossed to where they are encouraged in any way to commit a crime (I did not read in your description any such encouragement), then that's obviously a different story.
Note that I have absolutely no problem with teaching kids how to use a weapon and kill. And I have no problem with teaching kids that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for sacrifices made on Earth. I see nothing wrong, legally or practically, with any of that.
I assume you mean that it is a matter of context, but again, that's where we need to see whether any actual encouragement is made to commit criminal acts.
It's not hard, really: if parents commit a crime ... then they commit a crime. Nothing I said implied that you can commit crimes with or against your children. Homeschooling is not justification for criminal activity. But homeschooling ITSELF is not a criminal activity, nor evidence of such, and as such, government has no business weaseling its way into it ... because that's what the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments say.
Like I said, I believe home schooling CAN be a very good thing, and some children will prosper under home schooling vs institution learning. The ONLY thing I asserted is that ALL learning institutions must conform to a minimum standard of care and curriculum for the children.
But those two sentences are incompatible.
If homeschooling is not inherently bad, then the very act of homeschooling is not evidence of any wrongdoing. This is obviously a true statement.
And if there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, under our Constitution, the government has no right to force me to provide them with any information about what is happening in my home. This is also an obviously true statement.
So you're stuck. You can think that I should have to conform to a "minimum standard" of education, but constitutionally, you have no way to enforce it, unless you are going to claim that homeschooling itself is evidence of wrongdoing.
I don't see why you are opposed to such a thing.
If nothing else, because government simply has no right to do it.
Practically, what if I am against testing? There's very good educational reasons to be against them, but pretty much all states use them to see if standards are being met. What if I decide that certain things are not worth teaching? For example, I think that -- for most people -- learning a foreign language is a gigantic waste of time (not that it is a bad thing, but that the time can be used in much better ways, if English is your native tongue); what if the government decided I had to teach it?
I know better than anyone else what is best for my kids in their education. I am doing a disservice to my kids, and failing my obligations as a parent, to subject my will for what is best for them to the government's will, especially when it has no right to enforce its will in the first place.