Teaching critical thinking in school can't stand up to the power of indoctrination by Mom, Dad, and God at home. Religious parents actively work to ensure that their children see them (and the church) as the only authoritative source of truth. They may learn to question "authority", but not "Authority".
With Devos using the public school system to further the kingdom of God and maximize "Kingdom Gain" in this country, even the rational teacher will be powerless to stop the next generation of dogmatic, mindless drones from growing and running the country.
Religion, the simultaneously mocked and mildly feared boogeyman of Slashdot. Kids go their own ways. Most go through a rebellious phase in their teens where they reject their parents point of view and explore other views. Most things have an agenda, both public and private schools. Some parents have a religious agenda while others, who share your world view, have a religious phobia. Some are right leaning, others left leaning. Life still goes on and society hasn't died. For what it's worth I've found churches to be among the best examples of bringing different groups of people together in relative harmony.
One of the topics that I find interesting is the sheer volume of protest over voter ID laws. I need ID to drive, to fly, to move into or out of the country, etc. Why is it so odd that I would need ID to vote? However I hear it compared to everything from a racist scheme to prevent poor people from voting to a modern day Jim Crow. However it fails the common sense test that ID should be a problem. There was even a very funny video of that that I cited below. However the level of protest is so extreme that I feel that there must be more to the story. The data that I have seen is that voter ID laws mainly hurt the Hispanic vote which would also be, as a group, the most likely to have people who weren't citizens. Thus in a sense it suggests what people have been alleging, which is that a lot of votes are illegal, may well be accurate. Or maybe we can call them undocumented voters if you prefer;-)
Citation:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
While the Soviets failed there is merit to exploring alternatives. As the world is closing in human labor being needed less and less while still meeting most human needs the current system really begins to fall apart. Moreover, most billionaires are not active or "providing value" anyway. Personally I favor a graduated wealth tax with *no shelters* as well as a graduated capital gains tax. Seems sporting that the rich pay taxes as well as the middle class. The poor, as always, will get a free ride.
It essentially said that knowing someones real identity in a public commons, makes for polite (read socially acceptable) behaviour. This is why facebook is generally very polite; but anonymous blog comments can be abusive.
The challenge of not being anonymous is that today the level of social conformity being forced is at a sixty year high. Stated another way, probably not since McCarthyism in the 1950's has the danger of not having the "correct" opinion been so high. Probably the best example of this is people being harassed for political donations in 2008. Think about that for a moment, how you campaigned or voted now impacts your job options. Anyone who subscribes to tactics like these is clearly not mature enough for democracy. If you feel the need to punish people who don't vote the "right way", which is of course your way, then you're just not a good fit for a democracy nor an open and civil society.
You mean like this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a...
Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.
I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.
They are demonized for being exactly what I stated and if you don't see it then it's because you are willfully blind. Maybe I'll jokingly call this your "PC privilege" is blinding you to the obvious. You can tell yourself that you are not targeting them for having different beliefs than you but you're only fooling yourself AC.
"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.
You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?
If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs.
So anyone who demonizes, for example, a white Christian male who is straight must be a Nazi. I think the Huffinfton Post has at least two articles a day demonizing this demographic. I guess the left really are Nazis based on your criteria. I always suspected;-)
You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.
Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?
I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?
So now a bunch of doctors are getting bothered by parents who take the trouble to monitor their infants, and their solution is to have the FDA regulate the devices. Because making less bother for doctors is totally what the FDA is for. Assuming the device doesn't itself cause a medical problem, there's no reason the FDA should regulate it. There's not even any reason to regulate the accuracy of such a device (let the market, or industry standards compliance handle that aspect).
And here I thought that the main purpose of the FDA was keeping drug company profits healthy at the expense of the whole country;-) The last thing we need is yet more stuff stuck in the limbo style hell that is FDA regulation. The FDA is at least party a scam, otherwise we would be able to import pharmacy prescriptions from Canada and such without them interfering.
...Blockchains solve the double-spend problem. Great, but banks don't typically have that problem in the first place because the currency is not the record.
Based on fractional reserve banking banks have way more than a double spend capability. They have ~33x spend capability.
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime.
Why do people keep repeating this zombie talking point? I know y'all didn't flunk out of school before they covered Nixon in civics class.
Maybe it's because civics today is less about how government does, or should, function and more about giving airtime to left leaning ideals and generally bashing the ever hated white male.
relevant article:
https://thefederalist.com/2017...
I think the lesson is that forcing people to do things or restricting options are both bad. Depending on the topic and your political leanings there will be things that you are inclined to force people to do in the name of (your version of) decency and other things that you will be inclined to forbid. Both impulses need to be reigned in as much as possible. For example, as fun as the left found it to force bakers to make wedding cakes that they really didn't want to that is a terrible precedent. Now freedom to practice religion is limited (bad) as well as people can now be forced to do things against their conscience (also bad). There was no shortage of bakers, just a sense of F*** you I'm going to force you do it my way. Well, now with a new regime others might be forced to do things against their conscience. While some might call that justice, in reality forcing people to do things is generally bad. As a side note when I saw Hacksaw Ridge I was thinking how with the ruling limiting freedom to practice religion he probably would not have been able to do what he did. Sad.
...Japan was poor too. Now we make money off them. When the dust settles 50 years from now we all will be rich. Africa will be the last challenge. Everyone will be better off
The balance of trade between the US and Japan is completely unbalanced. They make money off us, not the other way around. $24 Billion in 2013 according to Google.
Regarding the comment about everyone will be better off, the declining angry middle class would disagree with you. Wages have been almost stagnant since the 70's for workers while the top 1% soars. This is definitely not looking like everyone will be better off.
One point to consider is that birth rates are dropping and the industrialized world in general would have a shrinking population if not for immigration. This should be a manageable issue - if only the government took the approach of actually looking for solutions instead of spending all their time trying to make the other party look bad.
Meanwhile, congressmen, SJWs, and the perpetually aggrieved wring their hands while the free market gets it done.
Next time, do something to make it easier for the CVSs of this world.
The notion of free market is an absolute joke when it comes to medical. If the free market were in place buying drugs from Canada would be possible. Instead the FDA, in conjunction with the Feds in general, show that their primary purpose is to protect big companies while screwing over the ever dwindling middle class. Note that this is not a partisan issue, both major parties play along.
I don't want to remember half the stuff I've seen, and the majority of that was on accident.
If the majority of half of the stuff you've seen was an accident then you are seriously accident prone. Or you are quick to blame accidents, not unlike my son who usually swears some obnoxious act was an accident.
This is why I don't trust the government to run things, they conflate social engineering with actually running things. I recall first adopting this view when I heard that despite failing the tests fire departments were being strong armed into hiring more protected classes, especially women. I want the best qualified person doing my rescue from a burning building, not the socially preferred yet inferior one. If the government wants to run things then they need to drop the social engineering and run things efficiently. If they insist on social engineering, and they do, then they won't be able to run things effectively since they are deliberately hiring less qualified people.
As fuck fucking up relations with China, the fact that they are building military installations off the Philippine coast suggests that ship sail long ago.
Indeed it was a long time ago. I recall thinking when they downed the spy plane by ramming it in 2001 with *no* repercussions that we would be seen as a paper Tiger. If it makes the/. crowd happy, this is a legitimate instance of blame Bush II as he was the president at the time.
Personally, I think the State should take over these sort of cases. Dispense what's fair and keep the rest.
Just like how we trusted the state with Civil Forfeiture? How did that turn out again? Oh right it was abused big time. How about we don't give them more tools to abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Teaching critical thinking in school can't stand up to the power of indoctrination by Mom, Dad, and God at home. Religious parents actively work to ensure that their children see them (and the church) as the only authoritative source of truth. They may learn to question "authority", but not "Authority".
With Devos using the public school system to further the kingdom of God and maximize "Kingdom Gain" in this country, even the rational teacher will be powerless to stop the next generation of dogmatic, mindless drones from growing and running the country.
Religion, the simultaneously mocked and mildly feared boogeyman of Slashdot. Kids go their own ways. Most go through a rebellious phase in their teens where they reject their parents point of view and explore other views. Most things have an agenda, both public and private schools. Some parents have a religious agenda while others, who share your world view, have a religious phobia. Some are right leaning, others left leaning. Life still goes on and society hasn't died. For what it's worth I've found churches to be among the best examples of bringing different groups of people together in relative harmony.
You do know he got fewer votes, right?
One of the topics that I find interesting is the sheer volume of protest over voter ID laws. I need ID to drive, to fly, to move into or out of the country, etc. Why is it so odd that I would need ID to vote? However I hear it compared to everything from a racist scheme to prevent poor people from voting to a modern day Jim Crow. However it fails the common sense test that ID should be a problem. There was even a very funny video of that that I cited below. However the level of protest is so extreme that I feel that there must be more to the story. The data that I have seen is that voter ID laws mainly hurt the Hispanic vote which would also be, as a group, the most likely to have people who weren't citizens. Thus in a sense it suggests what people have been alleging, which is that a lot of votes are illegal, may well be accurate. Or maybe we can call them undocumented voters if you prefer ;-)
Citation:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
While the Soviets failed there is merit to exploring alternatives. As the world is closing in human labor being needed less and less while still meeting most human needs the current system really begins to fall apart. Moreover, most billionaires are not active or "providing value" anyway. Personally I favor a graduated wealth tax with *no shelters* as well as a graduated capital gains tax. Seems sporting that the rich pay taxes as well as the middle class. The poor, as always, will get a free ride.
The hyper loop is certainly a better idea than the current train to nowhere, though I admit that's not a high standard to clear.
It essentially said that knowing someones real identity in a public commons, makes for polite (read socially acceptable) behaviour. This is why facebook is generally very polite; but anonymous blog comments can be abusive.
The challenge of not being anonymous is that today the level of social conformity being forced is at a sixty year high. Stated another way, probably not since McCarthyism in the 1950's has the danger of not having the "correct" opinion been so high. Probably the best example of this is people being harassed for political donations in 2008. Think about that for a moment, how you campaigned or voted now impacts your job options. Anyone who subscribes to tactics like these is clearly not mature enough for democracy. If you feel the need to punish people who don't vote the "right way", which is of course your way, then you're just not a good fit for a democracy nor an open and civil society.
Citation: http://www.heritage.org/marria...
You mean like this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a... Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.
I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.
They are demonized for being exactly what I stated and if you don't see it then it's because you are willfully blind. Maybe I'll jokingly call this your "PC privilege" is blinding you to the obvious. You can tell yourself that you are not targeting them for having different beliefs than you but you're only fooling yourself AC.
"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.
You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?
If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs.
So anyone who demonizes, for example, a white Christian male who is straight must be a Nazi. I think the Huffinfton Post has at least two articles a day demonizing this demographic. I guess the left really are Nazis based on your criteria. I always suspected ;-)
You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.
Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?
I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?
http://www.techinvestornews.co... A fool and his money...
So now a bunch of doctors are getting bothered by parents who take the trouble to monitor their infants, and their solution is to have the FDA regulate the devices. Because making less bother for doctors is totally what the FDA is for. Assuming the device doesn't itself cause a medical problem, there's no reason the FDA should regulate it. There's not even any reason to regulate the accuracy of such a device (let the market, or industry standards compliance handle that aspect).
And here I thought that the main purpose of the FDA was keeping drug company profits healthy at the expense of the whole country ;-) The last thing we need is yet more stuff stuck in the limbo style hell that is FDA regulation. The FDA is at least party a scam, otherwise we would be able to import pharmacy prescriptions from Canada and such without them interfering.
...Blockchains solve the double-spend problem. Great, but banks don't typically have that problem in the first place because the currency is not the record.
Based on fractional reserve banking banks have way more than a double spend capability. They have ~33x spend capability.
Why do people keep repeating this zombie talking point? I know y'all didn't flunk out of school before they covered Nixon in civics class.
Maybe it's because civics today is less about how government does, or should, function and more about giving airtime to left leaning ideals and generally bashing the ever hated white male. relevant article: https://thefederalist.com/2017...
I hear this a lot, but with the one child policy I don't think they want their one and only child killed.
Did you learn nothing from the last election?
I think the lesson is that forcing people to do things or restricting options are both bad. Depending on the topic and your political leanings there will be things that you are inclined to force people to do in the name of (your version of) decency and other things that you will be inclined to forbid. Both impulses need to be reigned in as much as possible. For example, as fun as the left found it to force bakers to make wedding cakes that they really didn't want to that is a terrible precedent. Now freedom to practice religion is limited (bad) as well as people can now be forced to do things against their conscience (also bad). There was no shortage of bakers, just a sense of F*** you I'm going to force you do it my way. Well, now with a new regime others might be forced to do things against their conscience. While some might call that justice, in reality forcing people to do things is generally bad. As a side note when I saw Hacksaw Ridge I was thinking how with the ruling limiting freedom to practice religion he probably would not have been able to do what he did. Sad.
So your productivity doubled yet salaries have not doubled. This is a big part of the problem.
...Japan was poor too. Now we make money off them. When the dust settles 50 years from now we all will be rich. Africa will be the last challenge. Everyone will be better off
The balance of trade between the US and Japan is completely unbalanced. They make money off us, not the other way around. $24 Billion in 2013 according to Google.
Regarding the comment about everyone will be better off, the declining angry middle class would disagree with you. Wages have been almost stagnant since the 70's for workers while the top 1% soars. This is definitely not looking like everyone will be better off.
One point to consider is that birth rates are dropping and the industrialized world in general would have a shrinking population if not for immigration. This should be a manageable issue - if only the government took the approach of actually looking for solutions instead of spending all their time trying to make the other party look bad.
Meanwhile, congressmen, SJWs, and the perpetually aggrieved wring their hands while the free market gets it done.
Next time, do something to make it easier for the CVSs of this world.
The notion of free market is an absolute joke when it comes to medical. If the free market were in place buying drugs from Canada would be possible. Instead the FDA, in conjunction with the Feds in general, show that their primary purpose is to protect big companies while screwing over the ever dwindling middle class. Note that this is not a partisan issue, both major parties play along.
I don't want to remember half the stuff I've seen, and the majority of that was on accident.
If the majority of half of the stuff you've seen was an accident then you are seriously accident prone. Or you are quick to blame accidents, not unlike my son who usually swears some obnoxious act was an accident.
That was long time ago, when Americans were hungry. Times change
Fair enough. Who is hungry now and doing amazing things? I haven't seen comparable achievements coming from other countries.
This is why I don't trust the government to run things, they conflate social engineering with actually running things. I recall first adopting this view when I heard that despite failing the tests fire departments were being strong armed into hiring more protected classes, especially women. I want the best qualified person doing my rescue from a burning building, not the socially preferred yet inferior one. If the government wants to run things then they need to drop the social engineering and run things efficiently. If they insist on social engineering, and they do, then they won't be able to run things effectively since they are deliberately hiring less qualified people.
Tim Cook seems to believe he is the smartest guy around - his performance indicates otherwise.
While his performance is sub-par his bank account is quite healthy. This disconnect is quite common for CEOs sadly.
As fuck fucking up relations with China, the fact that they are building military installations off the Philippine coast suggests that ship sail long ago.
Indeed it was a long time ago. I recall thinking when they downed the spy plane by ramming it in 2001 with *no* repercussions that we would be seen as a paper Tiger. If it makes the /. crowd happy, this is a legitimate instance of blame Bush II as he was the president at the time.
Personally, I think the State should take over these sort of cases. Dispense what's fair and keep the rest.
Just like how we trusted the state with Civil Forfeiture? How did that turn out again? Oh right it was abused big time. How about we don't give them more tools to abuse.