Most of the real 'problems' with public education in the united states are systemic and cultural.
The best way to address them with technology is to go over to a home based system that entirely eliminates the social interactions that interfere with academics.
The various social aspects can still be met of coarse by allowing the teams, clubs etc a place to get together, but removing the 'having to see people I don't want to be around every day' aspect of school will go a long long way. Also if your teacher doesn't really see you or know you it eliminates 'teachers pets' and 'bad' kids and instead forces evaluation of knowledge based on objective testing.
Much of this is in a pilot stage in Florida and I have seen it work very well.
Don't get me wrong. I really am asking because honestly, the little bit of quantum theory I've tried to read the real mathmatical equations for wasn't all that easy do understand.
How exactly can you say the math is easy when it takes a super computer to verify your solution?
hmm... so would you claim that you must have faith in order to be rational? Or rather that someone who denies the need for faith is not living in reality? Seems like that means the arguments about faith have more to do with what one places faith in then. Really kind of blows away the 19th century rationalist. Not saying I necessarily disagree, just thought it was an interesting way of putting it.
oh, that makes sense. Do you suppose that will open any doors towards yet another mathematically verifiable super unified theory. Or helping to an experiment way to falsify some of them?
>>. But it means the planets will be moving in extremely strange trajectories, doubling back on themselves
What you are saying is the math would be really complex and counter intuitive, much like the math involved in modern quantum theory.
Remember trying to create a truly heliocentric model would not have been much better or simpler and it wasn't for much of the scientific community working on those math problems those were the only two known options.
>>Whether or not the theory reflects 'reality' or not is a moot point. For all practical intents and purposes, >>reality is what can be measured
I don't think so, reality is the cause of what can be measured and there is an assumption that the measurements actually reflect some real property of the cause. (otherwise why calibrate your instruments or throw out outliers).
The cause of reality of coarse is not a strictly scientific question , but neither is it a strictly non-scientific one as quantum theory and the theory of relativity prove out.
The point of a model is to create something which closely enough resemblance to the cause of the data , that you can predict more of the data. The irregularities require of coarse changes to the model to account for them. so a model is useful only in so much as it is predictive and some would claim predictive only so much as it corresponds to reality. Yet , the geocentric model and the heliocentric model both had fair predictive power for their time. As did the Newtonian model of the Atom , still used in most high school science books. The are of coarse all three far from the reality of the system under study, and broke down badly only later in history when newer techniques for measure and evaluation data were discovered.
Not to say there isn't much good science done here, or that mathematically verifying a model is in anyway a bad measure of the model. It just isn't the be all and end all knowing the theory is sound or 'true' that the press often likes to make out.
Hadn't heard of him before. That is truly fascinating. It almost appears to have come full circle. Prior to Galileo, scientists never made the assumption that their theory actually had correspondence to reality. They were mostly concerned with whether or not it corresponded to the data and considered a theory 'true' if it corresponded to the existing data and had predictive power. There was a phrase which was used to mean that but I can't remember it right now. 'conservation of aspects' 'preservation of aspects' something like that.
I once read a work by Hippocrates called which I believe was titled: 'advice to traveling physicians'
In it he begins by explaining that a traveling physician should take into account the environment of the town he is about to enter, because it will help him predict the type of diseases likely to exist in the population.
He then enumerates different environments and diseases.
For example he predicted , correctly , that people living in areas where there were 'strong seasonal winds' --- I assume monsoons, had a higher number of stomach related ailments. He noted this was most likely because they tended to drink brackish or salty water. He then explained that the reason for the stomach problems was because the salt made their heads soft and caused the phlegm to run into their stomach, which also explained why they tended to be much stupider then the rest of the world.
I think it makes that makes an interesting example how the 'testable' part of a theory can be completely correct and useful for predictiveness and the 'un-testable' part of the model can by wholly wrong.
That being said there are a lot of people trying to do silly things like , prove God does or doesn't exist using science or prove people do or don't have immortal souls or free will.
The problem comes in of coarse with testability and shows that science, while incredibly useful as a tool to the race, simply has it's limits which it is unlikely to easily transcend and are of coarse tied to our ability to gather, and interpret data.
Questions like whether or not God exists are simply outside the realm of science proper, because of the ability to gather sufficient and repeatable data with proper controls. That includes, however, both the positive and negative answer. I have never quite understood the instance, some people seem to have, that you cannot prove God exists while insisting it is possible to prove he doesn't.
As I understand it there were several geocentric models of the universe that were mathematically validated.
Am I mistaken or, doesn't that just mean that our theory matches all the known data and the data matches the theory. It Really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the theory expresses reality.
If the stem cell are gathered through the destruction of human embryos, not always the case, it is most certainly morally questionable.
Unless of coarse either you believe human embryos are not human ( an oxymoron) or that the destruction of whole human beings is not morally questionable, neither of which are facts that hold up to objective scrutiny.
Last I checked the beginning of the mammalian life cycle was well established., Do you suggest some other objectively measurable criteria for establishing the humanity of a unique individual, that doesn't require injecting a religious opinion about when the mammal of type human somehow becomes a person or is 'ensouled'.
well, what is moral is moral and what is not is not. so, I don't have to decide anything for anyone, the facts will not change regardless of what i decide. We may disagree on what the facts actually are, but that is an entirely different discussion.
Are you saying embryonic stems cells would have been better? Do they have the same tissue rejection issue solved? Not that there aren't plenty of ways to get embryonic stem cells that don't involve destroying embryos ( like cord blood.) but that is something often neglected.
which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.
>> At its simplest the question "why should I obey the law?" is answered by "if I don't I >> get beaten by the police". Religious or not, it's hard to argue against force:P. I agree, but the first thing you are neglecting is that it would be impossible for any society to expend enough resources to ensure sufficient collaboration to create trust amongst it's members if the primary motivation is fear of being caught. Even it if were, it is MUCH more efficient from a resource perspective if people do what they do because they know it is what they 'should' do and that it is the 'right' thing.
Also, the framework you are suggesting presents utterly no reason , if one is the member of the majority and reasonably assured not to be on the receiving end to make argument for minority rights, against slavery, or the extermination of the Jews or for women's rights. So long as the larger population is benefited by destroying or exploiting the smaller one, it is actually more utilitarian to exploit the minority in most cases.
It also, makes a phenomenally poor argument for things like free speech. Why should we let people go around using 'hate speech'. Where hate - is defined as anything I or the government of California finds hateful.
>>> Atheism is not the rejection of all abstract principles, just a specific one that appears >>>to many as no longer fit in the modern situation. An atheist can believe in e.g. the >>>teachings of Jesus on how to interact with your fellow men without accepting the >>>claim about godhood.
This is where I depart from your opinion, or rather think it needs further nuances to be correct.
Certainly and Atheist CAN do whatever the police to not beat them up for doing. However, that does not mean they do so with a consistent or reasonable polemic for doing so.
Doing something because it is good for the whole, is NOT a reasonable, or even particularly well motivating principle, unless there is direct benefit to the individual immediacy perceptible. Or one ascribes to concepts such as , duty and dignity that are rooted in the existence of a deity that remembers and rewards or punishes the individual.
If the life I'm living is the only thing that counts and when it is over there are no further consequence that can affect me, there is no rational reason to support anything which restricts my freedom to seek personal pleasure.
All laws, as you have correctly pointed out are crafted to benefit the whole, almost always in deference to the individual.
As such there is no objective, reason to support the existence of law from an atheistic perspective, unless one believe that your personal opposition to the existence of law will be sufficient to bring about great personal discomfort before your death, which is a highly unlikely proposition so long as you are pragmatic in your anarchism.
I just can spell to save my life. Probably lysdexia and all.
So I do the best I can and take my lumps for it. given that most dyslexics have above normal to genus IQ's. It is an interesting assumption that poor spelling is somehow an indicator of intelligence.
Doh. poor spelling and laziness strikes again. To my shame i bring only the defense that it passed the spell checker;)
Re:Examples are not nerdy
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think that kind of cuts to the chase of it. I know more then a few people who went into comp sci for the money. Some of the were the football jocks in high school. However, they wouldn't look at a computer outside of work because it is just an means to an end.
On the other hand, I was intrested in computers before there was any real money in them. If there was no money to be made at all in the computer industry I'd probably just have an expensife hobby.
soul - a word from Greek. It's original meaning was smell or odor. In Jewish and Christian theology it represents that which continues beyond the physical existence of a human being.
To call it a synonym for consciousness is about the same thing as calling red a synonym for ball.
Just because the phrase 'red rubber ball' is fairly common, isn't grounds for redefining the meaning of the word red, weather or not you believe such a thing as red actually exists.
interesting suppositions you make, but I'm left with some questions? 1) ultimately you choose a morality to follow? Why? Do you suppose it is hard wired? Why not choose to be completely amoral? unless of coarse you count amoral as a morality? 2) you begin by pointing out that: if you don't... "no abstract concept that holds any special value" and conclude with "usefulness". Which of coarse beg the question why 'useful' unless you equate utility with maximizing pleasure and minimizing discomfort? Is that how you define useful.
In general what you are saying holds true and i agree to the point that you don't try to make the demand or a rational argument that someone else 'should' do something. All, laws however exist explicitly to declare that someone 'should' do something and should only makes sense if referenced from the abstract.
To pull a little more back towards being on topic. As an example why 'should' women be treated with equal rights to men? That fact that it would please them , is not sufficient to convince many men to change anything. Historically the idea comes out of christian theology. Men and women are equal , because "in Christ all are equal, there is no male or female , free or slave". It is of coarse tied into the idea that there is such a thing as an 'inalienable right' which as you pointed out can exist only in the abstract and is not in anyway utilitarian.
I didn't say atheist to be true to their claim or logically consistent needed to be amoral only anarchistic ( which is to say opposed to law.)
The reason is simple enough all law exists as an exercise in abstract principles that atheist claim do not exist. That is not to say they must oppose the existence of law directly, but rather that their philosophy dictates indifference to it unless it directly effects them and even then they have no right to claim somone, 'should' treat them or other differently , only that it would please them if that were the case.
"My research has demonstrated that they have highly dysregulated THOMASes." so in otherwods if you are bastard it is because you have brain damage;)
Seriouly though, does anyone know if this kind of research argues for better or an inborn train as opposed to one the 'grew' later on within a person enviourment. ( otherwise known as raised that way?)
The idea that discussion of religion and religious ideas does not belong in the public form or even worse the idea that laws should not reflect ' morality' is about the most irrational and nonsensical 'theory' to be bandied about in the history of the united states
The phrase 'separation of church and state' was coined in the supreme court to address what the constitution indented:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Kind of a requirements clarification, that you can't take out of context or it doesn't make much sense. The key being the 'state' shall not.
It was never indented to work the other way around. The whole idea of a democratic-republic is that the majority decides what is 'moral' as opposed to government.
However, what you can't escape is the simple fact, that every law exists explicitly because a person or group with more power believes another person or group with lesser power 'should' do something.
If there was no disagreement there would be no need for a law. If the group had lesser power they would be unable to create or at least enforce the law.
It is impossible however to have any logical definition of 'should' that exists on a merely 'objective' non-philosophical/non-religious grounds.
We can easily define 'will' as in 'I will put you in jail if you don't', but defining 'should' always requires assumptions that come from something non objective and therefore at least philosophical if not specifically religious.
You 'should' want what is good for others? Why? You 'should' want what is good for the earth? For the country? Again Why? You should want to know what I true? Again, Why?
That kind of why is, ALWAYS , is a matter of faith and religion, and cannot be objectively proved.
In order for an atheist to live out their philosophy to it's logical end, they also need to be an anarchist. Of if or why anyone should fully live out the philosophy they preach , is again a matter admittedly a question of philosophy and religion.
No, the two are mutually exclusive. A trade secret may not be published and if it is 'leaked' the only recourse the secret holder has is the sue the person who leaked it.
Something that is patented is also published as part of the patent to facilitate peer review and when the patent inspired the rights to the invention is released into the public domain to enrich the state of the art.
Trade secret however , in itâ(TM)s current form, canâ(TM)t stop someone from distributing your binaries. Patent , might, be able to , but would still need some revisions to make it explicit.
well, I thought I said something similar. I mean if you just asked the guy outright or better yet send and e-mail.
'do you talk to me just because I'm a woman, I've noticed you don't seem to be as friendly to Joe and really don't care for the extra attention'
I suspect he'd do one of 3 things: 1) be really embarrassed and never speak to you again or at least not often. 2) be made aware of your difference in perception and be more cautious, if he really hadn't thought he was treating you any different. 3) Get angry and defensive and possible vindictive, because he is someone who doesn't respect women.
1 & 2 solve your problem. 3 is the type of thing you bring to HR and when they say, have you talked to so and so about it. You say I did here is the e-mail and this was the response. ( also good evidence in the law suit and your HR person will know that without saying.)
Should again be problem solved.
I do think there is a social and possibly psychological aspect to the 'discomfort' you are talking about. The workplace is almost by design directly adversarial, women are conditioned to be less directly adversarial then men by nature because of their disadvantage in physical strength and advantage in intelligence.
Unfortunately I don't have an easy solution to the fact women and men are not the same but expected to act as if they are.
You get paid based on supply and demand. That is exactly why the janitor and the high school principle were to two highest paid employees at the school. The principle had specialized skills and the janitor did work no one else wanted to do.
Of coarse, there is the question 'is that fair'? The only answer anyone seems to have is: What else can be done? which is a perfectly legitimate question to which there seems no answer.
>>>Given choice, I would hang out with my wife and our child 24/7.
>>> Quoted for truth. I'd be happy to stay home and let the woman go earn the money. I have little interest in my job. No not at all. I really enjoy my job. It's fairly low stress, mostly intresting , and I make good money. I just like being with my wife more. I wouldn't have married her if I didn't enjoy spending time with her, we have a truely wonderful marriage.
If all other things were equal, 'our ability to make money, equal fullfilment at work, and equal desire to work'. Would I stay at home and let my wife go work and be a stay at home dad. I guess I would entertain the idea, but realistically, i think childern benifit more from having thier mother present then thier father. They probably benfit the maxium for having both parents presnet as regularly as possible, but someone has to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the real 'problems' with public education in the united states are systemic and cultural.
The best way to address them with technology is to go over to a home based system that entirely eliminates the social interactions that interfere with academics.
The various social aspects can still be met of coarse by allowing the teams, clubs etc a place to get together, but removing the 'having to see people I don't want to be around every day' aspect of school will go a long long way. Also if your teacher doesn't really see you or know you it eliminates 'teachers pets' and 'bad' kids and instead forces evaluation of knowledge based on objective testing.
Much of this is in a pilot stage in Florida and I have seen it work very well.
Don't get me wrong. I really am asking because honestly, the little bit of quantum theory I've tried to read the real mathmatical equations for wasn't all that easy do understand.
How exactly can you say the math is easy when it takes a super computer to verify your solution?
I mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
doesn't look horribly complex, but nothing really is once you understand it.
Like you say, it is the strange conclusions it presupposes that make it difficult.
Not unlike geocentric mathmantics that have planets moving in strange and non-intuitive ways.
hmm... so would you claim that you must have faith in order to be rational?
Or rather that someone who denies the need for faith is not living in reality?
Seems like that means the arguments about faith have more to do with what one places faith in then.
Really kind of blows away the 19th century rationalist.
Not saying I necessarily disagree, just thought it was an interesting way of putting it.
oh, that makes sense. Do you suppose that will open any doors towards yet another mathematically verifiable super unified theory. Or helping to an experiment way to falsify some of them?
>>. But it means the planets will be moving in extremely strange trajectories, doubling back on themselves
What you are saying is the math would be really complex and counter intuitive, much like the math involved in modern quantum theory.
Remember trying to create a truly heliocentric model would not have been much better or simpler and it wasn't for much of the scientific community working on those math problems those were the only two known options.
>>Whether or not the theory reflects 'reality' or not is a moot point. For all practical intents and purposes, >>reality is what can be measured
I don't think so, reality is the cause of what can be measured and there is an assumption that the measurements actually reflect some real property of the cause. (otherwise why calibrate your instruments or throw out outliers).
The cause of reality of coarse is not a strictly scientific question , but neither is it a strictly non-scientific one as quantum theory and the theory of relativity prove out.
The point of a model is to create something which closely enough resemblance to the cause of the data , that you can predict more of the data. The irregularities require of coarse changes to the model to account for them. so a model is useful only in so much as it is predictive and some would claim predictive only so much as it corresponds to reality. Yet , the geocentric model and the heliocentric model both had fair predictive power for their time. As did the Newtonian model of the Atom , still used in most high school science books. The are of coarse all three far from the reality of the system under study, and broke down badly only later in history when newer techniques for measure and evaluation data were discovered.
Not to say there isn't much good science done here, or that mathematically verifying a model is in anyway a bad measure of the model. It just isn't the be all and end all knowing the theory is sound or 'true' that the press often likes to make out.
Hadn't heard of him before. That is truly fascinating. It almost appears to have come full circle.
Prior to Galileo, scientists never made the assumption that their theory actually had correspondence to reality. They were mostly concerned with whether or not it corresponded to the data and considered a theory 'true' if it corresponded to the existing data and had predictive power. There was a phrase which was used to mean that but I can't remember it right now.
'conservation of aspects' 'preservation of aspects' something like that.
I once read a work by Hippocrates called which I believe was titled: 'advice to traveling physicians'
In it he begins by explaining that a traveling physician should take into account the environment of the town he is about to enter, because it will help him predict the type of diseases likely to exist in the population.
He then enumerates different environments and diseases.
For example he predicted , correctly , that people living in areas where there were 'strong seasonal winds' --- I assume monsoons, had a higher number of stomach related ailments. He noted this was most likely because they tended to drink brackish or salty water. He then explained that the reason for the stomach problems was because the salt made their heads soft and caused the phlegm to run into their stomach, which also explained why they tended to be much stupider then the rest of the world.
I think it makes that makes an interesting example how the 'testable' part of a theory can be completely correct and useful for predictiveness and the 'un-testable' part of the model can by wholly wrong.
That being said there are a lot of people trying to do silly things like , prove God does or doesn't exist using science or prove people do or don't have immortal souls or free will.
The problem comes in of coarse with testability and shows that science, while incredibly useful as a tool to the race, simply has it's limits which it is unlikely to easily transcend and are of coarse tied to our ability to gather, and interpret data.
Questions like whether or not God exists are simply outside the realm of science proper, because of the ability to gather sufficient and repeatable data with proper controls.
That includes, however, both the positive and negative answer. I have never quite understood the instance, some people seem to have, that you cannot prove God exists while insisting it is possible to prove he doesn't.
As I understand it there were several geocentric models of the universe that were mathematically validated.
Am I mistaken or, doesn't that just mean that our theory matches all the known data and the data matches the theory. It Really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the theory expresses reality.
If the stem cell are gathered through the destruction of human embryos, not always the case, it is most certainly morally questionable.
Unless of coarse either you believe human embryos are not human ( an oxymoron) or that the destruction of whole human beings is not morally questionable, neither of which are facts that hold up to objective scrutiny.
Last I checked the beginning of the mammalian life cycle was well established.,
Do you suggest some other objectively measurable criteria for establishing the humanity of a unique individual, that doesn't require injecting a religious opinion about when the mammal of type human somehow becomes a person or is 'ensouled'.
well, what is moral is moral and what is not is not.
so, I don't have to decide anything for anyone, the facts will not change regardless of what i decide. We may disagree on what the facts actually are, but that is an entirely different discussion.
Are you saying embryonic stems cells would have been better? Do they have the same tissue rejection issue solved?
Not that there aren't plenty of ways to get embryonic stem cells that don't involve destroying embryos ( like cord blood.) but that is something often neglected.
which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.
>> At its simplest the question "why should I obey the law?" is answered by "if I don't I >> get beaten by the police". Religious or not, it's hard to argue against force :P.
I agree, but the first thing you are neglecting is that it would be impossible for any society to expend enough resources to ensure sufficient collaboration to create trust amongst it's members if the primary motivation is fear of being caught. Even it if were, it is MUCH more efficient from a resource perspective if people do what they do because they know it is what they 'should' do and that it is the 'right' thing.
Also, the framework you are suggesting presents utterly no reason , if one is the member of the majority and reasonably assured not to be on the receiving end to make argument for minority rights, against slavery, or the extermination of the Jews or for women's rights. So long as the larger population is benefited by destroying or exploiting the smaller one, it is actually more utilitarian to exploit the minority in most cases.
It also, makes a phenomenally poor argument for things like free speech. Why should we let people go around using 'hate speech'. Where hate - is defined as anything I or the government of California finds hateful.
>>> Atheism is not the rejection of all abstract principles, just a specific one that appears >>>to many as no longer fit in the modern situation. An atheist can believe in e.g. the >>>teachings of Jesus on how to interact with your fellow men without accepting the >>>claim about godhood.
This is where I depart from your opinion, or rather think it needs further nuances to be correct.
Certainly and Atheist CAN do whatever the police to not beat them up for doing.
However, that does not mean they do so with a consistent or reasonable polemic for doing so.
Doing something because it is good for the whole, is NOT a reasonable, or even particularly well motivating principle, unless there is direct benefit to the individual immediacy perceptible. Or one ascribes to concepts such as , duty and dignity that are rooted in the existence of a deity that remembers and rewards or punishes the individual.
If the life I'm living is the only thing that counts and when it is over there are no further consequence that can affect me, there is no rational reason to support anything which restricts my freedom to seek personal pleasure.
All laws, as you have correctly pointed out are crafted to benefit the whole, almost always in deference to the individual.
As such there is no objective, reason to support the existence of law from an atheistic perspective, unless one believe that your personal opposition to the existence of law will be sufficient to bring about great personal discomfort before your death, which is a highly unlikely proposition so long as you are pragmatic in your anarchism.
eye half no allusion about sell checkers
I just can spell to save my life. Probably lysdexia and all.
So I do the best I can and take my lumps for it.
given that most dyslexics have above normal to genus IQ's. It is an interesting assumption that poor spelling is somehow an indicator of intelligence.
Doh. poor spelling and laziness strikes again. ;)
To my shame i bring only the defense that it passed the spell checker
I think that kind of cuts to the chase of it.
I know more then a few people who went into comp sci for the money. Some of the were the football jocks in high school. However, they wouldn't look at a computer outside of work because it is just an means to an end.
On the other hand, I was intrested in computers before there was any real money in them. If there was no money to be made at all in the computer industry I'd probably just have an expensife hobby.
Yeah, that is about it.
soul - a word from Greek. It's original meaning was smell or odor. In Jewish and Christian theology it represents that which continues beyond the physical existence of a human being.
To call it a synonym for consciousness is about the same thing as calling red a synonym for ball.
Just because the phrase 'red rubber ball' is fairly common, isn't grounds for redefining the meaning of the word red, weather or not you believe such a thing as red actually exists.
interesting suppositions you make, but I'm left with some questions? ... "no abstract concept that holds any special value" and conclude with "usefulness". Which of coarse beg the question why 'useful' unless you equate utility with maximizing pleasure and minimizing discomfort? Is that how you define useful.
1) ultimately you choose a morality to follow? Why? Do you suppose it is hard wired? Why not choose to be completely amoral? unless of coarse you count amoral as a morality?
2) you begin by pointing out that: if you don't
In general what you are saying holds true and i agree to the point that you don't try to make the demand or a rational argument that someone else 'should' do something. All, laws however exist explicitly to declare that someone 'should' do something and should only makes sense if referenced from the abstract.
To pull a little more back towards being on topic.
As an example why 'should' women be treated with equal rights to men? That fact that it would please them , is not sufficient to convince many men to change anything. Historically the idea comes out of christian theology. Men and women are equal , because "in Christ all are equal, there is no male or female , free or slave". It is of coarse tied into the idea that there is such a thing as an 'inalienable right' which as you pointed out can exist only in the abstract and is not in anyway utilitarian.
I didn't say atheist to be true to their claim or logically consistent needed to be amoral only anarchistic ( which is to say opposed to law.)
The reason is simple enough all law exists as an exercise in abstract principles that atheist claim do not exist. That is not to say they must oppose the existence of law directly, but rather that their philosophy dictates indifference to it unless it directly effects them and even then they have no right to claim somone, 'should' treat them or other differently , only that it would please them if that were the case.
"My research has demonstrated that they have highly dysregulated THOMASes." ;)
so in otherwods if you are bastard it is because you have brain damage
Seriouly though, does anyone know if this kind of research argues for better or an inborn train as opposed to one the 'grew' later on within a person enviourment. ( otherwise known as raised that way?)
If you know you would be taken in by a profession con man ... I'll trust you to let me know ;)
The idea that discussion of religion and religious ideas does not belong in the public form or even worse the idea that laws should not reflect ' morality' is about the most irrational and nonsensical 'theory' to be bandied about in the history of the united states
The phrase 'separation of church and state' was coined in the supreme court to address what the constitution indented:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Kind of a requirements clarification, that you can't take out of context or it doesn't make much sense. The key being the 'state' shall not.
It was never indented to work the other way around.
The whole idea of a democratic-republic is that the majority decides what is 'moral' as opposed to government.
However, what you can't escape is the simple fact, that every law exists explicitly because a person or group with more power believes another person or group with lesser power 'should' do something.
If there was no disagreement there would be no need for a law.
If the group had lesser power they would be unable to create or at least enforce the law.
It is impossible however to have any logical definition of 'should' that exists on a merely 'objective' non-philosophical/non-religious grounds.
We can easily define 'will' as in 'I will put you in jail if you don't', but defining 'should' always requires assumptions that come from something non objective and therefore at least philosophical if not specifically religious.
You 'should' want what is good for others? Why?
You 'should' want what is good for the earth? For the country? Again Why?
You should want to know what I true? Again, Why?
That kind of why is, ALWAYS , is a matter of faith and religion, and cannot be objectively proved.
In order for an atheist to live out their philosophy to it's logical end, they also need to be an anarchist. Of if or why anyone should fully live out the philosophy they preach , is again a matter admittedly a question of philosophy and religion.
No, the two are mutually exclusive. A trade secret may not be published and if it is 'leaked' the only recourse the secret holder has is the sue the person who leaked it.
Something that is patented is also published as part of the patent to facilitate peer review and when the patent inspired the rights to the invention is released into the public domain to enrich the state of the art.
Trade secret however , in itâ(TM)s current form, canâ(TM)t stop someone from distributing your binaries. Patent , might, be able to , but would still need some revisions to make it explicit.
well, I thought I said something similar.
I mean if you just asked the guy outright or better yet send and e-mail.
'do you talk to me just because I'm a woman, I've noticed you don't seem to be as friendly to Joe and really don't care for the extra attention'
I suspect he'd do one of 3 things:
1) be really embarrassed and never speak to you again or at least not often.
2) be made aware of your difference in perception and be more cautious, if he really hadn't thought he was treating you any different.
3) Get angry and defensive and possible vindictive, because he is someone who doesn't respect women.
1 & 2 solve your problem.
3 is the type of thing you bring to HR and when they say, have you talked to so and so about it. You say I did here is the e-mail and this was the response. ( also good evidence in the law suit and your HR person will know that without saying.)
Should again be problem solved.
I do think there is a social and possibly psychological aspect to the 'discomfort' you are talking about.
The workplace is almost by design directly adversarial, women are conditioned to be less directly adversarial then men by nature because of their disadvantage in physical strength and advantage in intelligence.
Unfortunately I don't have an easy solution to the fact women and men are not the same but expected to act as if they are.
You get paid based on supply and demand. That is exactly why the janitor and the high school principle were to two highest paid employees at the school. The principle had specialized skills and the janitor did work no one else wanted to do.
Of coarse, there is the question 'is that fair'?
The only answer anyone seems to have is:
What else can be done? which is a perfectly legitimate question to which there seems no answer.
>>>Given choice, I would hang out with my wife and our child 24/7.
>>> Quoted for truth. I'd be happy to stay home and let the woman go earn the money. I have little interest in my job.
No not at all. I really enjoy my job. It's fairly low stress, mostly intresting , and I make good money.
I just like being with my wife more. I wouldn't have married her if I didn't enjoy spending time with her, we have a truely wonderful marriage.
If all other things were equal, 'our ability to make money, equal fullfilment at work, and equal desire to work'.
Would I stay at home and let my wife go work and be a stay at home dad. I guess I would entertain the idea, but realistically, i think childern benifit more from having thier mother present then thier father. They probably benfit the maxium for having both parents presnet as regularly as possible, but someone has to work.