If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
Don't you know that, indeed, some "corporate decisions" change when a new CEO comes on board? They don't "go", but the CEO gets to make many decisions as part of his job. If one of those decisions is what to spend corporate money on, then maybe that decision will change when the current CEO leaves. That means I am correct, because the decision did "go" when the CEO left. Some decisions are in the hands of the stockholders who actually own the company. They can change, too, if the stockholders change.
The fact is, very simply, that the people who own a corporation have rights. They do not lose those rights when they form a corporation. Period. That's what SCOTUS said. They didn't give anything to anyone, since the right to free speech is supposed to be an inalianable right -- part of being alive. They stopped another court from trying to take those rights away.
Why is it bad when the government tries to take our rights away, but then good when they try to take our rights away? The answer is that "our" rights are "our" rights, but the right to spend lots of money on political speech is affordable only to the rich, and those awful rich people don't deserve rights.
Which would come from, perhaps, someone trying to undermine your parental authority. "Here's how you can do it safely, and there really are no moral principles involved. Everyone else is doing it. It's just sex. No, oral sex really isn't sex anyway. Nobody cares if you aren't emotionally ready for that activity, and it won't really mess you up in the future. No, of course, no boy would ever post naked photos of you with his schlong in your mouth on the internet. And no boy would ever start rumors about you being a slut after you break up with Mr. Right."
Point stands, you want the authority and it isn't a good thing when a school or anyone else tries to undermine it.
What message do you send to your children if you tell them "no" on some activity and then turn around and say "yes"? Which is it? You don't know, or you can't make up your mind. That's the message. You might as well just start with "do it in my house where I can supervise" and be consistent.
As for teaching both absintence and condoms, same thing. You are aware that abstinence, when used properly, is 100% effective, and condoms, when used properly, are not?
The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.
The rest of the sentence is a qualification on specifically what they oppose. If a program being used doesn't have the purpose they list, then it is not what they oppose. It's really pretty simple. Read all the words, you might catch all the meaning.
Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication.
You truly do have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS, not that it was a direct quote. I didn't claim I was making a direct quote as you did when you ignored the qualifying clauses that followed what you quoted.
You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
The vast majority of people can't grow it in their backyard. Many people don't have a backyard. Many people who have a backyard have next door neighbors who know how to climb a fence. Many people couldn't grow weeds if you gave them a backyard already filled with them. Many people would rather buy instead of doing it themselves just to save their own time.
Me? If I did it, I'd see the lawn maintenance guys more often, I'm sure, but not a lot of my own product.
There are already people who know they can make money off of it, and know that people won't just grow it themselves. They run something called "medical pot dispensaries". That pretty much shoots the idea that if someone knew they could make money it would be legal.
As for "markup", just how much do you think it costs to make a $6 pack of cigarettes?
Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people,
The Supreme Court didn't give anyone anything. They simply ruled that the people that make up a corporation still have the rights that they were born with, especially for a corporation that was formed for the express purpose of exercising one of those rights.
Exactly what is "address fraud"? My mailing address is anywhere that postal mail can be delivered for me. That includes the PO box store in the next state over, if I so choose.
Similarly, my bank account can be in any bank I so choose, even one in a different state. I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?
As a parent, I don't want complete unquestioned authority over my kids' thoughts.
There's more to parental authority than just over what your kids think. In fact, I'd say that control of what they think is about the least important part of parental authority, since it is almost impossible to control it anyway. Do your homework, go to bed, be home by 10PM, tell me where you are going with your friends and bring them over to the house so I can meet them. If you use the car, you put gas in it. Mow the lawn today. No, you may NOT take the car tonight. I don't care what you think, you aren't going to a sleepover at your girlfriend's house. Those are parental authority, too.
To channel my dad, it's my house and my rules.
So you do understand what parental authority involves and do want to keep it for yourself. Tell me again why you think it would be good for the schools to use methods of teaching for the purpose of undermining that authority? Not just might do so, but with the purpose of doing so.
And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.
If you see the instruction to "be home by 10PM", or "no, you may not borrow the car tonight", as an opinion, then you truly have abandoned parental authority already, and there is no need for the schools to undermine it.
If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".
You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so. The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
Why did you stop reading in the middle of the sentence? You're deliberately ignoring a large part of the entire statement. A part that contains significant meaning, I would add. In other words, your claim that it is a "direct quote" is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs"...
Now you are deliberately misquoting the platform because it does not talk about "the potential to", it says quite clearly "have the purpose of". Do you not understand the difference?.
You're not the only one doing it, but you're being rather blatant. You're doing what is typically done to Republican statements. If a Republican says "I oppose giving children balanced lunches that have mold growing on them", you'd claim that Republicans oppose giving children any kind of balanced lunch. In this case, the opposition is to the purpose and intent of the education and not the education itself.
To a hard-working academic, the last paragraph is deeply offensive, and serves no purpose in this debate other than provoking angry reactions.
As a hard-working academic, I recognize the people to whom he refers, and know that it is an accurate statement for a large and growing segment of academia. That they might be offended is fine, and I'm not because I know he's not talking about me. There is no constitutional right against being offended.
I've seen too many people get fired for not having the politically correct attitude of the day to not realize that if I don't agree with the majority I just keep my mouth shut, or speak anonymously.
I mean, when a campus newspaper columnist gets fired for daring to write about a campus issue and isn't solidly in the culturally sensitive and correct language, there's something wrong. Campuses, the bastion of free expression and discussion, and a newspaper columnist whose job is to talk about things the administration doesn't want to.
Except that you seem to seem to think that just because one stupid wave of "progressives" was wrong, no progressive approach is possible and teaching has to revert to the 19th century model of cramming bookfuls of facts mindlessly for the greater good of all.
He didn't say that.
You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student.
He didn't say it was, and neither does the Republican platform. You left out part of the plank, but that's probably because it was a complicated sentence and not because you have a confirmation bias against all things Republicans say. There were lots of commas and parenthetical inclusions that make it hard to realize the last part of the sentence connects to the front.
The rest of that plank says "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." The focus on behaviour modification and not education is part of the problem, and the part about having the explicit purpose of undermining parental authority is the second part.
The problem is the goal of the methods used, and the plank opposes the purpose and focus of the methods, not critical thinking in and of itself.
Parental authority isn't parental infallability or parental intelligence, it's the authority of the parents in raising and making decisions for their children. Schools should not be trying to undermine that, they should be promoting it. A large part of the education problem in this country is that parents do not exercise enough authority, or even interest in what their children do.
I suspect that if this opposition was to home schooling by religious parents, it would be put in terms of "child abuse" to mould their minds into the correct way of thinking. When schools use modern methods to do the same kind of thing it's ok. How about the schools teach the students and let the students use that information and critical thinking skills to challenge themselves? If we don't trust them to do that, how will we ever trust them to become the next generation of leaders?
Let's put it this way, if my organs aren't prioritized towards people who they'll help the most I'm opting out.
Thus further reducing the supply and limiting the number of people who can get a transplant.
You're saying that if you think a rich guy can buy priority, you'll not donate. First, what if you're wrong? Nobody gets your heart, nobody is saved.
Then what happens when there are two people waiting; a rich guy and a poor guy. Two people die today -- you and someone else. The other dead guy donated his heart, the rich guy gets it. You didn't donate your heart, the poor guy doesn't get one.
Sounds like the best way to make a bad situation even worse, to me. And you'll be dead when it happens, so why do you care?
I'm not on timeline and I just edited my settings to not show the @facebook email address.
Point 1: I didn't sign up for a facebook email address. Did you?
Point 2: Facebook didn't bother telling me that they had created one for me that I needed to worry about. Did they tell you?
Point 3: THEY WON'T LET ME DELETE IT.
Point 4: The don't tell you how to delete it. They list both your initial address and the ficticious @facebook one with a checkbox next to each, and a link for "remove" hanging out in space. I checked the box next to the facebook address and clicked remove. It kept the address but drew a line through it. I tried to save that change and was told that I had to select a default address. WTF? If there is only ONE address, that's the default, you morons.
Point 5: Not showing it to your friends is not the same as deleting it, or it not existing. What it means is that they can spam that address, and other can spam that address. It's a simple number. How long before the 1.. 99999999@ spambots start up?
and then you can set your car stereo to compress the signal (nearly all stereos made after about 1995 will have a loudness option).
The "loudness" control on all the stereos I have has nothing to do with compression, it deals with changing the eq so that the volume of each frequency band is increased proportionately to the human ear's interpretation of "loud". I don't recall the specifics, but it has to do with low frequencies either being emphasized or deemphasized as the "loudness" goes up.
One of them has both a volume and loudness control. You change the loudness when you want to make the sound louder and properly reproduced and don't touch the volume. It manages the volume and bass and treble settings all in one knob. Of course, that one was designed by a professional audio engineer and not intended for use by Joe "Turn it up to 11" Sixpack.
That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.
Congratulations, you are one of the evolutionists who understands that. Many don't, as demonstrated by the next reply below yours.
Scientists, qua scientists, have no interest in "disproving a belief in a creator that created the life originally". (Certain scientists have such an interest, but that's orthogonal to actual science.)
Exactly. "There is no God" saith the scientist, donning his theological robes... Science has no perspective on God, much less thinking they've proven He doesn't exist.
Science doesn't generally prove anything in the absolute sense that "prove" is sometimes used, it disproves models, and in doing so produces ever-better models.
Which is exactly what I say, and why I object to scientists saying they've proven some past event happened the way they say it did. So we agree.
No, they're called assumptions because we haven't gone and verified them.
As I've already pointed out, there are assumption in the scientific context and assumptions in common usage context. The example of someone not looking in the right place for a bug despite telling you that they've looked everywhere is a common usage assumption. That no two parallel lines ever intersect is a scientific assumption, as is the assumption that the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is constant through all time.
I think you are wrong. I do it every day. It's my job. I'm good at my job.
When trying to find an explanation, no serious scientist invokes god.
That's right. That is not the same as saying that God could not possibly be involved. A scientist will come up with theories about how it might have happened. He will not try to claim that the methods involved disprove God, or that God could not have used those methods. A scientist will neither claim God did it NOR that God didn't do it. Once he does either, he's in the realm of religion, and that's not his job.
For examply, plate tectonics. The earth is covered with plates that are moving. We've observed the movement. We see the seams at the bottom of the ocean, and the subduction zones where subaqueous plates push under the subarial ones. That's science. Were I to say that this data disproves the existance of God, I'd be breaching into religion.
The scientific perspective is indeed that no, there is no god.
You still do not understand the difference between science and religion, and that saying "there is no God" is a religious, not scientific, proclamation. Science neither proves nor disproves God. It cannot do either one. If it sees its failure to prove as a proof of non-existance, then it isn't science.
The true scientific perspective on God is "look at all this wonderful data that doesn't tell me either way. I can make no affirmative statement regarding the matter."
And nobody can forbid me from drawing my own conclusions about the universe from that, and from the incredible success science has had in making our lifes better.
Calm down. Nobody is trying to forbid you from doing anything. I'm simply telling you that you are wrong when science has (or can have) a "perspective" on the existance of God. Individual scientists are free to have whatever perspective they want, but it won't be based on science. It can't be.
And saying that science is going too far afield when it tries to deal with the issue of God says nothing about science not being good and creating all kinds of things that are beneficial.
Also, it is easy to formulate a hypothesis like "is it true that there is a benevolent god that loves everyone and wont let you down if you believe in him and pray?" and test it against data (well, alas).
You can form whatever hypothesis you want, but the testing part you can't do. You'd have to know the mind of God to know why certain things happen, and that's arrogance.
The question is, should I believe in god?
No, the question was, does science have a "perspective" on God, and is that perspective that God does not exist. From a personal standpoint, I think it would be nice if you believed, but I am not tasked with forcing you to believe, only presenting the idea and letting you decide for yourself. You are free to make your own choice.
Is he/she/it necessary as a concept? Observation suggests it isn't,
Well, if you operate from the assumption that God doesn't exist and didn't create everything, then yes, your observations would lead you to believe that God isn't necessary. There's a name for that kind of logic.
We are here by ourselves, and we better care well for each other, because nobody else will. I can also tell you that living without religion is possible and quite enjoyable.
Yes. For 100 years or so. After that, pretty much nothing enjoyable happens.
I still haven't figured out why people believe. What's the point?
Belief in something greater than oneself can be sufficient reason. Seeing how it changes other people, and oneself, is another. Trying to have an answer to "why", which science cannot come close to answering, yet another. Even the
The scientific use of assumptions is based on the idea that there are things you cannot test and have to assume are true. Common language has "assumptions" that are much more general in nature. I "assume" you'll reply to this; I don't care enough to test it, nor is it important to test. I don't base any actions upon that assumption. On the other hand, we assume that the rate of decay of radioisotopes has been constant over the last few billion years because we cannot test it and have no current reason to believe it has changed, and we do base significant "facts" on that assumption. We can't test that assumption. That's the kind of assumption I'm talking about.
The scientific perspective truly is that there was no god involved in creation.
That is ridiculously untrue. Science is science, not religion. Science has no perspective on God because God is outside the scope of any science. Any scientist who starts dealing with God is stepping out of science firmly into religion.
You can explain everything plausibly without a God figure,
Which is not "there is no God". It may be "this is a plausible explanation", but it certainly isn't "this is the only way it could have happened".
and in fact it makes a lot more sense.
Which is pure opinion. Some might say that you are being arrogant by claiming that you can understand the mind of God and thus know what makes "more sense" for him to do. If you need a demonstration of the vagaries of what makes sense to humans, remember that a camel is a horse designed by committee (i.e., more than one human.) And look at the color that your neighbor painted his house! What moron would paint a house blue when the next door house is red?
What makes sense to a human isn't necessarily good, even. Remember James Kim who thought it made sense to drive through the mountains during winter using small logging roads and proceeding into deeper and deeper snow until he got his car stuck, and then it made sense for him to try to walk out of the mountains for help, leaving his wife and child alone in the snowbound car. His family was found alive. He wasn't. His actions did nothing to save his family, and cost them a father. He wasn't a stupid person. He did what made sense to him.
That's why many feel that it has been proven that God does not exist.
And that's why many of us think you are arrogant and well outside the scope of your chosen profession when making such a claim. I'm sorry, but "we don't understand why a God would do it that way" isn't proof there is no God. Nor is "we can explain it without God" proof of anything other than your creative imagination.
At least not in the way believers think of their gods.
I've see so many wrong and simply ignorant words put in the mouths of "believers" by people who have no clue and no desire to understand what those believers really think to accept any patent statement like yours. You don't really know what "believers" think, so saying that you've proven there is no God because you don't understand why he'd do what his believers think he'd do is just... well, presumptive to be kind.
Science and religion aren't orthoganal concepts, nor are they mutually exclusive. When Science steps into Religion, they are applying the wrong processes, just as when religion steps into science. Science saying "there is no God" is just as wrongheaded as a priest saying "there is no Higgs boson".
Evolution is a process that can exist with or without creationism or abiogenesis. Of course, nobody cares about this distinction, but I believe that is the distinction that GP is trying to make.
Lots of people care about this distinction and dual meaning to the common term "evolution". They've just mostly given up trying to educate those who view evolution as one concept, because anyone who dares to question the unproven "how life began" part of evolution as unprovable is shouted down by those who wave about the fossil record as proof -- of the "change over time" meaning of evolution.
Yes, your fossils may show change over time that you call "evolution". They do nothing to prove that life evolved from a primordial soup of random chemicals, which is what you'd need to disprove a belief in a creator that created the life originally.
I have no problem believing that species change over time, and that this was part of the original design of the system. I have lots of problems with scientists who claim to have proof of how life began. How it might have begun, no problem. "This is a fact"? Right.
And if the sun came up in the west, people on the west coast would have some marvelous sunrises.
I.e., it's not a testable assumption. It's not even a testable belief. It's called "faith" for a reason. I'd also point out that assumptions are called assumptions because they are not testable.
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang" or whatever other theory you may have for it, or that life began by millions of years of random chemical reactions in a primordial soup.
I don't know if it was deliberate, but the lumping of the concept of evolution as "changes over time" and evolution as "how life began" has caused more wasted time as people debate two vastly different things.
Russia is not the only antagonist ever realized by Europe: Hitler abandoned plans to invade Switzerland years before nuclear weapons were even invented.
How did arming Swiss people stop Hitler from staring a nuclear conflagration if Hitler had no nukes?
The statement was that arming the Swiss people was how they defended themselves, and cpu6502 started by talking in a nuclear holocaust context. I was pretty clear in saying that arming them could be a reason that conventional forces from their neighbors (e.g., Hitler and Germany) hadn't overrun them. Read all the way to the end of what you reply to, please.
Apparently arming the shit out of your populace (with automatic rifles) is a far greater deterrent to being attacked than stockpiling nuclear weapons.
That's an interesting correlation, but the real reason is that they are smack in the middle of a continent that is connected to the main likely source of nukes (Russia), and I believe that the prevailing weather systems go that way, too. If Russia nuked Switzerland, it would be about a week (or less) before the cloud reached Moskva, and even less before the rest of the neighbors were overrunning Russia in retaliation.
And, of course, if someone else nuked the clock makers, Russia would have a vested interest in stopping it pronto because of its proximity.
Here in the US, the likely nuke tossers are far away and in less danger of nuking themselves at the same time. Some of them are actually fundamentalist radicals who would choose to lob a nuke if they had one just because it's US here and they want the 72 raisins. Or virgins. I mean, just look at Achmed. He's scary (but not as scary as Walter).
Now, that's not to say that arming the civilians en-masse isn't a good thing, but it's not why Switzerland hasn't been nuked. It may be why they haven't been overrun by conventional forces of their neighbors, though.
Call of Duty, though, can have different stories to tell in the campaign, can have different mechanics for weapons, different maps, multiplayer options, squad sizes. There's plenty of scope for the games to be sufficiently different.
I don't see why we need DNS any more. Who types URLs in these days?
I do. Some "URLSs" are faster than going through a search site. Some I go to aren't in search sites. Some have no reasonable set of keywords to use to search on.
And DNS serves more than just the web, doof. You wanna have to memorize the IP address of your momma when you want to send her an email?
Slashdot Mirror
If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
Don't you know that, indeed, some "corporate decisions" change when a new CEO comes on board? They don't "go", but the CEO gets to make many decisions as part of his job. If one of those decisions is what to spend corporate money on, then maybe that decision will change when the current CEO leaves. That means I am correct, because the decision did "go" when the CEO left. Some decisions are in the hands of the stockholders who actually own the company. They can change, too, if the stockholders change.
The fact is, very simply, that the people who own a corporation have rights. They do not lose those rights when they form a corporation. Period. That's what SCOTUS said. They didn't give anything to anyone, since the right to free speech is supposed to be an inalianable right -- part of being alive. They stopped another court from trying to take those rights away.
Why is it bad when the government tries to take our rights away, but then good when they try to take our rights away? The answer is that "our" rights are "our" rights, but the right to spend lots of money on political speech is affordable only to the rich, and those awful rich people don't deserve rights.
If they then decide to do it anyway,
Which would come from, perhaps, someone trying to undermine your parental authority. "Here's how you can do it safely, and there really are no moral principles involved. Everyone else is doing it. It's just sex. No, oral sex really isn't sex anyway. Nobody cares if you aren't emotionally ready for that activity, and it won't really mess you up in the future. No, of course, no boy would ever post naked photos of you with his schlong in your mouth on the internet. And no boy would ever start rumors about you being a slut after you break up with Mr. Right."
Point stands, you want the authority and it isn't a good thing when a school or anyone else tries to undermine it.
What message do you send to your children if you tell them "no" on some activity and then turn around and say "yes"? Which is it? You don't know, or you can't make up your mind. That's the message. You might as well just start with "do it in my house where I can supervise" and be consistent.
As for teaching both absintence and condoms, same thing. You are aware that abstinence, when used properly, is 100% effective, and condoms, when used properly, are not?
The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.
The rest of the sentence is a qualification on specifically what they oppose. If a program being used doesn't have the purpose they list, then it is not what they oppose. It's really pretty simple. Read all the words, you might catch all the meaning.
Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication.
You truly do have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS, not that it was a direct quote. I didn't claim I was making a direct quote as you did when you ignored the qualifying clauses that followed what you quoted.
I've tried enough, your confirmation bias wins.
You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
The vast majority of people can't grow it in their backyard. Many people don't have a backyard. Many people who have a backyard have next door neighbors who know how to climb a fence. Many people couldn't grow weeds if you gave them a backyard already filled with them. Many people would rather buy instead of doing it themselves just to save their own time.
Me? If I did it, I'd see the lawn maintenance guys more often, I'm sure, but not a lot of my own product.
There are already people who know they can make money off of it, and know that people won't just grow it themselves. They run something called "medical pot dispensaries". That pretty much shoots the idea that if someone knew they could make money it would be legal.
As for "markup", just how much do you think it costs to make a $6 pack of cigarettes?
Since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps giving corporations similar rights as people,
The Supreme Court didn't give anyone anything. They simply ruled that the people that make up a corporation still have the rights that they were born with, especially for a corporation that was formed for the express purpose of exercising one of those rights.
You could commit address fraud of course.
Exactly what is "address fraud"? My mailing address is anywhere that postal mail can be delivered for me. That includes the PO box store in the next state over, if I so choose.
Similarly, my bank account can be in any bank I so choose, even one in a different state. I currently have accounts in a credit union in a state I haven't lived in for thirty years. Is that "bank fraud"?
As a parent, I don't want complete unquestioned authority over my kids' thoughts.
There's more to parental authority than just over what your kids think. In fact, I'd say that control of what they think is about the least important part of parental authority, since it is almost impossible to control it anyway. Do your homework, go to bed, be home by 10PM, tell me where you are going with your friends and bring them over to the house so I can meet them. If you use the car, you put gas in it. Mow the lawn today. No, you may NOT take the car tonight. I don't care what you think, you aren't going to a sleepover at your girlfriend's house. Those are parental authority, too.
To channel my dad, it's my house and my rules.
So you do understand what parental authority involves and do want to keep it for yourself. Tell me again why you think it would be good for the schools to use methods of teaching for the purpose of undermining that authority? Not just might do so, but with the purpose of doing so.
And if I'm not able to satisfactorily explain and defend those opinions, maybe I need to reconsider them.
If you see the instruction to "be home by 10PM", or "no, you may not borrow the car tonight", as an opinion, then you truly have abandoned parental authority already, and there is no need for the schools to undermine it.
If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".
You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so. The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
Why did you stop reading in the middle of the sentence? You're deliberately ignoring a large part of the entire statement. A part that contains significant meaning, I would add. In other words, your claim that it is a "direct quote" is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" ...
Now you are deliberately misquoting the platform because it does not talk about "the potential to", it says quite clearly "have the purpose of". Do you not understand the difference?.
You're not the only one doing it, but you're being rather blatant. You're doing what is typically done to Republican statements. If a Republican says "I oppose giving children balanced lunches that have mold growing on them", you'd claim that Republicans oppose giving children any kind of balanced lunch. In this case, the opposition is to the purpose and intent of the education and not the education itself.
Read all the words. They are there for a reason.
To a hard-working academic, the last paragraph is deeply offensive, and serves no purpose in this debate other than provoking angry reactions.
As a hard-working academic, I recognize the people to whom he refers, and know that it is an accurate statement for a large and growing segment of academia. That they might be offended is fine, and I'm not because I know he's not talking about me. There is no constitutional right against being offended.
I've seen too many people get fired for not having the politically correct attitude of the day to not realize that if I don't agree with the majority I just keep my mouth shut, or speak anonymously.
I mean, when a campus newspaper columnist gets fired for daring to write about a campus issue and isn't solidly in the culturally sensitive and correct language, there's something wrong. Campuses, the bastion of free expression and discussion, and a newspaper columnist whose job is to talk about things the administration doesn't want to.
Except that you seem to seem to think that just because one stupid wave of "progressives" was wrong, no progressive approach is possible and teaching has to revert to the 19th century model of cramming bookfuls of facts mindlessly for the greater good of all.
He didn't say that.
You still haven't pointed out how having critical thinking skills is wrong for a student.
He didn't say it was, and neither does the Republican platform. You left out part of the plank, but that's probably because it was a complicated sentence and not because you have a confirmation bias against all things Republicans say. There were lots of commas and parenthetical inclusions that make it hard to realize the last part of the sentence connects to the front.
The rest of that plank says "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." The focus on behaviour modification and not education is part of the problem, and the part about having the explicit purpose of undermining parental authority is the second part.
The problem is the goal of the methods used, and the plank opposes the purpose and focus of the methods, not critical thinking in and of itself.
Parental authority isn't parental infallability or parental intelligence, it's the authority of the parents in raising and making decisions for their children. Schools should not be trying to undermine that, they should be promoting it. A large part of the education problem in this country is that parents do not exercise enough authority, or even interest in what their children do.
I suspect that if this opposition was to home schooling by religious parents, it would be put in terms of "child abuse" to mould their minds into the correct way of thinking. When schools use modern methods to do the same kind of thing it's ok. How about the schools teach the students and let the students use that information and critical thinking skills to challenge themselves? If we don't trust them to do that, how will we ever trust them to become the next generation of leaders?
Let's put it this way, if my organs aren't prioritized towards people who they'll help the most I'm opting out.
Thus further reducing the supply and limiting the number of people who can get a transplant.
You're saying that if you think a rich guy can buy priority, you'll not donate. First, what if you're wrong? Nobody gets your heart, nobody is saved.
Then what happens when there are two people waiting; a rich guy and a poor guy. Two people die today -- you and someone else. The other dead guy donated his heart, the rich guy gets it. You didn't donate your heart, the poor guy doesn't get one.
Sounds like the best way to make a bad situation even worse, to me. And you'll be dead when it happens, so why do you care?
What about reverse-911 type emergency alert systems (e.g. auto-text messages sent to students during recent campus shootings)?
If only you could block those today. "Do not call" doesn't mean anything to them.
I'm not on timeline and I just edited my settings to not show the @facebook email address.
Point 1: I didn't sign up for a facebook email address. Did you?
Point 2: Facebook didn't bother telling me that they had created one for me that I needed to worry about. Did they tell you?
Point 3: THEY WON'T LET ME DELETE IT.
Point 4: The don't tell you how to delete it. They list both your initial address and the ficticious @facebook one with a checkbox next to each, and a link for "remove" hanging out in space. I checked the box next to the facebook address and clicked remove. It kept the address but drew a line through it. I tried to save that change and was told that I had to select a default address. WTF? If there is only ONE address, that's the default, you morons.
Point 5: Not showing it to your friends is not the same as deleting it, or it not existing. What it means is that they can spam that address, and other can spam that address. It's a simple number. How long before the 1 .. 99999999@ spambots start up?
and then you can set your car stereo to compress the signal (nearly all stereos made after about 1995 will have a loudness option).
The "loudness" control on all the stereos I have has nothing to do with compression, it deals with changing the eq so that the volume of each frequency band is increased proportionately to the human ear's interpretation of "loud". I don't recall the specifics, but it has to do with low frequencies either being emphasized or deemphasized as the "loudness" goes up.
One of them has both a volume and loudness control. You change the loudness when you want to make the sound louder and properly reproduced and don't touch the volume. It manages the volume and bass and treble settings all in one knob. Of course, that one was designed by a professional audio engineer and not intended for use by Joe "Turn it up to 11" Sixpack.
That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.
Congratulations, you are one of the evolutionists who understands that. Many don't, as demonstrated by the next reply below yours.
Scientists, qua scientists, have no interest in "disproving a belief in a creator that created the life originally". (Certain scientists have such an interest, but that's orthogonal to actual science.)
Exactly. "There is no God" saith the scientist, donning his theological robes... Science has no perspective on God, much less thinking they've proven He doesn't exist.
Science doesn't generally prove anything in the absolute sense that "prove" is sometimes used, it disproves models, and in doing so produces ever-better models.
Which is exactly what I say, and why I object to scientists saying they've proven some past event happened the way they say it did. So we agree.
No, they're called assumptions because we haven't gone and verified them.
As I've already pointed out, there are assumption in the scientific context and assumptions in common usage context. The example of someone not looking in the right place for a bug despite telling you that they've looked everywhere is a common usage assumption. That no two parallel lines ever intersect is a scientific assumption, as is the assumption that the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is constant through all time.
Context is important.
I think you do not know much about science.
I think you are wrong. I do it every day. It's my job. I'm good at my job.
When trying to find an explanation, no serious scientist invokes god.
That's right. That is not the same as saying that God could not possibly be involved. A scientist will come up with theories about how it might have happened. He will not try to claim that the methods involved disprove God, or that God could not have used those methods. A scientist will neither claim God did it NOR that God didn't do it. Once he does either, he's in the realm of religion, and that's not his job.
For examply, plate tectonics. The earth is covered with plates that are moving. We've observed the movement. We see the seams at the bottom of the ocean, and the subduction zones where subaqueous plates push under the subarial ones. That's science. Were I to say that this data disproves the existance of God, I'd be breaching into religion.
The scientific perspective is indeed that no, there is no god.
You still do not understand the difference between science and religion, and that saying "there is no God" is a religious, not scientific, proclamation. Science neither proves nor disproves God. It cannot do either one. If it sees its failure to prove as a proof of non-existance, then it isn't science.
The true scientific perspective on God is "look at all this wonderful data that doesn't tell me either way. I can make no affirmative statement regarding the matter."
And nobody can forbid me from drawing my own conclusions about the universe from that, and from the incredible success science has had in making our lifes better.
Calm down. Nobody is trying to forbid you from doing anything. I'm simply telling you that you are wrong when science has (or can have) a "perspective" on the existance of God. Individual scientists are free to have whatever perspective they want, but it won't be based on science. It can't be.
And saying that science is going too far afield when it tries to deal with the issue of God says nothing about science not being good and creating all kinds of things that are beneficial.
Also, it is easy to formulate a hypothesis like "is it true that there is a benevolent god that loves everyone and wont let you down if you believe in him and pray?" and test it against data (well, alas).
You can form whatever hypothesis you want, but the testing part you can't do. You'd have to know the mind of God to know why certain things happen, and that's arrogance.
The question is, should I believe in god?
No, the question was, does science have a "perspective" on God, and is that perspective that God does not exist. From a personal standpoint, I think it would be nice if you believed, but I am not tasked with forcing you to believe, only presenting the idea and letting you decide for yourself. You are free to make your own choice.
Is he/she/it necessary as a concept? Observation suggests it isn't,
Well, if you operate from the assumption that God doesn't exist and didn't create everything, then yes, your observations would lead you to believe that God isn't necessary. There's a name for that kind of logic.
We are here by ourselves, and we better care well for each other, because nobody else will. I can also tell you that living without religion is possible and quite enjoyable.
Yes. For 100 years or so. After that, pretty much nothing enjoyable happens.
I still haven't figured out why people believe. What's the point?
Belief in something greater than oneself can be sufficient reason. Seeing how it changes other people, and oneself, is another. Trying to have an answer to "why", which science cannot come close to answering, yet another. Even the
The scientific perspective truly is that there was no god involved in creation.
That is ridiculously untrue. Science is science, not religion. Science has no perspective on God because God is outside the scope of any science. Any scientist who starts dealing with God is stepping out of science firmly into religion.
You can explain everything plausibly without a God figure,
Which is not "there is no God". It may be "this is a plausible explanation", but it certainly isn't "this is the only way it could have happened".
and in fact it makes a lot more sense.
Which is pure opinion. Some might say that you are being arrogant by claiming that you can understand the mind of God and thus know what makes "more sense" for him to do. If you need a demonstration of the vagaries of what makes sense to humans, remember that a camel is a horse designed by committee (i.e., more than one human.) And look at the color that your neighbor painted his house! What moron would paint a house blue when the next door house is red?
What makes sense to a human isn't necessarily good, even. Remember James Kim who thought it made sense to drive through the mountains during winter using small logging roads and proceeding into deeper and deeper snow until he got his car stuck, and then it made sense for him to try to walk out of the mountains for help, leaving his wife and child alone in the snowbound car. His family was found alive. He wasn't. His actions did nothing to save his family, and cost them a father. He wasn't a stupid person. He did what made sense to him.
That's why many feel that it has been proven that God does not exist.
And that's why many of us think you are arrogant and well outside the scope of your chosen profession when making such a claim. I'm sorry, but "we don't understand why a God would do it that way" isn't proof there is no God. Nor is "we can explain it without God" proof of anything other than your creative imagination.
At least not in the way believers think of their gods.
I've see so many wrong and simply ignorant words put in the mouths of "believers" by people who have no clue and no desire to understand what those believers really think to accept any patent statement like yours. You don't really know what "believers" think, so saying that you've proven there is no God because you don't understand why he'd do what his believers think he'd do is just ... well, presumptive to be kind.
Science and religion aren't orthoganal concepts, nor are they mutually exclusive. When Science steps into Religion, they are applying the wrong processes, just as when religion steps into science. Science saying "there is no God" is just as wrongheaded as a priest saying "there is no Higgs boson".
Evolution is a process that can exist with or without creationism or abiogenesis. Of course, nobody cares about this distinction, but I believe that is the distinction that GP is trying to make.
Lots of people care about this distinction and dual meaning to the common term "evolution". They've just mostly given up trying to educate those who view evolution as one concept, because anyone who dares to question the unproven "how life began" part of evolution as unprovable is shouted down by those who wave about the fossil record as proof -- of the "change over time" meaning of evolution.
Yes, your fossils may show change over time that you call "evolution". They do nothing to prove that life evolved from a primordial soup of random chemicals, which is what you'd need to disprove a belief in a creator that created the life originally.
I have no problem believing that species change over time, and that this was part of the original design of the system. I have lots of problems with scientists who claim to have proof of how life began. How it might have begun, no problem. "This is a fact"? Right.
If it's a testable assumption, yes they can.
And if the sun came up in the west, people on the west coast would have some marvelous sunrises.
I.e., it's not a testable assumption. It's not even a testable belief. It's called "faith" for a reason. I'd also point out that assumptions are called assumptions because they are not testable.
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang" or whatever other theory you may have for it, or that life began by millions of years of random chemical reactions in a primordial soup.
I don't know if it was deliberate, but the lumping of the concept of evolution as "changes over time" and evolution as "how life began" has caused more wasted time as people debate two vastly different things.
Animals only need to evolve when their environments change.
The disproving the nonsense of some "global climate change". They haven't changed, thus there must not be a need.
Russia is not the only antagonist ever realized by Europe: Hitler abandoned plans to invade Switzerland years before nuclear weapons were even invented.
How did arming Swiss people stop Hitler from staring a nuclear conflagration if Hitler had no nukes?
The statement was that arming the Swiss people was how they defended themselves, and cpu6502 started by talking in a nuclear holocaust context. I was pretty clear in saying that arming them could be a reason that conventional forces from their neighbors (e.g., Hitler and Germany) hadn't overrun them. Read all the way to the end of what you reply to, please.
Apparently arming the shit out of your populace (with automatic rifles) is a far greater deterrent to being attacked than stockpiling nuclear weapons.
That's an interesting correlation, but the real reason is that they are smack in the middle of a continent that is connected to the main likely source of nukes (Russia), and I believe that the prevailing weather systems go that way, too. If Russia nuked Switzerland, it would be about a week (or less) before the cloud reached Moskva, and even less before the rest of the neighbors were overrunning Russia in retaliation.
And, of course, if someone else nuked the clock makers, Russia would have a vested interest in stopping it pronto because of its proximity.
Here in the US, the likely nuke tossers are far away and in less danger of nuking themselves at the same time. Some of them are actually fundamentalist radicals who would choose to lob a nuke if they had one just because it's US here and they want the 72 raisins. Or virgins. I mean, just look at Achmed. He's scary (but not as scary as Walter).
Now, that's not to say that arming the civilians en-masse isn't a good thing, but it's not why Switzerland hasn't been nuked. It may be why they haven't been overrun by conventional forces of their neighbors, though.
Call of Duty, though, can have different stories to tell in the campaign, can have different mechanics for weapons, different maps, multiplayer options, squad sizes. There's plenty of scope for the games to be sufficiently different.
Call of Duty VII: Kill the Lawyers
I don't see why we need DNS any more. Who types URLs in these days?
I do. Some "URLSs" are faster than going through a search site. Some I go to aren't in search sites. Some have no reasonable set of keywords to use to search on.
And DNS serves more than just the web, doof. You wanna have to memorize the IP address of your momma when you want to send her an email?