The adult citizens should be intelligent enough to realize the rumors are just lies, and develop skepticism about the things they read.
After a while one would think that people would stop watching fictionalized reports, but Fox News and talk radio proves that there will always be a market for yellow journalism no matter how discredited they may become.
Actually, Fox News' success was a result of intelligent people being fed up with the distortion coming from the left-wing news sources. It does seem that Fox News has gone way overboard, and in response some new left-wing networks (MSNBC) have gone way overboard too. But we conservatives have put up with decades of left-wing bias and distortion from the major networks, PBS and most large newspapers.
They all have bias - some more than others - but I don't see how you can say Fox News is "discredited". They haven't been lying. They tell the truth but like the other networks they pick and choose which truths to tell, and which guests to interview, and what questions to ask.
I'm sure you think I'm just regurgitating what some talk-show host has told me. Far from it. I started noticing the bias decades ago and at first thought I was the only one who saw it. The very first time I noticed it was during the Bork hearings. I was just a kid. I didn't know much about the Bork. I had no idea about originalism or judicial activism. I didn't know whether I supported him or not. I didn't think of myself as a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal. But when I saw one of the big three networks send a film crew to Bork's neighborhood and ominously tell us about how he was a loner that the neighbors rarely saw who had high hedges in front of his house... what the heck does that have to do with whether he can be a good judge? Perhaps, being at the highest levels of his profession, he works his butt off and that's why he never sees the neighbors! Over the years I began to see the bias more and more, and eventually I realized it was nearly always favoring the liberal Democrats. And it continues to this day.
They are blocking free speech by users. Surely there must be some "twinge" in their brains that says, "This is wrong to take down people's posts."
A normal person with a normal conscience would probably think that, but how far do you think you can go in the Chinese government if you have a normal conscience. The system selects for people who are willing to violate rights and lie convincingly about it - even far more so than the typical democratic system.
I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?
You consistently tell the people the truth so that people believe you when you deny that the rumors are true. On the other hand if you develop a reputation for saying that legitimate protests are all being caused by hooligans and foreigners, then the people won't believe you when you try to stop rumors.
You can get away with lying about some things. Few Chinese people go to Taiwan or the South China Sea so it is easy to lie about sovereignty claims over those. But plenty of Chinese people have legitimate complaints about government corruption and authoritarianism. When you try to dismiss many of those complaints as groundless and the result of troublemakers then people can see with their own eyes that you can't be trusted.
They fronted the expense for the lawsuit and fought it... for 5 years. They managed to catch the company doing something really, really wrong, fought them in court, and won, forcing the company to change their ways. What isn't justified about paying them for that 5 years of work?
The problem is that the lawyers negotiated both for their own pay and for the final payout. Could they settled 3 years earlier, got 5 times as much money for each of the victims, with the company paying less overall (saving money in payments to their own lawyers and to the class action lawyers)?
But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims. In a normal lawsuit, the plaintiff can accept the settlement over the objections of the lawyer. The plaintiff is, after all, the person who initiates the action and has the power to end it. In a class action lawsuit the plaintiffs don't have any control.
I'm not saying class action lawsuits are completely bad - most people wouldn't bother to sue at all - but the current system provides very little benefit to the victims. It is primarily a jobs program for lawyers.
They fronted the expense for the lawsuit and fought it... for 5 years. They managed to catch the company doing something really, really wrong, fought them in court, and won, forcing the company to change their ways. What isn't justified about paying them for that 5 years of work?
The problem is that the lawyers negotiated both for their own pay and for the final payout. Could they settled 3 years earlier, got 5 times as much money for each of the victims, with the company paying less overall (saving money in payments to their own lawyers and to the class action lawyers)?
But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims. In a normal lawsuit, the plaintiff can accept the settlement over the objections of the lawyer. The plaintiff is, after all, the person who initiates the action and has the power to end it. In a class action lawsuit the plaintiffs don't have any control.
I'm not saying class action lawsuits are completely bad - most people wouldn't bother to sue at all - but the current system provides very little benefit to the victims. It is primarily a jobs program for lawyers.
I don't think I claimed that Republicans are actually governing from such a philosophy. Clearly during the Bush era they weren't. In 2006 conservatives sat on the sidelines and let the Republicans get the electoral thrashing they deserved. In 2010 a newer group of Republicans came in. Maybe the survivors of 2006 have learned their lesson and maybe these new guys will be different, but I doubt it. I suspect that before long we'll be seeing Democrat-Lite again from the Republicans.
Republicans claim to be opposed to the government taking away even more freedom. The Democrats are in favor of government playing an even bigger role in people's lives. OF COURSE honest Republicans are going to oppose everything the Democrats propose and vice-verse. They have radically different views of what the country should be like. The only reason most laws that pass get through is that the Democrat's vision is compatible with giving rich Corporations more power (when government expands so do the benefits of corporate lobbying), and Republicans also take campaign contributions and can therefore be corrupted into passing Democrat's bills.
So then how do I check the product out in person before I buy it (to make sure it is the size I'm expecting, looks the way I expect, etc.)? How do I browse a bunch of similar products quickly (without waiting for page loads and with out having to carefully read specs that are immediately obvious when seen person)?
"Amazon showrooms"? Cuz I check the price in there and immediaitely head to Amazon and get it lower with Prime shipping.
So how can the big box stores survive? Perhaps by catering to people like me.
I find something at a store, and I almost always buy it there. Why?
1. Time is money. The time I would spend writing down the information I need to make the purchase at home, then finding it on the web, making sure it's the same product, entering my information to make the order, etc. It just takes too long and the price difference usually isn't enough to make it worth while. Plus, if I get home and the item isn't available online, I have to spend nearly an hour to go back to the store and buy it.
2. When I want to buy something I want it today, not a week from day.
3. If the item I buy is broken or not quite what I expected, I can return it to the store while I'm out shopping. I don't have to pay shipping and handling for this service or worry about repacking the item. And I get immediate confirmation that the item has been received and my refund has been granted.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
The government running a huge fraction of the economy is a very leftist idea. The fact that Dole had such a plan at all shows that both parties are pretty far to the left.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
Back in the 90s we were just coming out of an era where the big 3 (ABC, NBC, CBS) dominated the news. They were thoroughly liberal and had been for a very long time. ( I was recently watching an NBC news documentary about the 1930s that was made in 1959. It was heavily biased and really more of a commercial for Roosevelt style big government than a documentary). It was politically difficult to for any politician to be anything but a liberal during those years because people didn't have any other sources of information. Even that hero Ronald Reagan wasn't able to cut domestic government spending.
What you consider "radical" Republican is really economically pretty far to the left of where this country was centered for 160 years. The New Deal and the Warren Court shifted the US so radically to the far left that a centrist approach seems radical to you now. Other than Republican success in ending the worst kinds of racial discrimination, the liberals have controlled almost everything. It hasn't been a question of whether they will make the changes they want, but rather a question of when and how.
After getting burned twice (I know, fool me once...) I stopped looking for computers there.
After the first experience, I went back anyway because I figured I could use the Windows disk to wipe out the crapware and install just the operating system. Little did I realize the latest trick was to say "Windows installed" rather than "comes with Windows". Re-installing Windows from scratch wasn't an option. Instead I could reapply the original image - including all the crapware.
How about letting me return software?
I used to browse the software they had and occasionally pick up a game. After my first experience where I tried to return a game and they wouldn't take it back - that was the end of that.
How about not selling a computer full of crapware?
After getting burned twice (I know, fool me once...) I stopped looking for computers there.
How about selling competitively priced wiring?
Microcenter is further away for me, but worth the drive in my opinion.
On the other hand, the USA seems to suggest that it IS possible for people of different ethnicities and religions to get along well enough to prosper....
A key strength of America is that rather than believing that all religions are equal, we believe that religion cannot be compelled (and by extension that a compelled religion is invalid).
Thus we don't ask people to give up their religion (by making them pretend that other religions are equal - if you believe all religions are equal than you don't really believe in your own). We respect religious beliefs even when (or especially when) those believers say they have the one and only Truth. In doing so we truly respect the religion rather than paying lip service or condescendingly humoring the believers.
On the other hand, we don't compel people to adopt a religion (we believe conversion by sword would just result in fake conversions) nor do we allow compulsion.
its become a really bad joke of a system where you have Moderate conservatives vs the democrats (the coalition of the batshit crazy religious zealots and ultra rich who love tax breaks for themselves and the cash that they can rake in from government contracts).
If we wanted the leader best able to run a country, we wouldn't have a Republic. First, a leader is best able to run a country when he has dictatorial powers. Second, there have been plenty of leaders throughout history who were able to run a country well, but whose motivations in running their country left much to be desired. Stalin was brilliant. Mao was brilliant. Napoleon was brilliant. He who must not be named for fear of invoking a law that must not be named was an amazing leader who brought his country back from economic ruin while other industrialized countries experience depression.
Anyway, anyone capable of getting themselves nominated has demonstrated they have exceptional abilities. They had to build enough of a resume that when they threw their hat in the ring they were taken seriously (becoming governor or senator isn't an easy thing). They have to convince wealthy people (who are generally smart enough to recognize talent and ability - that's part of what it takes to become wealthy) to pay for their campaign. They have to build a campaign organization, hire the right people, keep people motivated, manage their relationship with campaign staff, campaign volunteers, the press... all the while working long days without breaks and pretending to energetic and happy all the time.
By the time the people at large get involved, the question of ability has largely been answered. The people decide whose vision of the future they prefer (do we want freedom with less economic security - or do we want economic security with less freedom?) whether they trust the guy to carry out the vision he promises (should we elect Washington or Napoleon? - both are proven leaders).
The trust thing is where questions the seemingly irrelevant questions come from. If they guy says he wants to limit greenhouse gases but lives in a 200 room home that uses as much electricity as a small city... If the guy says he wants to bring back traditional values but is on his 5th wife...
'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them
Given events of the last 40 years, I think a much bigger danger is that someone would use Facebook's targeting to identify Jews in their area and attack them.
Again, misleading... just imagine if your teacher had used that same tactic when teaching about the holocaust or the earth being round....
Well, after the teacher showed me the films of the camps and the bodies, showed us pictures taken by German soldiers, showed us the testimonials from victims, the testimonials from soldiers who liberated the camps etc. etc. (it would have taken longer because there is just so much evidence for the Holocaust - there is a lot of evidence for evolution but it tiny compared to the evidence for the Holocaust), I think I would have been convinced.
The fact that one of my Uncles saw one of the camps in person would have helped convince me too.
As for the earth being round - learning that a lot of people have gone all the way around, that the shadow of the earth on the moon is round, that the polar regions have midnight suns in summer and 24 hours of darkness in winter, and seeing the pictures taken from space - I think that would have convinced me too.
Of course there isn't a large part of the population that has doubts about the roundness of the moon or that the Holocaust occurred so you don't need to worry about offending people. More importantly you don't need to trample on people's religious freedom by trying to force them to renounce their faith in order to graduate from high school. And if a student were to say to the teacher that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust or the roundness of the earth for religious regions, I would hope that the teacher would find some way to allow the student to get a good grade so long as the student learns and understands the theory and the evidence.
I should have been doing this all along with laptop purchases, but I know that next time I buy a TV or laptop I will ask if it has a built in camera and if so, how do I work the lens cover.
Fascism/corporatocracy is the inevitable result of people demanding that bridles be created for the good of the people. The corporations/government recognize the power of the bridles to control their competitors and then seize the bridles for their own use.
Without bridles, corporations compete for your favor so you'll purchase their products. With the introduction of bridles, the corporations compete for the favor of the senators/congressmen/presidents who control the bridles so that you'll have to purchase their products.
My teacher didn't tell us to ignore anything. We had to learn and understand.
As for what the "truth" is, a good scientist understand that science does not claim to have the truth, it claims to have ideas that fit the available evidence of observations and experimental results. When the evidence changes, the theories often have to change and what was once widely believed becomes thought to be incomplete or just plain wrong.
An philosophical scientist understands that experiments and observations may be misleading as our eyes and ears have limitations and may be just plain being fooled (as in The Matrix).
So while science is a great tool and reveals many useful things to it, you put to much on it to claim it is "the truth".
A better way to offend neither side would be as my eighth grade teacher did. He told us we would be studying the theory of evolution and that we didn't have to agree with it but to be educated people in the modern world we had to know and understand it. So he presented the evidence and the theory. The test questions I remember started with "According to the theory of evolution...".
For those who disagree with the theory, they weren't being forced to lie about their beliefs in order to pass a test and they weren't being offended.
For those who believe the theory of evolution is obviously true based on the evidence and the logic, the evidence and logic were presented so there was no need to add any argument by authority of the teacher (which is anyway a fallacious argument to good scientific circles).
Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity.
Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!
For the specific example of the biology teacher - I don't care whether the biology teacher believes in evolution or not. I want a teacher who can present the evidence and the theory in a clear and interesting way, without getting preachy for either side of the debate.
So you believe that for someone to properly study Islam, they must believe in Islam? For someone to be a student of Greek gods and goddesses, the person must believe in those gods and goddesses?
I think my eighth grade teacher handled the question perfectly. When he introduced the topic he said we didn't have to agree with the theory but that to be educated people in the modern world we had to understand it. If I remember correctly, some (perhaps most) of the test questions started with the phrase, "According to the theory of evolution...".
Assuming that the evidence and the logic speak for themselves, the students will be able to decide for themselves so long as they have the evidence and the theory presented to them, so there is no need to get upset that the teacher isn't trying to force the students to believe in the theory - they can figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
The adult citizens should be intelligent enough to realize the rumors are just lies, and develop skepticism about the things they read.
After a while one would think that people would stop watching fictionalized reports, but Fox News and talk radio proves that there will always be a market for yellow journalism no matter how discredited they may become.
Actually, Fox News' success was a result of intelligent people being fed up with the distortion coming from the left-wing news sources. It does seem that Fox News has gone way overboard, and in response some new left-wing networks (MSNBC) have gone way overboard too. But we conservatives have put up with decades of left-wing bias and distortion from the major networks, PBS and most large newspapers.
They all have bias - some more than others - but I don't see how you can say Fox News is "discredited". They haven't been lying. They tell the truth but like the other networks they pick and choose which truths to tell, and which guests to interview, and what questions to ask.
I'm sure you think I'm just regurgitating what some talk-show host has told me. Far from it. I started noticing the bias decades ago and at first thought I was the only one who saw it. The very first time I noticed it was during the Bork hearings. I was just a kid. I didn't know much about the Bork. I had no idea about originalism or judicial activism. I didn't know whether I supported him or not. I didn't think of myself as a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal. But when I saw one of the big three networks send a film crew to Bork's neighborhood and ominously tell us about how he was a loner that the neighbors rarely saw who had high hedges in front of his house... what the heck does that have to do with whether he can be a good judge? Perhaps, being at the highest levels of his profession, he works his butt off and that's why he never sees the neighbors! Over the years I began to see the bias more and more, and eventually I realized it was nearly always favoring the liberal Democrats. And it continues to this day.
They are blocking free speech by users. Surely there must be some "twinge" in their brains that says, "This is wrong to take down people's posts."
A normal person with a normal conscience would probably think that, but how far do you think you can go in the Chinese government if you have a normal conscience. The system selects for people who are willing to violate rights and lie convincingly about it - even far more so than the typical democratic system.
I'm in two minds, because the rumours highlighted in the summary specifically seem orientated toward creating panic and unrest within a large population - how do you deal with that while maintaining free speech?
You consistently tell the people the truth so that people believe you when you deny that the rumors are true. On the other hand if you develop a reputation for saying that legitimate protests are all being caused by hooligans and foreigners, then the people won't believe you when you try to stop rumors.
You can get away with lying about some things. Few Chinese people go to Taiwan or the South China Sea so it is easy to lie about sovereignty claims over those. But plenty of Chinese people have legitimate complaints about government corruption and authoritarianism. When you try to dismiss many of those complaints as groundless and the result of troublemakers then people can see with their own eyes that you can't be trusted.
Meanwhile in China, students are learning.
...learning the version of history approved by their government.
The problem is that the lawyers negotiated both for their own pay and for the final payout. Could they settled 3 years earlier, got 5 times as much money for each of the victims, with the company paying less overall (saving money in payments to their own lawyers and to the class action lawyers)?
But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims. In a normal lawsuit, the plaintiff can accept the settlement over the objections of the lawyer. The plaintiff is, after all, the person who initiates the action and has the power to end it. In a class action lawsuit the plaintiffs don't have any control.
I'm not saying class action lawsuits are completely bad - most people wouldn't bother to sue at all - but the current system provides very little benefit to the victims. It is primarily a jobs program for lawyers.
Isn't there a French saying to the effect of "No man will check under his wife's bed unless he himself has hidden under a woman's bed."?
I don't think I claimed that Republicans are actually governing from such a philosophy. Clearly during the Bush era they weren't. In 2006 conservatives sat on the sidelines and let the Republicans get the electoral thrashing they deserved. In 2010 a newer group of Republicans came in. Maybe the survivors of 2006 have learned their lesson and maybe these new guys will be different, but I doubt it. I suspect that before long we'll be seeing Democrat-Lite again from the Republicans.
Republicans claim to be opposed to the government taking away even more freedom. The Democrats are in favor of government playing an even bigger role in people's lives. OF COURSE honest Republicans are going to oppose everything the Democrats propose and vice-verse. They have radically different views of what the country should be like. The only reason most laws that pass get through is that the Democrat's vision is compatible with giving rich Corporations more power (when government expands so do the benefits of corporate lobbying), and Republicans also take campaign contributions and can therefore be corrupted into passing Democrat's bills.
So then how do I check the product out in person before I buy it (to make sure it is the size I'm expecting, looks the way I expect, etc.)? How do I browse a bunch of similar products quickly (without waiting for page loads and with out having to carefully read specs that are immediately obvious when seen person)?
"Amazon showrooms"? Cuz I check the price in there and immediaitely head to Amazon and get it lower with Prime shipping.
So how can the big box stores survive? Perhaps by catering to people like me.
I find something at a store, and I almost always buy it there. Why?
1. Time is money. The time I would spend writing down the information I need to make the purchase at home, then finding it on the web, making sure it's the same product, entering my information to make the order, etc. It just takes too long and the price difference usually isn't enough to make it worth while. Plus, if I get home and the item isn't available online, I have to spend nearly an hour to go back to the store and buy it.
2. When I want to buy something I want it today, not a week from day.
3. If the item I buy is broken or not quite what I expected, I can return it to the store while I'm out shopping. I don't have to pay shipping and handling for this service or worry about repacking the item. And I get immediate confirmation that the item has been received and my refund has been granted.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
The government running a huge fraction of the economy is a very leftist idea. The fact that Dole had such a plan at all shows that both parties are pretty far to the left.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
Back in the 90s we were just coming out of an era where the big 3 (ABC, NBC, CBS) dominated the news. They were thoroughly liberal and had been for a very long time. ( I was recently watching an NBC news documentary about the 1930s that was made in 1959. It was heavily biased and really more of a commercial for Roosevelt style big government than a documentary). It was politically difficult to for any politician to be anything but a liberal during those years because people didn't have any other sources of information. Even that hero Ronald Reagan wasn't able to cut domestic government spending.
What you consider "radical" Republican is really economically pretty far to the left of where this country was centered for 160 years. The New Deal and the Warren Court shifted the US so radically to the far left that a centrist approach seems radical to you now. Other than Republican success in ending the worst kinds of racial discrimination, the liberals have controlled almost everything. It hasn't been a question of whether they will make the changes they want, but rather a question of when and how.
After the first experience, I went back anyway because I figured I could use the Windows disk to wipe out the crapware and install just the operating system. Little did I realize the latest trick was to say "Windows installed" rather than "comes with Windows". Re-installing Windows from scratch wasn't an option. Instead I could reapply the original image - including all the crapware.
How about letting me return software?
I used to browse the software they had and occasionally pick up a game. After my first experience where I tried to return a game and they wouldn't take it back - that was the end of that.
How about not selling a computer full of crapware?
After getting burned twice (I know, fool me once...) I stopped looking for computers there.
How about selling competitively priced wiring?
Microcenter is further away for me, but worth the drive in my opinion.
A key strength of America is that rather than believing that all religions are equal, we believe that religion cannot be compelled (and by extension that a compelled religion is invalid).
Thus we don't ask people to give up their religion (by making them pretend that other religions are equal - if you believe all religions are equal than you don't really believe in your own). We respect religious beliefs even when (or especially when) those believers say they have the one and only Truth. In doing so we truly respect the religion rather than paying lip service or condescendingly humoring the believers.
On the other hand, we don't compel people to adopt a religion (we believe conversion by sword would just result in fake conversions) nor do we allow compulsion.
FTFY
If we wanted the leader best able to run a country, we wouldn't have a Republic. First, a leader is best able to run a country when he has dictatorial powers. Second, there have been plenty of leaders throughout history who were able to run a country well, but whose motivations in running their country left much to be desired. Stalin was brilliant. Mao was brilliant. Napoleon was brilliant. He who must not be named for fear of invoking a law that must not be named was an amazing leader who brought his country back from economic ruin while other industrialized countries experience depression.
Anyway, anyone capable of getting themselves nominated has demonstrated they have exceptional abilities. They had to build enough of a resume that when they threw their hat in the ring they were taken seriously (becoming governor or senator isn't an easy thing). They have to convince wealthy people (who are generally smart enough to recognize talent and ability - that's part of what it takes to become wealthy) to pay for their campaign. They have to build a campaign organization, hire the right people, keep people motivated, manage their relationship with campaign staff, campaign volunteers, the press... all the while working long days without breaks and pretending to energetic and happy all the time.
By the time the people at large get involved, the question of ability has largely been answered. The people decide whose vision of the future they prefer (do we want freedom with less economic security - or do we want economic security with less freedom?) whether they trust the guy to carry out the vision he promises (should we elect Washington or Napoleon? - both are proven leaders).
The trust thing is where questions the seemingly irrelevant questions come from. If they guy says he wants to limit greenhouse gases but lives in a 200 room home that uses as much electricity as a small city... If the guy says he wants to bring back traditional values but is on his 5th wife...
Given events of the last 40 years, I think a much bigger danger is that someone would use Facebook's targeting to identify Jews in their area and attack them.
Again, misleading... just imagine if your teacher had used that same tactic when teaching about the holocaust or the earth being round....
Well, after the teacher showed me the films of the camps and the bodies, showed us pictures taken by German soldiers, showed us the testimonials from victims, the testimonials from soldiers who liberated the camps etc. etc. (it would have taken longer because there is just so much evidence for the Holocaust - there is a lot of evidence for evolution but it tiny compared to the evidence for the Holocaust), I think I would have been convinced.
The fact that one of my Uncles saw one of the camps in person would have helped convince me too.
As for the earth being round - learning that a lot of people have gone all the way around, that the shadow of the earth on the moon is round, that the polar regions have midnight suns in summer and 24 hours of darkness in winter, and seeing the pictures taken from space - I think that would have convinced me too.
Of course there isn't a large part of the population that has doubts about the roundness of the moon or that the Holocaust occurred so you don't need to worry about offending people. More importantly you don't need to trample on people's religious freedom by trying to force them to renounce their faith in order to graduate from high school. And if a student were to say to the teacher that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust or the roundness of the earth for religious regions, I would hope that the teacher would find some way to allow the student to get a good grade so long as the student learns and understands the theory and the evidence.
I should have been doing this all along with laptop purchases, but I know that next time I buy a TV or laptop I will ask if it has a built in camera and if so, how do I work the lens cover.
Fascism/corporatocracy is the inevitable result of people demanding that bridles be created for the good of the people. The corporations/government recognize the power of the bridles to control their competitors and then seize the bridles for their own use.
Without bridles, corporations compete for your favor so you'll purchase their products. With the introduction of bridles, the corporations compete for the favor of the senators/congressmen/presidents who control the bridles so that you'll have to purchase their products.
My teacher didn't tell us to ignore anything. We had to learn and understand.
As for what the "truth" is, a good scientist understand that science does not claim to have the truth, it claims to have ideas that fit the available evidence of observations and experimental results. When the evidence changes, the theories often have to change and what was once widely believed becomes thought to be incomplete or just plain wrong.
An philosophical scientist understands that experiments and observations may be misleading as our eyes and ears have limitations and may be just plain being fooled (as in The Matrix).
So while science is a great tool and reveals many useful things to it, you put to much on it to claim it is "the truth".
A better way to offend neither side would be as my eighth grade teacher did. He told us we would be studying the theory of evolution and that we didn't have to agree with it but to be educated people in the modern world we had to know and understand it. So he presented the evidence and the theory. The test questions I remember started with "According to the theory of evolution...".
For those who disagree with the theory, they weren't being forced to lie about their beliefs in order to pass a test and they weren't being offended.
For those who believe the theory of evolution is obviously true based on the evidence and the logic, the evidence and logic were presented so there was no need to add any argument by authority of the teacher (which is anyway a fallacious argument to good scientific circles).
Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity. Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!
For the specific example of the biology teacher - I don't care whether the biology teacher believes in evolution or not. I want a teacher who can present the evidence and the theory in a clear and interesting way, without getting preachy for either side of the debate.
So you believe that for someone to properly study Islam, they must believe in Islam? For someone to be a student of Greek gods and goddesses, the person must believe in those gods and goddesses?
I think my eighth grade teacher handled the question perfectly. When he introduced the topic he said we didn't have to agree with the theory but that to be educated people in the modern world we had to understand it. If I remember correctly, some (perhaps most) of the test questions started with the phrase, "According to the theory of evolution...".
Assuming that the evidence and the logic speak for themselves, the students will be able to decide for themselves so long as they have the evidence and the theory presented to them, so there is no need to get upset that the teacher isn't trying to force the students to believe in the theory - they can figure it out.