Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I just find most politics podcasts/shows to be very easy traps to fall into mentally. I love Dan Carlins history podcasts but avoid his politics stuff because I find myself largely doing nothing but agreeing with the few I heard and started getting that "hey wait...this is all stuff you already agree with" vibe. I'd like to think its just all "common sense" stuff, as his politics podcast is titled, but find that, like anyone else, I too am.vulnerable to echo chambers and try to minimize it, with varying degrees of success ,
I hear you. With Rubin in particular, I guess I feel that moderate liberals are grossly underrepresented in the media, so it's a breath of fresh air to me, especially in these days of hyper-ventilation and people taking past each other. But I'll certainly keep the echo-chamber thing in mind while watching.
Anyways, enough about Dave Rubin, I suppose.
Moderate anything is grossly underrepresented in the media. It's why people think all feminists are "femi-Nazis", all people who push for minority groups' rights are SJWs, etc. moderation doesn't play well on tv where the goal is to make money and entertain. controversy and confrontation are entertaining. News that doesn't rely on extremists yelling at each other is boring. PBS's News Hour is "boring". It is the only news tv show I actually respect. I don't need or want constant entertainment sometimes and for some things.
This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:48:28
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
MADD aside (I don't know what they're doing these days), I think we should have zero tolerance for drunk driving, and that at least where I live allowable alcohol levels are much too high. You can drive at .08 in my state...that's generally 4 beers and a nice buzz. I take a hard line here. I think if you have any alcohol at all, you shouldn't be on the roads, period. It's a public health issue to me. I've had friends die, to explain my zealotry here.
In some ways i can sympathize, but I also think practical reality rears its ugly head here and in some places and times you'd be giving DUI's to a quarter of the drivers on the road, most of whom are likely perfectly safe (or at least no less so than having a passenger, jamming to music, eating, etc for lower levels of alcohol).
On the other hand, if we took a hard line on BAC levels and corresponding punishments, people would think twice about operating a vehicle under the influence. Like I said, in my state you can have .08 and be legal to drive. Certain people are drunk at that point (lightweights), and I think we should legislate to the least common denominator when it comes to public safety, and I also think any alcohol at all has some impairing effect and lowering of the inhibitions on some people, so that's where we should draw the line.
If people knew that 1 drink would get you a DUI, and 2 DUIs meant you could never drive again, I have the feeling we'd see a dramatic reduction in people driving while intoxicated and all the tragedy associated with it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:54:24
Easy E wrote: So, does anyone have any actual data about how we are getting worse education results? All I am seeing is people's feelings.
Last I had heard, our High School grad rates were up to 83%, the highest ever. So that means a lot more students are taking ACT/SAT testing than ever before, and the scores are relatively flat despite the increasing number of students taking the tests.
None of this means that their are no problems, as their is still an achievement gap based on ethnicity/socio-econimic factors.
Overall, things have not been bad in the Education field at all. People only "Feel" like things are bad. I wonder why?
Studies comparing US kids internationally, its almost justa joke at this point.
Now you wil have good school districts and privates able to go head to head, but any city school district? Forget it. They are a dog's breakfast.
Two things:
1. My post had some actual links to relevant data. You know, not just feelings. Try it! Since I did it first, you doing it is called reciprocity.
2. Foreign students do not test from as broad of a base as US students. I.e. we have a lot more people testing from a wider field of candidates.
Look..... supporting any argument with details and data looks like this...
A comprehensive analysis of international tests by Stanford and the Economic Policy Institute shows that U.S. schools aren't being outpaced by international competition.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
A comprehensive analysis of international tests by Stanford and the Economic Policy Institute shows that U.S. schools aren't being outpaced by international competition.
Stanford eh? My daughter was just interviewed by Stanford. Soon my California pretties you'll get yours! All of you and your little dog too!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:59:29
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
ending Sept. 30, 2014 -- the U.S. spent $40.8 billion on education. Going back 30 years, as Brat did, puts us in 1984 when federal spending on schools was $6.5 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 176 percent increase
the number of students in publicly-funded schools across the nation increased from 39.2 million in 1984 to a projected 50 million in 2014. Federal spending per student rose from $165 in 1984 to about $816 in 2014. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 117 percent increase
Brat’s claim that test scores "have been flat" again comes from McCluskey’s 2012 Senate testimony. McCluskey said that between 1970 and 2010, math and reading scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, "have been almost stagnant for 17-year-olds, the final product of our elementary and secondary system."
The NAEP, frequently called "The Nation’s Report Card," refers to a variety of tests given every four years to fourth, eighth and twelfth graders in a sampling of states. McCluskey focused on the "long-term trend" test for 17-year-olds, which since the early 1970s has measured achievement on an unchanged set of math and reading skills.
On the first NAEP reading test, in 1971, 17-year-olds had an average score of 285 on a scale of 500. On the most recent test, in 2012, the average was 287.
On the first math test, in 1973, the average was 304 and that inched to 306 in 2012.
The scores don’t change much if you measure them over the 30 years Brat mentions on Facebook. The average math score in 1982 was 298 and rose by eight points over the next three decades. The average reading score in 1984 -- the reading test wasn’t given in 1982 -- was 289 and fell by two points in 2012.
So, thanks for backing up my argument. Results are flat and grad rates are up. Therefore, education is in turmoil somehow?
Okay then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:57:16
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
So, thanks for backing up my argument. Results are flat and grad rates are up. Therefore, education is in turmoil somehow?
Okay then.
When you STILL have idiots out there trying to get the Christian version of creationsim taught in a science classroom, yeah... there's still turmoil in the education system. The people who think they are being moderate by saying "teach the controversy,"
ending Sept. 30, 2014 -- the U.S. spent $40.8 billion on education. Going back 30 years, as Brat did, puts us in 1984 when federal spending on schools was $6.5 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 176 percent increase
the number of students in publicly-funded schools across the nation increased from 39.2 million in 1984 to a projected 50 million in 2014. Federal spending per student rose from $165 in 1984 to about $816 in 2014. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 117 percent increase
Brat’s claim that test scores "have been flat" again comes from McCluskey’s 2012 Senate testimony. McCluskey said that between 1970 and 2010, math and reading scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, "have been almost stagnant for 17-year-olds, the final product of our elementary and secondary system."
The NAEP, frequently called "The Nation’s Report Card," refers to a variety of tests given every four years to fourth, eighth and twelfth graders in a sampling of states. McCluskey focused on the "long-term trend" test for 17-year-olds, which since the early 1970s has measured achievement on an unchanged set of math and reading skills.
On the first NAEP reading test, in 1971, 17-year-olds had an average score of 285 on a scale of 500. On the most recent test, in 2012, the average was 287.
On the first math test, in 1973, the average was 304 and that inched to 306 in 2012.
The scores don’t change much if you measure them over the 30 years Brat mentions on Facebook. The average math score in 1982 was 298 and rose by eight points over the next three decades. The average reading score in 1984 -- the reading test wasn’t given in 1982 -- was 289 and fell by two points in 2012.
So, thanks for backing up my argument. Results are flat and grad rates are up. Therefore, education is in turmoil somehow?
Okay then.
What part of my previous post gave you the impression that US publication is in turmoil? You seemed to be asking about what was the current debate regarding public education so I tried to show what the politicians and people were arguing. Scores are flat but people would rather see them improving especially since school budgets have been increasing and more funding always seems to be needed. I mentioned Methodologies, curriculum, testing and benchmarks are all issues where there are different ideas being advocated by different groups. Same with school calendars. Locally there's been a lot of debate in recent years between year round school and traditional school schedules. We can see the benefit our kids are getting from their year round school calendar as opposed to the traditional school year my wife and I grew up in. As I said before there's no reason for a traditional school year besides tradition there's no evidence it helps students learn so why should we perpetuate it? I also brought up school choice and the quandary over what is the best course of action in dealing with failing public schools and the students who are stuck there. I wasn't arguing that education was in turmoil only that results have been flat for decades and there are issues being debated.
So, thanks for backing up my argument. Results are flat and grad rates are up. Therefore, education is in turmoil somehow?
Okay then.
When you STILL have idiots out there trying to get the Christian version of creationsim taught in a science classroom, yeah... there's still turmoil in the education system. The people who think they are being moderate by saying "teach the controversy,"
There. Is. No. Controversy.
That's a state and local issue not a federal one. The school curriculum is a reflection of the people running the state and the local school board. If creationism is popular where you live that's not something for the Feds to fix.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 20:40:11
Gomez wrote: Public school teacher here to provide a little context to the money, international ranking, etc. discussion from a couple pages back... I work in small, rural school within a large, suburban district that is one of the top 2-3 ranked districts in our state. My school has a free/reduced lunch population that is well above the average for schools in the district and our state assessment scores are average to good overall (but we have some of the highest growth scores in the state). In addition, I teach reading remediation and English Language Development - two populations that (generally speaking) receive large chunks of state/federal money.
1. One reason we are spending so much more money per student today compared to 30 years ago is that schools are more appropriately addressing the needs of more students from more diverse backgrounds. For example, prior to about 2000, my ESL students would've been chucked in a regular ed. class and gotten no extra language support beyond what the classroom teacher could manage on their own. Now, those students receive targeted, research-based support to help them build the academic language skills to help them meet our language fluency standards ASAP. That takes money to implement effectively.
2. In terms of international rankings, the US is and will always be behind the curve because we have made a national commitment to educating all young people to the same standards. Other international folk can speak more lucidly about the details of their own national education systems, but in general when we compare the overall scores of ALL our students who take these international proficiency assessments to the top groups (i.e. often the only groups who take the tests) from some other countries, US students score anywhere from 10th to 20th internationally. When we compare top percentiles of students, the US performs very, very well.
3. As a nation we have come a LONG way when it comes to the mission of educating all students equally well... But anyone with any sort of awareness knows that inequality still exists. And when the poorest students are segregated into the poorest areas with the poorest schools (which happens both overtly and tacitly) and they end up performing poorly, that isn't a problem with our education system. There are much, MUCH bigger issues influencing how students perform - but these issues are complex to problem-solve, difficult to address, and uncomfortable to discuss, so we as a nation seem perfectly comfortable with ignoring them. Until we develop the national will to be honest about fixing them (and at this point, given how little things like Sandy Hook and Philando Castile have moved the needle in related areas I am, uh, not optimistic it will ever happen), things won't fundamentally change.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
feeder wrote: This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
I agree that many can't be bothered to consistently look into anything with an explanation longer than a sentance. However, there is a certain wariness associated with reading very long articles about controversial issues--people wonder if all those words are there to obscure rather than explain. And that isn't entirely wrong. There is a ton of stuff going on in the world and if someone is addressing the general populace it's reasonable to expect that they would make things concise in order to get the point across efficiently, if their interest was in doing so.
feeder wrote: This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
I agree that many can't be bothered to consistently look into anything with an explanation longer than a sentance. However, there is a certain wariness associated with reading very long articles about controversial issues--people wonder if all those words are there to obscure rather than explain. And that isn't entirely wrong. There is a ton of stuff going on in the world and if someone is addressing the general populace it's reasonable to expect that they would make things concise in order to get the point across efficiently, if their interest was in doing so.
I feel the exact opposite. Most of the issues we deal with and have address are complex. A simple way of describing them is simplistic. Twitter is great and all, but no way are you describing any position, or arguing for its merits and pitfalls in any certain number of characters. You are getting a headline. Headlines, by definition are extreme, read the actual story, the details are much more nuanced.if you are going to be bothered to live here and enjoy the rights of this count, then take the time to figure out its problems, origins and fixes. Otherwise, don't bother, please. And please don't vote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 21:39:56
Prestor Jon wrote: If creationism is popular where you live that's not something for the Feds to fix.
Sure it is. The federal government should be able to step in and say "you are failing to meet the minimum standards, fix it now".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Twitter is great and all, but no way are you describing any position, or arguing for its merits and pitfalls in any certain number of characters.
I mentioned in one of the other threads that I thought that this might be the reason that Trump is so drawn to Twitter.
He can post 140 characters making a claim that is 100% pure, grass fed bs. But to refute that claim will often take more than 140 characters, so responses attempting to refute him are spread over multiple tweets (which can get lost in the twittertubes) or rely on links to outside sources, such as news sites or fact checking sites, which can just not be followed.
So he and his followers can more easily ignore any attempts to refute what he says and so their little bubble of misinformation is kept safe.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I just don't remember talking about that, er, at all. If I did then oops. I don't know squat about the US publishing industry. *
*Note this is only the third time in history someone admitted they don't know squat about something on the internet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 21:46:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Prestor Jon wrote: If creationism is popular where you live that's not something for the Feds to fix.
Sure it is. The federal government should be able to step in and say "you are failing to meet the minimum standards, fix it now".
I don't think you can make a direct link between including creationism in a science curriculum and a decrease in science test scores Including additional information, even erroneous information, shouldn't bring down scores unless the curriculum is excluding important correct information. It would depend on how a school does it. I know plenty of people, myself included, who were exposed to creationism in Sunday school and evolution in public school and the exposure to the idea of creationism didn't prohibit us from getting good science grades and test scores in school. I personally don't see any need for creationism to be included in a science curriculum in public schools but it's not guaranteed to hurt student performance either.
jasper76 wrote: Side Note: I've recently discovered Dave Rubin and the Rubin Report, and his politics and outlooks match my own so closely that its kind of scary. Is anyone else a fan, and if so, could you recommend any other media figures coming from a similar angle?
He does make a lot of sense:
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
It might not hurt their performance on standardized tests, but placing Creationism on the same pedestal as Evolution completely blurs the already murky and piss poor way we teach critical thinking and methodologies to students. There should be a stronger focus on epistemology in school, at least getting students to understand "how we know things." Simply getting kids to regurgitate information is in the long run a bad education.
Prestor Jon wrote: If creationism is popular where you live that's not something for the Feds to fix.
Sure it is. The federal government should be able to step in and say "you are failing to meet the minimum standards, fix it now".
I don't think you can make a direct link between including creationism in a science curriculum and a decrease in science test scores Including additional information, even erroneous information, shouldn't bring down scores unless the curriculum is excluding important correct information. It would depend on how a school does it. I know plenty of people, myself included, who were exposed to creationism in Sunday school and evolution in public school and the exposure to the idea of creationism didn't prohibit us from getting good science grades and test scores in school. I personally don't see any need for creationism to be included in a science curriculum in public schools but it's not guaranteed to hurt student performance either.
Well, Creationism should not be examinable material in a science class as knowledge of it has absolutely no bearing on the students scientific knowledge or abilities (as creationism has no basis in science and many aspects of it are actually contrary to science), unless the question is something like: "list all the aspects of creationism which science has proven wrong and how they did so."
So spending time teaching something which cannot be in the exam if you want your exam and qualification to actually be worth a damn for continued study in that subject (a university has two A grade students applying to study biology but only one place, one of these students spent 1/10th of their time learning creationism, whereas the other studied evolution for an extra 1/10th of their course. Which is the student most likely to have a better grasp of the subject matter and so therefore most likely to achieve the best degree grade?) will hurt students development as it means they are getting less time to spend on topics which are actually important for the subject.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 22:01:20
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
You can completely disregard the Reason blog post if you want but school choice isn't just a Republican issue.
My problem isn't with school choice. My problem is when school choice is advocated by a person and an administration with a political agenda to fuel privatized unregulated religious schools at the cost of secular public schools.
DeVos working in conjunction with others that have differing political views isn't scary. DeVos in charge with a free pass to implement her own ideological goals is.
Where are all these unregulated religious schools? All the ones we looked at in GA and NC were accredited by the states.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
LordofHats wrote: It might not hurt their performance on standardized tests, but placing Creationism on the same pedestal as Evolution completely blurs the already murky and piss poor way we teach critical thinking and methodologies to students. There should be a stronger focus on epistemology in school, at least getting students to understand "how we know things." Simply getting kids to regurgitate information is in the long run a bad education.
This, exactly. We don't teach flat earth theory or that 1+1=3, and creationism is no better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 21:57:27
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
We are talking about illegal aliens.
For legal aliens it should be a requirement for entrance.
I know all three of my kids had to be vaccinated before we could get them into the US (all are adopted from overseas).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
feeder wrote: This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
I agree that many can't be bothered to consistently look into anything with an explanation longer than a sentance. However, there is a certain wariness associated with reading very long articles about controversial issues--people wonder if all those words are there to obscure rather than explain. And that isn't entirely wrong. There is a ton of stuff going on in the world and if someone is addressing the general populace it's reasonable to expect that they would make things concise in order to get the point across efficiently, if their interest was in doing so.
I feel the exact opposite. Most of the issues we deal with and have address are complex. A simple way of describing them is simplistic. Twitter is great and all, but no way are you describing any position, or arguing for its merits and pitfalls in any certain number of characters. You are getting a headline. Headlines, by definition are extreme, read the actual story, the details are much more nuanced.if you are going to be bothered to live here and enjoy the rights of this count, then take the time to figure out its problems, origins and fixes. Otherwise, don't bother, please. And please don't vote.
I think I gave the wrong impression. I don't mean to say that twitter lines are an effective means of addressing people. What I mean to say is that more words, more details, more length is not automatically better and in many cases is worse if it exceeds what is needed to convey the message. And in that there is a grain of merit to 'TL,DR' even if the sentiment is largely a bad one.
For example; I don't need a 5-page report to say why building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it is a bad idea. Something as long as the average news article could properly cite the evidence and reasoning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 22:05:26
feeder wrote: This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
I agree that many can't be bothered to consistently look into anything with an explanation longer than a sentance. However, there is a certain wariness associated with reading very long articles about controversial issues--people wonder if all those words are there to obscure rather than explain. And that isn't entirely wrong. There is a ton of stuff going on in the world and if someone is addressing the general populace it's reasonable to expect that they would make things concise in order to get the point across efficiently, if their interest was in doing so.
I feel the exact opposite. Most of the issues we deal with and have address are complex. A simple way of describing them is simplistic. Twitter is great and all, but no way are you describing any position, or arguing for its merits and pitfalls in any certain number of characters. You are getting a headline. Headlines, by definition are extreme, read the actual story, the details are much more nuanced.if you are going to be bothered to live here and enjoy the rights of this count, then take the time to figure out its problems, origins and fixes. Otherwise, don't bother, please. And please don't vote.
I think I gave the wrong impression. I don't mean to say that twitter lines are an effective means of addressing people. What I mean to say is that more words, more details, more length is not automatically better and in many cases is worse if it exceeds what is needed to convey the message. And in that there is a grain of merit to 'TL,DR' even if the sentiment is largely a bad one.
For example; I don't need a 5-page report to say why building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it is a bad idea. Something as long as the average news article could properly cite the evidence and reasoning.
But you might need one if somebody says BS to your claim. You should know all the reasons, otherwise it just boils down to feels and Dakka postings.
LordofHats wrote: It might not hurt their performance on standardized tests, but placing Creationism on the same pedestal as Evolution completely blurs the already murky and piss poor way we teach critical thinking and methodologies to students. There should be a stronger focus on epistemology in school, at least getting students to understand "how we know things." Simply getting kids to regurgitate information is in the long run a bad education.
This, exactly. We don't teach flat earth theory or that 1+1=3, and creationism is no better.
Actually if you had a decent education you would. Then you would discuss the theory, theory through time, how it was overcome , how the Greeks had the right global idea but missed the scale by a bit, and how no one actually believed it who had been on a ship. Also you might stop and make a nice thought experiment about Jois Publicus could figure aout ways scientifically to try to answer the question-which is the real mind bender.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
LordofHats wrote: It might not hurt their performance on standardized tests, but placing Creationism on the same pedestal as Evolution completely blurs the already murky and piss poor way we teach critical thinking and methodologies to students. There should be a stronger focus on epistemology in school, at least getting students to understand "how we know things." Simply getting kids to regurgitate information is in the long run a bad education.
This, exactly. We don't teach flat earth theory or that 1+1=3, and creationism is no better.
Again, I'm not advocating that creationism be taught. However, if states and school boards insistent on including it I don't think the Feds need to forbid it as long as there's no evidence that creationism's inclusion is hurting science test scores and keeping schools from meeting standards in regards to science test score benchmarks. States and local authorities should have the autonomy to decide what is the best way for their public schools to meet Federal standards and benchmarks. The Feds should impose accountability in order to receive Federal funds, not impose specific curricula.
Prestor Jon wrote: However, if states and school boards insistent on including it I don't think the Feds need to forbid it as long as there's no evidence that creationism's inclusion is hurting science test scores and keeping schools from meeting standards in regards to science test score benchmarks.
There is far more to education than test score benchmarks. Teaching creationism is bad education even if it doesn't make a quantifiable difference in test scores, and if the states won't take responsibility for keeping it out of science classes then the federal government needs to step in and say no.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Prestor Jon wrote: However, if states and school boards insistent on including it I don't think the Feds need to forbid it as long as there's no evidence that creationism's inclusion is hurting science test scores and keeping schools from meeting standards in regards to science test score benchmarks.
There is far more to education than test score benchmarks. Teaching creationism is bad education even if it doesn't make a quantifiable difference in test scores, and if the states won't take responsibility for keeping it out of science classes then the federal government needs to step in and say no.
Sounds like you're working through some issues on the topic, but thats ok.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
For example; I don't need a 5-page report to say why building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it is a bad idea. Something as long as the average news article could properly cite the evidence and reasoning.
You could do that in a tweet. "Planes go over walls, Tunnels go under them. Wall is useless."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: When you STILL have idiots out there trying to get the Christian version of creationsim taught in a science classroom, yeah... there's still turmoil in the education system. The people who think they are being moderate by saying "teach the controversy,"
I watched the beginning. It's not progressive that changed, it's him. Frankly I stopped when he started ranting about “Trigger warning”.
Let me remind you what “Trigger warning” are for. Those are just warning signs for people who lived a very traumatic experience (usually extremely stressful war situations, or sexual abuse) that the work they are attached too might contain events close to those they live, and therefore “trigger” very bad memories that can leave them in a state of great anguish.
How is that a bad thing, except for someone who is so self-centered he cannot bring himself to care for the well-being of others? How is that detrimental to anyone?
Dude's just slowing turning alt-right, the trigger warning stuff only became such a boogeyman after their intensive propaganda around it.
So long dude, if your big fight as a “progressive” is “Racists should be allowed to say racists things but people shouldn't be allowed to put Trigger Warning” I'll send all your opinions to the trash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: You could do that in a tweet. "Planes go over walls, Tunnels go under them. Wall is useless."
feth that tweet, you could do it with a haiku!
Planes go over wall
Big tunnels go under wall
So wall is useless
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 22:48:52
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
, 
That gak is cut throat man 
