Kavanaugh hearing

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Forty Two » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:09 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 pm
Would you like to address the point that matters regarding the media 42?
I did address the point that matters regarding the media. :tup:
Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 pm

Trump undermines the media using Fox rhetoric.
I see him calling out places like CNN and MSNBC for unfair and shoddy journalism. Most of the time, he's right. FoxNews has gone pretty much pro-Trump, so I agree with you on them, and I've not said otherwise.
Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 pm

Can you see why that's not the same as criticizing the media in general, and why it adds to the believability of the claim that he's dangerous?
Not sure I follow you. Please provide examples of Trump using "Fox News rhetoric" which is not also a legitimate criticism of something bogus CNN or MSNBC or some other news source reported wrongly.
Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 pm

You can't substitute his insanity with your reasonableness, or you saying Fox and CNN are bad for his "only that media over there" --wink, wink, nudge, nudge, is bad. I know you can see the difference.
Honestly, you seem to think you're making a point, but I don't think you are. Just because he doesn't criticize the biased media that supports him doesn't mean that CNN and the others that are in his opposition's camp are not properly criticized and even ridiculed.
Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 pm

Public education and the sciences, in particular, are under attack and have been for some time now. Your denial is in presenting poor explanations for the public's abysmal scientific literacy besides the one that's right in front of you, and in your telling us it's okay to support the anti-science party while still being pro-science, or that we can have a government full of scientific ignoramuses who oppose funding public education and still achieve a scientifically literate population. That's denial or outright hostility to the welfare of the US.
Public education and the sciences are under attack in some respects by both the left and the right. You seem to see the rights attack, which is primarily from the religious right involving evolution/creationism, and also to some degree on the climate change issue. However, "climate change" is not typically a subject in primary school. At most they do Earth Science, which has a chapter on climate change and global warming. Back when I was in school, it was the "greenhouse effect" and all that. But, the "public education" attack is generally limited to those areas. From the Left, they've been pushing their agenda at various levels pushing social morality, gender issues, identity issues, and such, and also things like trying to get schools to stop teaching the works of dead "white males." Let's not pretend the extremes on both sides don't have their political agendas.

Where you go wrong is thinking the Democrat Party is the pro-science party. They aren't. They're pro a particular agenda party, just like the republicans, and they oppose education in areas where it opposes their agenda.

The reason for the lack of scientific literacy is right in front of you, and I am fully aware of it - it's that people don't study hard sciences and maths enough. If you want to become scientifically literate, you have to start by taking maths, up to and including Calculus. And, you have to also learn basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Meteorology/Earth Sciences. The reason for a lack of scientific literacy is not about what percentage of the population says they "believe" in climate science or some other category. The reason for the lack of scientific literacy is that people don't know much of anything about hard sciences, to the point that they can't even conceptualize what they don't know.

If you really want kids to become scientifically literate, then they would be taught sciences earlier and more often. That's what I do with my kids - and I have a five year old who can read at several grade levels higher than her own (K) and knows more science than any of her teachers (including paleontology and astronomy), as well as geography. She's past addition and subtraction and is now doing basic/early multiplication (not much, but some). She'll be more scientifically literate by the time she's 10 than the average adult.

Also, as to the "welfare of the US" - you need to somehow be able to grasp the fact that other people don't agree with your assessment of what is and is not against or threatening the welfare of the US. To me, for example, the progressive/socialist movement is a great threat to the welfare of the US, and Trump's policies and actions in the area of trade and economics has been very much in support of and in furtherance of the welfare of the US. I think that those who would say we should raise taxes, increase regulations, and sign us on to things like the Paris Climate Accord are advocating paths of action that are hurtful and damaging to the welfare of the US. If I believe you, for example, are advocating a dangerous or damaging policy, can I or should I still assume or start from the premise that you are wrong, but proceeding in what you honestly believe in good faith?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Forty Two » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:24 pm

Tero wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:57 am
Isn’t this Kavaughnaugh herring over yet? There is almost no reversing it unless Dems take House and Senate. The previous harrasser, Thomas ”pubic hair on Coke can” is still on the court.
Don't forget, he supposedly talked about Long Dong Silver. That's bound to give anyone fits and PTSD. He should have just knitted a "long dong" hat and worn it around. That way it would have been a sign of liberation, not harassment.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Forty Two » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:26 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:16 pm
You leave my Fox news alone buddy!
Fox News gets plenty of attention, doesn't it? So many people call out their bias regularly. Those same people don't apply the same attention to the Clinton News Network, do they?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:27 pm

I want them to be scientifically literate, if they want to become scientists that's a different matter entirely. What I want is to get at least a majority a baseline literacy and they can take it from there. Those who show an aptitude for science can achieve more. But it's not necessary, not even close, for everyone to take higher level maths and have a deep understanding of multiple disciplines in order to be scientifically literate, to my satisfaction at least.

What is most important is that they understand science is a process, and are shown how this process has achieved specific results across multiple disciplines. With this understanding, they will better appreciate the scientific endeavor and their relationship to it.


The left does not stand in the way of this goal. It is the left that is constantly fighting for improvements in public education.

You want to portray the problem of SJWs to be on equal footing with the right's shit record on all things education and science --please. I don't even know where to begin. From outrageous discipline to backward teaching methods to hatred not just of climate science but evolutionary science --the science of biology-- it's the right in the wrong, every time.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:34 pm

Great. A 'scientocracy...'

In the mean time, luminferous aether!!!

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:40 pm

:lol: when you ask Americans if evolution is real I want a majority to say yes. I think if most of them understand the process of science we can get there.


Is that really so horrible? -how?

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:48 pm

Well, Sean, I believe that determination of the future, and present, policy of a society properly belongs with the people of that society and not a method.

I'm not saying that 'scientific literacy' is a bad thing per se, only that it needs to be understood that scientific 'facts' are often in flux and should not be taken for absolute truth. In no way do I support the use of scientific 'facts' to dictate policy. The final decision should always be in the hands of the people.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:52 pm

Yep, science is a process.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:53 pm

So is bullshitting. :tea:

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:55 pm

I'm not in the mood Siva. :lou:

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:05 pm

Fair enough. :cheers:

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Cunt » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:13 pm

I run with a phd candidate who studies permafrost. Scientist, I guess.

Should I believe him, or climate change science?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:26 pm

The consensus is your safer bet, but you're always free to have your own thoughts right?

It's not like you're challenging the consensus by believing your running partner and doing your own research. If you want to enter the discussion against the consensus though you'll need to bring some expertise of your own.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Cunt » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:38 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:26 pm
The consensus is your safer bet, but you're always free to have your own thoughts right?

It's not like you're challenging the consensus by believing your running partner and doing your own research. If you want to enter the discussion against the consensus though you'll need to bring some expertise of your own.
consensus on what exactly?

That the carbon tax will save the earth? That republicans are going to ruin it?

That pipelines are evil? (promoted by mainly people who use a lot of oil)
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh hearing

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:41 pm

So you're not asking because you don't know? Wow, big surprise. Do you think it's a good idea to approach every potential conversation in this way?

Anyway, I was just talking about the consensus that global warming is happening and human activities are making it worse. Did you mean to ask about believing something else? <-- totally joking, I don't want you to answer that :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests