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