|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 18, 2009 05:19 PM |
|
|
What do I make mandatory for the teachers? That they teach? That's their job, it isn't mandatory, no one forces them to be a teacher and teach. 
Quote:
Quote:
Whoa wait a sec who said I don't care about history? Can't you take an example. 
Memory problems? Two posts back YOU said:
Quote:
And no I don't care about history because I'm talking about a reasonably evolved model.
I mean, this is getting ridiculous now, isn't it?
If you used that in context you would have known I replied to the fact that I don't care about it being MANDATORY (as opposed to basic social for survival skills). In effect I don't care about it any more than, say, programming -- in the sense that neither should be MANDATORY. (of course I like programming MYSELF, but I don't care to IMPOSE it on kids).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do I make mandatory for the teachers? That they teach? That's their job, it isn't mandatory, no one forces them to be a teacher and teach.
If you read what you've written you will see, that you wrote "mandatory to present information". Since the prsenting of information would be the teacher's job, it's something that is now mandatory for teachers - but the pupils are free to sleep in class. Of course we might pay the pupils for wasting their time with learning all that useless stuff - but we are paying them anyway, don't we? Of course they always could start to work again with 14.
Quote:
Quote:
Whoa wait a sec who said I don't care about history? Can't you take an example.
Memory problems? Two posts back YOU said:
Quote:
And no I don't care about history because I'm talking about a reasonably evolved model.
I mean, this is getting ridiculous now, isn't it?
If you used that in context you would have known I replied to the fact that I don't care about it being MANDATORY (as opposed to basic social for survival skills). In effect I don't care about it any more than, say, programming -- in the sense that neither should be MANDATORY.
No way can you interpret your sentence in any way like you meant the CLASS "history" and not human history in general: Quote:
And no I don't care about history because I'm talking about a reasonably evolved model. It used to be that humans were tools (slaves) and not individuals just like you.
Moreover, a mentioning of the class history in that context doesn't make any sense at all... wait, err...
Okay, let me say it this way. If your programming is anything like your posting I predict considerable difficulties in that line of work.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you read what you've written you will see, that you wrote "mandatory to present information". Since the prsenting of information would be the teacher's job, it's something that is now mandatory for teachers - but the pupils are free to sleep in class. Of course we might pay the pupils for wasting their time with learning all that useless stuff - but we are paying them anyway, don't we? Of course they always could start to work again with 14.
I still don't understand what you're getting at.
Teachers are PAID to do their work. In your job, do you call it mandatory that you have to work? No one forces you to work, you can be fired if you want!
If teachers want to keep their job, of course it's mandatory for them to teach -- that's what their job implies...
I'm really not getting your point.
Quote:
Moreover, a mentioning of the class history in that context doesn't make any sense at all... wait, err...
I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about CLASSES since I'm talking about school and teaching, and not history in general, but the class. That's the context I meant.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Reading your last unbelievable... I'm at a loss here how to call your last posting - nothing seems to do justice to it...; anyway, since it would be a complete waste of time to answer that - every 10-year-old can see that this wish-wash is lacking severely in most everything imaginable, while it's obvious that you wouldn't want to see it anyway, no matter what anyone, me included, wrote -, I won't do it. Moreover that post wasn't directed to you.
However, since I mentioned your name once, I think, it's only fair, if I clarify that specific point:
Quote:
Quote:
Depends on how you define "religious" and "nutjob". I certainly don't have a lot of sympathy for fanatics, religious or otherwise, but I don't have anything at all against people who call themselves religious or spiritual. It depends on background and education as well. Some people simply have no intertest in exploring the depths or foundations of a religious teaching, but simply are content with believing or simply accepting them. Not all are like Elodin, thankfully. Most are just ordinary, normal people, human beings, who generally try to do nothing wrong.
And how am I? I you are saying I am uneducated or have no interest in exploring the foundations of religious teaching you are lying. If you say that exploring the depths of a religion is wrong, that is strange. Oh, you seem to be rather fanatical in your opinions of religious people.
First I say that I don't like fanatics. Second I say I have nothing against people that religious or spiritual - which means, considering the first sentence: EXCEPT, if they are fanatic.
I go on to say that in my opinion religious stance often depends on background and education. "Simpler" people often have a very simple, honest, naive (in a positive sense) way to deal with religion. They just believe what they believe, don't make much of a fuss about it, and act accordingly if acting is called for. They may have their quirks, but in general they are honest, dependable and have their heart where it belongs. Also, they tend to be quiet about these things. These people don't have an interest in debating religion, because they don't debate much anyway, and there's not much to debate for them at that. Also, they don't feel obliged to tell people what is right and wrong (religiously spoken).
Now you have to imagine something like a sigh, and then I say. Not all are like Elodin, thankfully, meaning that you are not at all a person like that. I go on to summarize that, and when I say that they generally are just trying to do nothing wrong (again, religiously spoken), I mean they - as opposed to you - don't claim to do the RIGHT thing, but are content with finding an acceptable way that they can be content with (yet again, religiously spoken).
I think we agree when I say that you don't fall into that category.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 09:34 PM |
|
|
One thing that caracterizes fanatics is that you can't reason with them. Better to leave them alone and do your best to ignore them for as long as they keep their lives theirs.
unterfordert:
Thats an interesting german word which lacks a proper translation in english. I dont know if there is a "underchallanged" to fill that blank spot in english. But the matter of fact is: if you are an intelligent, highly educated and qualified person, with a good background in social and political sciences, you have no business arguing with religious-zealots. Period. It is a status of "underchallenging" that not only generates no real intelectual value, but also actively makes you dumber. I think challenging stone hard crystalized mindsets is like preparing yourself for tough exams by reading teenager magazines.
Challenging intelligent and coherent religious people, with a background in different sciences is MUCH more pleasant and valuable. Reason is ALSO their tool of trade. I don't really mind having my ass kicked by someone who knows philosophy, and/or antropology, and/or sociology and are also religious. Thats the kind of thing that enlarges ones perception of the world.
Thats one of the reasons I stopped posting here for a while.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 09:35 PM |
|
|
So, now to the real reason I decided to stop by.
Did anyone read "The God's dellusion" by Richard Dawkins? Any thoughts on it?
Thanks for the attention,
Wolfs
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 09:52 PM |
|
|
@Wolfsburg
Nice to see you back. I agree with your post above, and no I haven't read it, though I've read some of his earlier books.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:01 PM |
|
|
The man is still active and steam rolling!
Nice to see you Corribus. You brought up a great thread on nanotechnology. I've been reading it slowly in the meanwhile. Keep it coming, bud! Always great to read your stuff.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
Yep. Quite ironically it was part of a book package that I got as, yep, one of my Christmas presents from my wife last year. Read it, and agree for the most part. There were, I think, a few things I'd partly disagreeing with, and I know one of it was the reasoning why there is religion. He names more than one possoible reason, but I think he MAY have missed a very important and obvious possibility.
Anyway, the book has helped me realizing that, while I'm not sure whether I'm an atheist or not, I'm no Christian and have never been one, even though I've been going through the Catholic motion until the age of 10.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:18 PM |
|
|
@JJ
From your last post, I get the impression it matters to you under what definition, atheist, christian, etc. that you go under, that (if true) confuses me however, why are you interested in a label that does not uniquely define your personality? (With the last part I mean, it doesn't matter what you believe in, your personality can (and will) differ from the most others no matter if you're christian, muslim, etc. all it tells is pretty much who you'd agree with on that single concept, but not even why).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
|
Well, no, I didn't mean the label. It's probably better when I say that it helped me admitting and accepting that, while I'm not really sure what I positively believe, if anything, I definitely don't believe in the Christian god.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
Ah okay, in that case, sorry for misunderstanding you. 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 01:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Reading your last unbelievable... I'm at a loss here how to call your last posting - nothing seems to do justice to it...; anyway, since it would be a complete waste of time to answer that - every 10-year-old can see that this wish-wash is lacking severely in most everything imaginable, while it's obvious that you wouldn't want to see it anyway, no matter what anyone, me included, wrote -, I won't do it. Moreover that post wasn't directed to you.
In other words you can't possibly back up the false claims you made.
Quote:
I go on to summarize that, and when I say that they generally are just trying to do nothing wrong (again, religiously spoken), I mean they - as opposed to you - don't claim to do the RIGHT thing, but are content with finding an acceptable way that they can be content with (yet again, religiously spoken).
I think we agree when I say that you don't fall into that category.
You mean do I express my views in a forum? Yes. And you espouse your views with as much vigor. I find some people like to condemn others for saying they are right and yet all they while they are claiming to be right.
Oh, I would disagree that most religious people don't try to do right.
There are certainly religiuos and anti-religious fanatics.
As to Dawkins book, it is full of errors and yeah he hates religion and tries to say religion is responsible for most of the world's problems even though atheist tyrants have been the largest mass murderers in the history of mankind.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As to Dawkins book, it is full of errors and yeah he hates religion and tries to say religion is responsible for most of the world's problems even though atheist tyrants have been the largest mass murderers in the history of mankind.
Have you read one of his books, Elodin?
@J.J
An interesting analysis about the book, never heard it that way from someone else. I am really wanting to read it, but at the moment internal medicine is the only thing time allowes me to read... unfortunatelly.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 01:38 PM |
|
|
|
The book does a good job summarizing what is "strange" about these monotheistic religions. Everyone who has their doubts about this or that aspect will find those doubts there and get structure into things.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 02:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:27, 19 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Have you read one of his books, Elodin?
Yes I have. In fact JJ and I have had a discussion about it. In the "Why I gave up believeing in God" thread perhaps. He had made the claim that Dawkins only trashed "the Abrahamic religions" and I proved him wrong from Dawkin's own words. Dawkins hates all religion.
Dawkins also either flat out lied about a number of things or did very sloppy research. He misuses his prestige as a scientist as a bully pulpit to spout his hatred for religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtC65lm4MGE
He says he is hostile to religion in the above video. He complains about religions people being involved in politics or education. He seems to be quite simply a bigot.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
That's not correct. In fact it was the other way round - I've quoted from the book, and the book deals only and exclusively with the big monotheistic religions. It takes out hinduism/buddhism and verything you could summarize under spiritualism.
After that you went on to claim that he would say something like that in other publications/debates/whatever - and since I didn't read those "other publications" I couldn't say anything to it.
For the God Delusion fact is - readable - that it's only about the monotheistic religions - which is the issue here.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 03:15 PM |
|
|
as does Glenn beck who abuses his position as a journalist in order to preach his hatred of the reasonable left, non-whites and non-americans....
Or Marcus Brigstocke who abuses his position as a radio and tv comedian to preach his belief in climate change, the hippy lifestyle and his hatred of the hard right, BT broadband and david blaine.
let's face it, to someone, someone else will abuse their position for their own benefits and will be offended by it. Any position. For example. you are offended at the position of Richard Dawkins who uses his scientist status to preach his hatred of religion, alledgedly. However, I am equally, if not more, offended by David Irving who used his position as a historian to print his own hard-right views and distort the evidence against the holocaust.
it's the whole argument over offence. I'm sure plenty of people are offended by Comedian Franky boyle for his extremely edgy take on everything, but to many people that is his charm. likewise, there are people who believe Nick Griffin is right to say what he says, but at the same time, there are loads of people, including myself, who believe he is narrow minded and bigoted. to some-one elses mind, my rants might seem nothing more than an irritable 19 year old lefty's wishes for a utopian society whilst bashing everything from door knobs to nuclear war, and from there, they can either laugh or take offense.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 03:36 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
There were, I think, a few things I'd partly disagreeing with, and I know one of it was the reasoning why there is religion. He names more than one possoible reason, but I think he MAY have missed a very important and obvious possibility.
JJ, having not read the book myself, I'm wondering if his explanation of the existence of religion is the same as my own. (My opinion is summarized here (first post).
@Wolfsburg
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the nanotechnology thread.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 03:58 PM |
|
|
No, it's not. I think, if I understand you right, the reason for this is that your theory is based on wrong assumptions : religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary. Most old religions have no problem whatsoever with sex, celebrating it even with all kinds of rites, orgies and so on.
He's naming some reasons, and if I remember right his favorite one is the one that religion is a byproduct of something else, of finding something - in dangerous environment - that mkes children obey unthinkingly, which has its advantages, obviously.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
