Pat Robertson is into the retro vibe...

[Tetsubo]

http://boingboing.net/2013/04/18/pat-robertson-warns-people-to.html

It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!

--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:12:47 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> http://boingboing.net/2013/04/18/pat-robertson-warns-people-to.html
> It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!

Ehn. He probably just got into the 4th Edition rules for the first
time. Understandable. Robertson is obviously a 1st Edition rules sort
of guy.

(the video was unavailable so I couldn't actually see what he said so
in lieu of that I've decided to make snide comments).

[Tetsubo]

Where Robertson and D&D are concerned, snide comments are always
appropriate.

[Justisaur]

On Apr 19, 6:59 am, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:12:47 -0400, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net>

D&D has 'literally ruined lives', and it's best to 'flee from evil'
when asked if it was o.k. to play a video game with magic.

- Justisaur

[Telok]

> It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!

Maybe he'll hold a book burning, it's one way for WotC to get rid of the 4e books they can't sell.

[Tetsubo]

On 4/19/2013 5:03 PM, Telok wrote:
>
>> It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!
>
> Maybe he'll hold a book burning, it's one way for WotC to get rid of the 4e books they can't sell.
>

Oh! Burn!

[Rast]

Telok wrote...

> > It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!
>
> Maybe he'll hold a book burning, it's one way for WotC to get rid of the 4e books they can't sell.

Nice, everyone wins.

Pat Robertson is 83, btw. I'll wager most of us won't even be coherent
at that age.

[Tetsubo]

My wife's grandmother is 98. She still reads books everyday, writes
letters and recently acquired a new boyfriend in her care facility.
Until she was 94 she wrote for a local newspaper (a grammar column). Old
does not mean senile. Whatever is wrong with Robertson can not
necessarily be blamed on age. I figure it's a fossilized mindset that
desperately needs an 'Enemy'. Since there aren't any real one's in
America that pose a risk to Christianity, he must manufacture them.

[Tetsubo]

On 4/19/2013 10:50 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:

> Whatever happened to the books WotC dif not want to sell? Those leftove 3.5
> books that were pulled after 4th ed hit the shelves?
>

The cynical part of me figures they had them destroyed. But I want to
smother that part with a pillow. Because the thought of destroying books
makes me ill.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 19, 6:59�am, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgen...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:12:47 -0400, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:

>> > � �http://boingboing.net/2013/04/18/pat-robertson-warns-people-to.html
>> > � �It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!

>> (the video was unavailable so I couldn't actually see what he said so
>> in lieu of that I've decided to make snide comments).

>D&D has 'literally ruined lives', and it's best to 'flee from evil'
>when asked if it was o.k. to play a video game with magic.

(finally got it to work)

The guy has obviously never played a video game in his life. Or D&D.

Which is a shame, since it's obvious he has such a vivid imagination.
I bet he'd play a great wizard, able to use the class to its fullest.

Anyone want to invite him to a game so he can actually understand what
it's all about? Surely such a morally upstanding citizen as himself,
somebody who is in frequent communication with the Lord, need not fear
a few hours communing with the heathens.

[Joanna Rowland Stuart]

In article <MPG.2bdbb98b7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

ra...@yahoo.com (Rast) wrote:

> Pat Robertson is 83, btw. I'll wager most of us won't even be
> coherent at that age.

I knew someone who became a "silver surfer", using email and the web and
Skype, at the grand age of 105...

Never judge a pension book by its cover...

Cheers
JOanna

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/20/13 3:09 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 10:50 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>> Telok <came...@gci.net> wrote:
>>>> It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!
>>>
>>> Maybe he'll hold a book burning, it's one way for WotC to get rid of the
>>> 4e books they can't sell.
>>
>> Whatever happened to the books WotC dif not want to sell? Those
>> leftove 3.5
>> books that were pulled after 4th ed hit the shelves?
>>
>
> The cynical part of me figures they had them destroyed. But I want
> to smother that part with a pillow. Because the thought of destroying
> books makes me ill.
>

Books that are not stored somewhere are usually pulped and used to make
other books. Unless they're paperbacks, in which case they're just
stripped and thrown away.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Loren Pechtel]

My grandfather was quite coherent then. Her father is unreasonable
but coherent and he's about 90.

[Nicole Massey]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kkustv$e76$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/20/13 3:09 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> On 4/19/2013 10:50 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
>>> Telok <came...@gci.net> wrote:
>>>>> It's 2013 and the Satanic Panic Back in style!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe he'll hold a book burning, it's one way for WotC to get rid of
>>>> the
>>>> 4e books they can't sell.
>>>
>>> Whatever happened to the books WotC dif not want to sell? Those
>>> leftove 3.5
>>> books that were pulled after 4th ed hit the shelves?
>>>
>>
>> The cynical part of me figures they had them destroyed. But I want
>> to smother that part with a pillow. Because the thought of destroying
>> books makes me ill.
>>
>
> Books that are not stored somewhere are usually pulped and used to make
> other books. Unless they're paperbacks, in which case they're just
> stripped and thrown away.

And a lot of them are remaindered to used book stores to be liquidated.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

At pennies on the dollar, and no money going to the author. This is
important to remember if you want to support an author: buying a
remaindered book does not support them.

[Tetsubo]

It also means you can buy a book because you don't want to support the
author, such as Orson Scott Card.

[Nicole Massey]

"Tetsubo" <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kkv9ti$4e7$2...@dont-email.me...

Very correct, though other than Ender's Game I've not encountered anything
he's written I thought was worth reading, and his recent retelling of Hamlet
was a travesty. It also means that if you buy something from Hubbard you're
not supporting the church of Scientology -- your choice if that is good or
bad, I won't comment either way on such a potentially volitile topic.

[JimP.]

They do though. I've met such people who the barest mention that the
Earth is older than 4 thousand years sends into a tizzy. They don't
like it when i inform them their faith must be shakey if a mention of
million year old fossils bothers them.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011

[Jim Davies]

On the grave of "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> is inscribed:

>"Tetsubo" <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:kkv9ti$4e7$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/20/2013 7:32 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> At pennies on the dollar, and no money going to the author. This is
>>> important to remember if you want to support an author: buying a
>>> remaindered book does not support them.
>>>
>>
>> It also means you can buy a book because you don't want to support the
>> author, such as Orson Scott Card.
>
>Very correct, though other than Ender's Game I've not encountered anything
>he's written I thought was worth reading,

Ender's Shadow is OK, in that it tells the same story in the same
style from a different POV. Supposedly he realised that people hated
Speaker, Xenocide and so on and so did the others like the original.
Though I haven't read any others.

I didn't realise he was a godbothering homophobe. I suppose the clue
was in the name of the aliens in Ender's Game, viz. the Buggers.

I note there's a film of Ender's Game due out imminently.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/

>It also means that if you buy something from Hubbard

Why on earth would you want to do that, regardless of views on
Scientology?

--
Jim

http://www.aaargh.org

[Tetsubo]

I actually enjoyed Battlefield Earth as a novel. I'm not saying it's
good mind you. But I enjoyed it.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> http://www.aaargh.org

[Rast]

JimP. wrote...

> They do though. I've met such people who the barest mention that the
> Earth is older than 4 thousand years sends into a tizzy. They don't
> like it when i inform them their faith must be shakey if a mention of
> million year old fossils bothers them.

Six thousand years. Even among "creation scientists" that timeframe is
the minority view.

On the other side, plenty of people who believe in evolution have
ridiculous quasi-religious beliefs about human biology that are just as
stupid as young-Earth creationism. These people are a lot more
harmful, in my opinion, since they are taken seriously.

[Rast]

Jim Davies wrote...

> Ender's Shadow is OK, in that it tells the same story in the same
> style from a different POV.

It's terrible, in that it retcons the shit out of the original.

> Supposedly he realised that people hated
> Speaker, Xenocide and so on and so did the others like the original.

Eh, they weren't that bad. They sure were different, though.

> Though I haven't read any others.

If you mean the rest of the "Shadows" series, I suggest avoiding them.

[JimP.]

Evolution is reality.

[Nicole Massey]

"JimP." <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3g5bn85nes4lds9l2...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:15:05 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>JimP. wrote...
>>> They do though. I've met such people who the barest mention that the
>>> Earth is older than 4 thousand years sends into a tizzy. They don't
>>> like it when i inform them their faith must be shakey if a mention of
>>> million year old fossils bothers them.
>>
>>Six thousand years. Even among "creation scientists" that timeframe is
>>the minority view.
>>
>>On the other side, plenty of people who believe in evolution have
>>ridiculous quasi-religious beliefs about human biology that are just as
>>stupid as young-Earth creationism. These people are a lot more
>>harmful, in my opinion, since they are taken seriously.
>
> Evolution is reality.

A more accurate statement would be that evolution is the best fitting model
we've found so far to reflect what we currently understand and have found in
archological and laboratory environments at the current time. Science is
very good at at least purporting to change as more evidence is presented.
And not evolutionary theories are created equal. Remember that "creation
science" claims to be scientific too.
For my money I'm tempted to just blame it all on the monolith...

[Rast]

JimP. wrote...
> Evolution is reality.

Sure, but for a lot of evolutionists their belief system doesn't go
much past "humans evolved from monkeys 100,000 years ago, therefore the
Bible is wrong. OK, that's all we can learn from evolution."

Which is hardly any better than the creationist view.

[Tetsubo]

I find the use of the term 'evolutionists' interesting. I have never
heard it used in anything but a derogatory manner. I know that I have
never encountered a proponent of the evolutionary theory use it.

[Rast]

Tetsubo wrote...

>
> I find the use of the term 'evolutionists' interesting. I have never
> heard it used in anything but a derogatory manner. I know that I have
> never encountered a proponent of the evolutionary theory use it.

The word isn't inherently degrading, though I'm using it here to
describe those who promote evolution as a weapon against Christianity,
and nothing else.

In contrast, those who find that evolution has scientific value, rather
than just antireligious value, are generally called "scientists".

[LL]

On 22.04.2013 23:18, Nicole Massey wrote:
> "JimP." <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:3g5bn85nes4lds9l2...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:15:05 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> JimP. wrote...
>>>> They do though. I've met such people who the barest mention that the
>>>> Earth is older than 4 thousand years sends into a tizzy. They don't
>>>> like it when i inform them their faith must be shakey if a mention of
>>>> million year old fossils bothers them.
>>>
>>> Six thousand years. Even among "creation scientists" that timeframe is
>>> the minority view.
>>>
>>> On the other side, plenty of people who believe in evolution have

The phrase "people who believe in evolution" can only apply to those
who don't understand or know the evolution theories. They must believe
in it, because they don't or can't know.
Informed and aware people *know* that there is an evolution happening
right before our eyes, although we don't know exactly how it works.

>>> ridiculous quasi-religious beliefs about human biology that are just as
>>> stupid as young-Earth creationism. These people are a lot more
>>> harmful, in my opinion, since they are taken seriously.
>>
>> Evolution is reality.
>
> A more accurate statement would be that evolution is the best fitting model
> we've found so far to reflect what we currently understand and have found in
> archological and laboratory environments at the current time.

No, *evolution* is reality. Plus, we have scientific models/theories
about this reality, i.e. Darwin's theory of evolution.
Creationism OTOH is not even a (bad) theory. A theory must allow its
falsification. It must allow predictions that can be tested etc pp.

LL

[Tetsubo]

I accept that evolution is the current, best possible explanation for
the diversity of life around me. I am not a scientist. I am however a
theist.

[JimP.]

Then I would say you know little about the theory of evolution.

I know evolution is correct, and creationism is not science, nor is
creation science. Both forms of Creation are religious based. No
science in creationism.

I've been told by devout Christians, I am a christian just not a jerk
about it, and they tell me dinosaurs didn't exist due to not being
mentioned in the Bible. I remind them that nothing that showed up,
like the space shuttle, is mentioned in there either. It hapened along
after the books of the Bible was put together in one book. They claim
I'm trying to change the subject. What I did do was point out their
claims are falacious. Trillions of things exist that aren't mentioned
in the Bible, yet, they still exist, or existed before humans.

[Loren Pechtel]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:01:52 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Most people don't know enough science to judge one way or another.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mr0en85s67msv77cr...@4ax.com:

Or care, in the end, since it has no perceptible effect on their
lives.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Tetsubo]

I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
in their agenda. Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.

[Nicole Massey]

"LL" <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:kl6cgh$f11$1...@dont-email.me...

You missed my point. Science doesn't deal with reality, it deals with most
logical probability based on current evidence ddemonstrated under test
conditions. To say that a scientific theory is reality over-importantizes
science, and any decent scientist who hasn't joined the "Scienceism" faith
will point out the difference between scientific results and reality.
I have great respect for science, but I don't try to make it something more
than it is. And it's why, with the exception of physics, scientific models
are called theories, not laws.

[Nicole Massey]

"JimP." <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote in message

news:vgsdn858k6ecj269q...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:01:52 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>JimP. wrote...
>>> Evolution is reality.
>>
>>Sure, but for a lot of evolutionists their belief system doesn't go
>>much past "humans evolved from monkeys 100,000 years ago, therefore the
>>Bible is wrong. OK, that's all we can learn from evolution."
>>
>>Which is hardly any better than the creationist view.
>
> Then I would say you know little about the theory of evolution.
>
> I know evolution is correct, and creationism is not science, nor is
> creation science. Both forms of Creation are religious based. No
> science in creationism.
>
> I've been told by devout Christians, I am a christian just not a jerk
> about it, and they tell me dinosaurs didn't exist due to not being
> mentioned in the Bible. I remind them that nothing that showed up,
> like the space shuttle, is mentioned in there either. It hapened along
> after the books of the Bible was put together in one book. They claim
> I'm trying to change the subject. What I did do was point out their
> claims are falacious. Trillions of things exist that aren't mentioned
> in the Bible, yet, they still exist, or existed before humans.
> .

Even John Calvin said that the bible wasn't a science textbook.

[LL]

You said above "evolution is the best fitting model...". Whatever your
point might be, this is not true. Evolution is not a model, evolution is
fact. We have scientific theories how evolution might work, but
Creationism isn't among them. Even arguing with creationists is giving
them too much credit, because you assume they could be convinced by
logic and evidence. Creationism is scientifically irrelevant.

> Science doesn't deal with reality, it deals with most
> logical probability based on current evidence ddemonstrated under test
> conditions.

Of course science deals with reality. With what else? You almost say so
yourself. Reality is the ultimate test environment for almost any
scientific theory.

> To say that a scientific theory is reality over-importantizes

I'm tempted to call strawman...you shift from "science *deals with*
reality" to "science *is* reality". The first is true, the latter is
clearly false and need not be beaten down.

> science, and any decent scientist who hasn't joined the "Scienceism"
> faith will point out the difference between scientific results and
> reality.

What you call Scienceism doesn't really exist in the way Creationism
does. Scientists who claim their models are reality would be wrong,
of course. Creationism is scientifically wrong no matter what.
So *some* over-confident or arrogant scientists may be wrong,
but lo and behold: *all* creationists are wrong! :-)

> I have great respect for science, but I don't try to make it something more
> than it is.

If you grant Creationism the status of a serious scientific theory,
you try to make it something more than it is.

> And it's why, with the exception of physics, scientific models
> are called theories, not laws.

Many older, so-called laws of physics have been falsified IIRC.
Another point I don't get... :-)

LL

[Rast]

Tetsubo wrote...

> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
> in their agenda.

The US spends more per student on education than anyone else.

http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-
infographic/

> Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.

Educated people can be manipulated pretty damn easily too.

Regardless, one thing the US education system has never been accused of
doing badly is *indoctrinating* its wards.

[Rast]

Nicole Massey wrote...

> Even John Calvin said that the bible wasn't a science textbook.

Exactly.

Though using the Bible as both a religion and a science textbook is
less bizarre than using Darwin as a religion textbook only.

[Nicole Massey]

"Rast" <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2be1b657...@news.eternal-september.org...

I try to not judge where folks get their religion from, as long as they
don't get any of it on me and they don't harm innocents. But yeah, some
things aren't the best fit for dogma, though of course it still exists. All
too often we link the word "fundamentalism" with religions, but there are
fundamentalists of every stripe, and religious, political, lifestyle, and
even automobiles just scratch the surface. And I've met a lot of scientific
fundamentalists, too, most often calling themselves "skeptics". (Of course
all not all skeptics are fundamentalists)

[Nicole Massey]

"LL" <Loren...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:kl8o46$i2i$1...@dont-email.me...

It's simple. Science doesn't claim to show us relaity, at least from the
honest folks. It tries to explain the results of experiments to shed some
understanding on what we know of reality based on current knowledge and
experience. But no scientist worth the name would claim they have any true
facts about the world around us, just useful models that seem, at the
present time and with present understanding and resources, to explain how
reality works.
And don't try to paint me as a creation science advocate in any way -- it's
an attempt to give credence to one particular flavor of creationism,
usually seeped in the tenets of the faiths of "the book", not a real
science. It simply tries to co-opt science to gain some credibility, which
it manages to do only with the gullible or those within its fold.

I can't say if we were a random accident or created. I can say that
evolution works, and has worked here on Earth for a long time, and that it's
likely to work in other environments. Evolution as it stands, and especially
with how it was outlined by Charles Darwin, is not mutually exclusive with
creationism, no matter how often the dogmatists of both sides try to portray
this as opposites. And Creationism is not science, because it can't be
proven at this time by science's commandment, the scientific method, which
must be followed to make anything acceptible as a part of its liturgy and
tenets. (This is why some folks consider those involved with quantum
mechanics to be heretics and not true scientists) There is no telling if it
will ever become scientifically accepted, so it's in the realm of plate
tectonics before 1960 and Aristotle's atoms before 1700. (And note that I'm
not saying it will ever be proved, just that it's not scientifically proved
at this time)
A study of the linguistic concept known as "objective language" would do you
some benefit, based on what you've said here at this point in time.

[JimP.]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:56:34 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tetsubo wrote...
>> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
>> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
>> in their agenda.
>
>The US spends more per student on education than anyone else.

Per student ? Or Per administrator ?

Nothing controversial is allowed in today's US textbooks.

>http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-
>infographic/
>
>
>> Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
>
>Educated people can be manipulated pretty damn easily too.
>
>Regardless, one thing the US education system has never been accused of
>doing badly is *indoctrinating* its wards.

Evedn today, you can probably still find high schools that teach that
George Washington had wooden teeth and chopped down a cherry tree.
Both are bogus.

[Tetsubo]

On 4/24/2013 5:48 PM, JimP. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:56:34 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote...
>>> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
>>> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
>>> in their agenda.
>>
>> The US spends more per student on education than anyone else.
>
> Per student ? Or Per administrator ?
>
> Nothing controversial is allowed in today's US textbooks.
>
>> http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-
>> infographic/
>>
>>
>>> Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
>>
>> Educated people can be manipulated pretty damn easily too.
>>
>> Regardless, one thing the US education system has never been accused of
>> doing badly is *indoctrinating* its wards.
>
> Evedn today, you can probably still find high schools that teach that
> George Washington had wooden teeth and chopped down a cherry tree.
> Both are bogus.

I recommend the books Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America
for some actual history.
> .
> JimP.

[Rast]

JimP. wrote...

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:56:34 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Tetsubo wrote...
> >> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
> >> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
> >> in their agenda.
> >
> >The US spends more per student on education than anyone else.
>
> Per student ? Or Per administrator ?

Probably both, certainly the former.

We run down the list of problems in US schools and who is to blame for
each of them (those conservative teacher's unions and education
departments, no doubt), but underfunding would not be on the list.

[JimP.]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:30:13 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 4/24/2013 5:48 PM, JimP. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:56:34 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Tetsubo wrote...
>>>> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
>>>> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
>>>> in their agenda.
>>>
>>> The US spends more per student on education than anyone else.
>>
>> Per student ? Or Per administrator ?
>>
>> Nothing controversial is allowed in today's US textbooks.
>>
>>> http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-
>>> infographic/
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
>>>
>>> Educated people can be manipulated pretty damn easily too.
>>>
>>> Regardless, one thing the US education system has never been accused of
>>> doing badly is *indoctrinating* its wards.
>>
>> Evedn today, you can probably still find high schools that teach that
>> George Washington had wooden teeth and chopped down a cherry tree.
>> Both are bogus.
>
> I recommend the books Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America
>for some actual history.

I've read it. I read lots of books, and know history in high school
should cause some people to be beaten by whips.

[Tetsubo]

Read Kozol's -Savage Inequality- and get back to me on that.

[Tetsubo]

It took me *years* to realize after graduating that not only did I love
history but science, philosophy and many other topics. American High
School had convinced me I was stupid. I'm not stupid. I was *bored*.

[Rast]

Tetsubo wrote...

> > We run down the list of problems in US schools and who is to blame for
> > each of them (those conservative teacher's unions and education
> > departments, no doubt), but underfunding would not be on the list.
> >
>
> Read Kozol's -Savage Inequality- and get back to me on that.

Haven't read it, but is his basic argument that poor districts collect
less property taxes, and thus have less money to spend on schools? At
the very least we can say that a lot has changed in the 22 years since
he wrote it. The state and the feds "help" the poorer districts by
shoveling more money at them. Often the worst districts spend the most
and have nothing to show for it.

For instance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_City_Public_Schools

$16k per-pupil spending.
$60k median teacher salary.
9:1 student:teacher ratio

Please note the "Criticism" section of that page... it must be those
damn conservative administrators in the Camden public school system
ripping the kids off.

Here's a nice map of NJ as a whole, showing per-district spending.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/04/11/mapping-school-spending/

I'm not from the state, so I can't say which districts besides Camden
are shitholes and which are mediocre or even good, but we can see that
all of them are spending much more per pupil than European or East
Asian countries do.

[Alcore]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:49:52 AM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 6:37 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
> > Most people don't know enough science to judge one way or another.
>
> I blame the American education system and the conservatives that have
> been underfunding it for the past 40 years. This is a feature, not a bug
> in their agenda. Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.

I have been watching Christian Fundamentalists try to dismantle quality education for my entire life now. They really REALLY want the USA to wind up with the dominant form of education in this nation to be religious. I grew up in a small town where the private "Christian Academies" (Jesus Madrassas) had a larger enrollment than the public High School...

People would scrape and push themselves deeper into poverty in order to send their kids to these places instead of just supporting the public schools.

And yet, despite the war on public education, the outcomes of the private religious education and the "home school" movements do NOT yield superior results that the crippled public system...

It's sad. America is killing itself. It's like we're trying to make the whole nation into some sort of Amish police state.

[JimP.]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 07:28:45 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> It took me *years* to realize after graduating that not only did I love
>history but science, philosophy and many other topics. American High
>School had convinced me I was stupid. I'm not stupid. I was *bored*.

Yeah, I get bored very easily. Which is why I have 19 web sites, play
an MMO, and read lots of books.

[Tetsubo]

This is about control. Things are changing in the world. Things have
*always* changed in the world. But that terrifies some folks. They will
do *anything* to create the delusion that change is not happening.
Including destroying everything around them. I still put forth at the
heart of every human interaction problem is fear. In this case, fear of
change.

[tussock]

Nicole Massey wrote:

> It's simple. Science doesn't claim to show us relaity, at least from the
> honest folks. It tries to explain the results of experiments to shed some
> understanding on what we know of reality based on current knowledge and
> experience.

Science: (n) the philosophy of testing one's ideas against reality to
see if they could possibly be wrong; of formulating ideas such that they can
be tested against reality, and of performing such tests under constant
scrutiny.

To say "science doesn't show us what's real" is to grossly misunderstand
the process of testing everything against reality. You know why people
believe in General Relativity? It's because it predicted a great deal of
ludicrously counter-intuative things that all turned out to be true. Things
no one could have ever imagined testing for until the theory said they had
to be there, and there they were. Every time. Because it's right.

Hell, the theory of evolution predicted the earth (and solar system in
general) had to be at least hundreds of millions of years old, long before
anyone understood how that could be true. But it *had to be true*, if
evolution was true, and lo, the earth is indeed much older than that.

> But no scientist worth the name

Really? A no true scotsman?

> would claim they have any true facts about the world around us, just
> useful models that seem, at the present time and with present
> understanding and resources, to explain how reality works.

We have *endless* true facts about the world. Literally. We're
generating more true facts about the universe continously than anyone will
ever see. The problem isn't any lack of facts, it's processing them for
testing against the dominant theories.

Theories are things which /explain/ facts, make them intelligable.

> I can't say if we were a random accident or created.

c: none of the above, duh. You're reciting bullshit creationist
arguments from two centuries ago. They sucked then, they suck now, give it
up.

> A study of the linguistic concept known as "objective language" would do

> you [LL] some benefit, based on what you've said here at this point in
> time.

A study of basic logic would do you no harm either, Nicole. No True
Scotsman and False Dilemmas are not reasonable methods of argument, in that
they do not lead you to truth.

--
tussock