CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Okay, I've got some time now:

For your first segment, the part starting at "I didn't put that forward very well," and ending with "about that on my view," fair enough. I suppose I don't have a lot of faith in people either, but I still think it's worth trying to teach them, as at least a few would likely pick it up.

"I'm curious how you might approach that, while still holding to the view that indoctrination more broadly isn't fair or right."

Let me try: I think indoctrination is morally wrong (I don't believe in objective morality (in that sense anyway), so maybe that's a bit hypocritical of me, but I see it as my subjective opinion) and I want to try to avoid it happening. At the same time I also want to 'indoctrinate' people to think critically, to defend them against indoctrination. It's kind of like the problem where people say there's absolutely no possibility of absolute knowledge, it's a bit self contradictory. Thinking about the question more, indoctrination is to teach one to accept (or reject) a belief uncritically, so teaching people to accept beliefs (or reject them) critically would be the opposite of indoctrination. Perhaps the teaching of critical thinking skills is best done along with the teaching of other things - I'll use an example as I'm not sure how to explain it: In a physics/science class, a teacher teaches the class the basic formula: v= d/t. To do this, they don't just show the students the formula, but they carry out a basic experiment - rolling a ball down a slope with a stopwatch or something (technically, this would only give the average velocity (the ball accelerates) from v=d/t, so this is a bad example and now I'm getting sidetracked, but you get my point). They would then be teaching students to accept the belief critically, by testing v=d/t to see if it works, and therefore not indoctrinating them.

With methods like this, I don't think that teaching critical thinking skills counts as indoctrination. I think that the only thing that can be taught without criticism is criticism itself, there's no other way. Maybe you could criticism critical thinking, but that would be circular.

An alternative way to get around this problem is to just say that, according to my moral beliefs, the good of indoctrinating people with critical thinking outweighs the bad of indoctrination itself, although this might lead to the old slippery slope situation, where you could then try to squeeze other things in. Also, for all of my examples, they already use things like rationality, maybe the act of critical thinking is rational itself? I'm kind of batting ideas about here, as you may be able to tell.

"(Basically, my preceding question again...)"

I'll refer you to my preceding answer then.

"I don't believe that society exists"

Could you maybe give a short reason why you think this, I won't debate you on this but it would be interesting to hear your opinion. In what way does society not exist? (You could just link me something if you don't want to explain.

"It isn't necessarily the case that social welfare is only or best achieved through egalitarianism"

I see that egalitarianism isn't necessarily true, I suppose all people aren't equal, and maybe some deserve better opportunities. Perhaps realization of this would benefit society if that's the goal, more efficient allocation of resources?. I think for now, I'll stick with the goal of getting what's best for society, and I realize now that egalitarianism ins't necessarily the path to that. I also acknowledge that there is definitely egoism in what I personally want - for example, I personally value things like scientific exploration, and might rather see that funded more than things that will directly help people. (You might have seen that in my "should we look for aliens" debate.) At the end of the day though, I would (in a hypothetical situation) probably vote for someone who wants to increase net social welfare over someone who wants to fund NASA more, even though I personally might prefer the NASA option.

"It presumes a certain intrinsic value to reason and science that simply doesn't exist. "

Fair enough, I see your point in this paragraph.

"Taking a positive stand for any thing, reason and science included, is to preference that thing relative to other things. That's not egalitarian. It's preferential. And coming from the government, it's indoctrination."

I think I can somewhat refer you to what I said earlier, about teaching critical thinking as a means of evaluating what students are learning in school for why it might not be indoctrination, at least in the way I gave the example of (the v=d/t thing). I see though that it isn't egalitarian, but as I said in the part before this paragraph, I now see why egalitarianism mightn't necessary for social welfare.

"we can practice double standards and refuse people who disagree with us access to the same avenues of action by denying that we're taking them and then faulting them for being oppressive tyrants"

I see that such a thing would be possible, but as you know, I wouldn't want to do that for my personal moral reasons.

1 point

You say ....on what actually constitutes indoctrination ......

That's the question thus the impasse

indoctrination. ... Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant

If you support LGBT rights, you are obviously Conservative. Liberals think it's okay for Muslims to slaughter gays like animals.

Donald Trump will not win the Presidency... says study.

Bwahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahaha!

*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ46I3kMOr0

1 point

Harrits is a 'chancer ' and interesting that people with qualifications never lie or distort the truth ; I gave you the facts about his claims typically you ignore them as it doesn't support your narrative

By the way demonstrate where and who peer reviewed him ?

A chancer and a liar and his nonsense is seen as such except by loonies like you , read it and weep .... from International sceptics

I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.

I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.

The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)

'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)

No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.

The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.

So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.

He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.

And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.

He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.

There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.

Just for the record - Niels Harrit also believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" (canΒ΄t link it yet). In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.

Clearly an archetypal truther with a bunch of strange ideas.

1 point

I've seen no one agree with your delusions you idiotic troll ; the minute you post a reply on your 'debate ' along comes one of your alt accounts to support your nonsense .

Your much loved Niels Harrit is another nut case just like you his claims have been rubbished , a little piece from International sceptics .......

I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.

I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.

The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)

'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)

No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.

The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.

So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.

He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.

And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.

He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.

There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.

Just for the record - Niels Harrit als believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.

Clearly an archetypal truther with a bunch of strange ideas.

You're nothing but a troll ........

To demonstrate how insane you are , now you accuse those who shoot holes in your bizzare conspiracy plot of being ......conspiracy theorists πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

Your modus operandi is .... post up you tube conspiracy plot videos labelling them as facts , ignore actual facts , never answer valid questions , constantly change your story and rely on testimony from a janitor who's changed his story 11 times .. got ya πŸ‘Œ

1 point

I don't want my argument to show for either side, but I'll put it here anyways:

I don't think anyone should call themselves things like conservative or liberal because it immediately implies what their opinions are on everything, and most people tend to sympathize with some of the points from several of the sides. Labeling yourself as something like this instantly makes people form opinions about you which are probably incorrect. The truth is more important than convenience here, even if you have to explain all of your beliefs.

You are neither a conservative or a liberal (same goes for me, and many others), and you shouldn't refer to yourself as either, because people will get the wrong opinion. If people ask, tell them that you don't like to use labels, but are happy to discuss issues on a case by case basis.

Hope this helps. :)

1 point

You make some good points here, but I still think it makes sense to say that the matter or energy, whatever it is, still exists in all places on the timeline at once and thus doesn't have to traverse an infinite time period (insert quantum physics space-time stuff here).

I suppose that you are right that it's a bit personal as to how we view it. It might not be possible to know whether it's possible, at least now. But if we don't know whether something's possible, isn't that practically the same as saying it is possible that it's possible? My goal here wasn't to prove an infinite regress possible, simply to try and argue that we can't assume it is impossible.

1 point

You're totally changing the subject by talking about abortion.

Assertions, assertions, name calling, more assertion, etc.

I'm not even going to talk to you about evolution.

Assertions, name calling.

I think I'm going to ban you, as you won't debate properly.

1 point

"It's paradoxical to say that the creation of meaning isn't objectively meaningful."

That's what you said before, and that's what I was just arguing against. I argued that the meaning created is subjective, so the creation of that subjective meaning is only subjectively meaningful.

"The fact that all conscious entities interpret suffering as negative demonstrates that it is indeed negative."

And I said that it is subjectively negative, just because everyone agrees, doesn't make it objective. Masses attracting each other isn't a good enough analogy, as they have no emotions or tastes or opinions, or anything of the sort. We need something that has no tastes or emotions to decide whether negative net conscious experience is a morally bad thing to cause, and we don't have anything capable of doing that. I don't see why their would need to be an entity that enjoys negative experiences, it's still about opinions, and that makes it subjective.

"remember positive means good in this context"

Positive means good to the individual in this context, not necessarily morally good, otherwise you'd be assuming that your original statements were true.

Moral goodness is still only the individual's taste, perhaps it was wrong of me to say that a positive effect isn't necessarily 'good,' and should have said 'morally good'. How would you measure the moral goodness of a positive effect? It's not like measuring gravity.

1 point

The options are random? That's not what you said earlier: " If I ask you to choose between "kktuui" and "endhgl" then clearly your decision will be random" Random options would mean the two (or more) options are randomly selected, and doesn't really have anything to do with this debate in any way that I can see.

I'm starting to think you don't understand what I mean when I say "make up part of who you are," and you're taking it out of context. The options don't make up who you are, the way your brain processes the options, even ones it has never heard of, makes up part of who you are.

1 point

"Excuse me, but you can't just pretend I did this."

Sorry, I didn't mean 'you' as in you specifically, just as in a general person. I should have said 'criticize' in place of 'dismiss.'

"I gave a complete explanation when I refuted your original claim."

That simply isn't true, you didn't explain your logic enough.

"If I don't know what it is then how can I have a bias toward it?"

It's not about 'biases' it's about the way your brain will look at the two unfamiliar things. It's not the biases that make up who you are, it's the way your brain thinks, bias is only part of the way your brain works, but it's not necessary for the point I'm making.

1 point

Don't worry, not your fault. People were focusing on it anyways. It's my fault for not making things clear enough, I probably shouldn't have used the word 'religious' in the title for the debate I wanted.

1 point

The numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence the learning process are certainly relevant to a discussion of online versus traditional face-to-face instruction efficacy. With this is mind, it seems difficult to dichotomize this question into an argument where one method is seen as more effective than the other. However, considering the current academic lens through which I look on a daily basis, I do not feel that online education is as effective as traditional classroom education. While plenty of authors advocate for the efficacy of online instruction, I believe that success of instruction is dependent on, to some extent (among other things), the content at hand. Considering allied health education and our professions where content mastery is not equivalent to clinical effectiveness, online instruction in isolation may not necessarily benefit all domains of learning. As high levels of affective and psychomotor abilities are associated with expert clinicians, instruction must seek to develop these characteristics. Hale et al (2009), describe similar themes concerning the efficacy of an undergraduate allied health pharmacology course. In this study, while learning scores and withdrawal rates were comparable between both online and classroom groups, students in the online group were less satisfied with instructor rapport, peer interaction, and self-perceived knowledge gains. While it does not appear realistic to instruct psychomotor skills or techniques through an online platform, virtual patient training (Al-Dahir et al., 2014) and surgical simulations (Antonoff et al., 2014) have been utilized to supplement traditional instructional methods. In addition to the type of content being delivered, intrinsic factors such as motivation and inherent academic ability influence efficacy of health science online instruction. Lu and Lemonde (2013) reported comparable results of online versus face-to-face instruction for a statistics course to undergraduate health science students, only if the students were high achieving academically. Students who were considered lower performing students performed significantly worse in an online environment, as compared to a face-to-face environment. When considering content that requires additional methods to encourage affective and psychomotor domain development, and possibly benefits lower achieving students, face-to-face traditional instruction appears to be more effective.

Al-Dahir, S., Bryant, K., Kennedy, K.B., & Robinson, D.S. (2014). Online virtual-patient cases versus traditional problem-based learning in advanced pharmacy practice experiences. American Journal of Pharmacy Education, 78(4), 1-8.

Antonoff, M.B., Verrier, E.D., Yang, S.C., Lin, J., DeArmond, D.T., Allen, M.S., Varghese, T.K., Sengewald, D., Vaprorciyan, A.A. (2014). Online learning in thoracic surgical training: promising results of multi-institutional pilot study. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 98(3), 1057-1063.

Hale, L.S., Mirakian, E.A., Day, D.B. (2009). Online vs classroom instruction: student satisfaction ad learning outcomes in an undergraduate allied health pharmacology course. Journal of Allied Health, 38(2), 36-42.

Lu, F., Lemonde, M. (2013). A comparison of online versus face-to-face teaching delivery in statistics instruction for undergraduate health science students. Advanced Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 18(5), 963-973.

The Clinton Foundation was like the mob.

The Clinton Foundation was an Italian organised crime syndicate which ran illegal gambling and prostitution rings? Wow. This sounds like one of your pizzagate theories.

Trump has commited no crime

He committed espionage and treason you delusional troll. He also helped fix an election. Guess what? All crimes.

1 point

The Clinton Foundation was like the mob. Ask Haiti. Look at Russia and our uranium. She was a mob boss.

Trump has commited no crime, nor has he had due process. Hillary did have hearings, and Comey's excuse for letting her loose was? "No intent". Of course then it turns out he was connected to the Clintons and let Bill off in the past as well. Wanna talk about criminal enterprise? Clinton Foundation. It's the biggest the world has ever seen. She lost to Trump and the pay for play died. Now she can't get a dime. Must just be a coincidence.

1 point

I didn't say anything that would imply that atheism doesn't indoctrinate. I agree that atheism can indoctrinate in the same way as religions.

Why is it faulty that God couldn't blame one for being an atheist? If there is no choice, then what is he blaming them for. (Remember, the point I asked you to dispute was assuming that there is no choice, so your not allowed to make an argument as to why there s choice to dispute it.)

I agree that not all Christians were indoctrinated into childhood, and that has nothing to do with what you are supposed to be attempting to dispute.

Here again is what you are supposed to dispute: "Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?" Argue why my reasoning is wrong, or accept it as a valid point.

1 point

Hello Jake,

If it's good to you, it's good for you.

excon

1 point

Hello s,

You're a conservalib..................................

excon

2 points

What? You don't like witch hunts? I know better than that. You love them.

Wait, I thought only Christians loved witch hunts.

This is the same idea that Trumpsters were concerned on if Hillary won.

But Hillary didn't commit any actual crimes so why would she need a pardon?

1 point

Hello bront,

The words I used are in the English language. You must've heard Chippewa words, cause that ain't what I said.

Now go get this bone.

excon


1 of 37 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]