The "crisis" will not end any time soon, instead I think we will figure out how to manage the virus and things will more or less go back to normal
Well if things go back to normal, that means this particular crisis is over. I don't understand what you're saying
In these past weeks we have learned to really make use of our technological advantages. Technologies that we may have avoided because people don't always like change.
I think this period will properly introduce everyone to the advanced online world we've spent the past decades creating - and I think it will stick. I think webshops and online shopping in general will see a significant permanent boost in sales, and "physical" stores will likewise see less customers.
Now that teachers and educators have been forced to learn and use the online platforms, we will see them being used even more, also after the crisis is over.
I do not however feel that the coronavirus outbreak will teach any kind of lesson - not regarding the economy, nor the environment or public health/sanitation. People tend to not learn from history, and I don't think this will be any different.
no human is obligated to deal with your healthcare by force
You know that all doctors take an oath? This is part of the oath, called the hippocratic oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
Given that I live in Europe, I'd be fairly unaffected by a quarantine lockdown in the us.
Here in Denmark extreme measures have been taken - all school (from daycare to universities) have closed, since Im an elementary school teacher Im out of a job for the time being - but we are getting paid, so it's not a problem. I try to stay busy with stuff, tons of projects to take on here at home.
It is however taking a major toll on the industry, so I honestly believe this will be the start of a financial crisis.
I think there are several factors to consider. The most important one is the fact that around a 5th of the world population lives in China, so it makes sense that a lot of diseases originate in the most populated area of the world.
It's like asking how come most car-accidents happen on roads - that's where the cars are :)
If they were 100% atheist, they would be stupid - because there is no way we can no for sure.
I will say though, that I am 100% atheist in the way that I don't believe in any sort of God that gives a fuck about what happens here on little earth :p
In my opinion there are two different phenomena that contribute to stupidity in this day and age. Those two are the imposter syndrome, and then the dunning-kruger effect.
The imposter syndrome is when a person who is accomplished or well-educated in a certain field, doesn't see themselves as an expert - even though other people would label them experts. Sometimes, when being asked a question regarding their expertise, they will downplay their knowledge on the subjects.
And example could be if you were to ask a neurologist a question regarding cardiology. Cardiology is not a neurologists expertise, however they are certainly able to give an educated answer on many questions concerning cardiology. Even if the neurologist didn't know the answer to the question, his guess would be far better than mine.
Then there is the dunning-kruger effect, which is the psychological effect of thinking you know more than you do, or that you are more able than you are. Basically, people might see themselves as experts in a subject they have very little knowledge or experience in. Imagine a relatively common, normal guy - maybe a plumber, who finds a book about cardiology. After he read this one book, he feels like an expert in the feel, because of his newly gained knowledge.
If there would be held a debate between the plumber and the neurologist on a cardiology topic, the neurologist might downplay his views, while the plumber is overly confident in his views. If there is an audience, they might side with the plumber - since his confidence is convincing. They aren't even able to make an educated judgment, since they likely know nothing about cardiology.
This is how all the debates go on the internet. Some fool says something overly confident, and people jump on the train, because they are equally foolish.
I haven't seen studies on this, it is an interesting question. As a former student and current teacher, I definitely think there is a correlation between class sizes and quality of education. Personally, I find as a teacher I can be more personal with my students when they are few, everyone gets to speak at least once in every class - that is very important, to have time for everyone. Not just in the matter of participation in the teaching process, but certainly also the development of a teacher-student relation.
As a principle, I believe I am the boss of my own body, and have a choice in everything that is being done to it. I think by forcing vaccines you open up for the possibility of making blood donations mandatory, organ donation, general medicines and other more controversial things as well. It also complicates the abortion debate.
I do however believe it is best for everyone who is healthy to get all the necessary vaccinations, and I believe this can be done by educating the public about vaccinations, so that all the ridiculous conspiracy theories about them can be stopped. If everyone understood what a vaccine is and what it does, and what the risks are, and so forth, everyone would get them.
So the answer is really, like it is with so many other social issues, better education.
I don't think americans are stupid, I do however think many of them are very misinformed, and not able to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources.
I think this is a result from a very insufficient education system for two reasons. The first one is that there are many religious schools, that fail to teach the value of critical thinking. The second reason is the fact that the good schools are reserved only for those rich enough to pay for them or to people who are able to receive scholarships. That means that the masses do not have access to the good schools, and therefore do not receive a good education. This creates a society of people that do not know how to handle information given to them - they do not know how to analyze an article, the motives the publisher may or may not have, or credibility in general.
I agree, I mean if you look at countries witn 70-80+ voter outcome, they don't force their voters to show up.
I think one common factor between some of the countries I can think of (nordic countries primarily) is that they have a parliamentarian system - which is far more simple to understand than for example the US legal system.
I think the simplicity gives everyone a chance to understand. Because if you don't understand your governmental system, it's easy to not care about it.
Murder? No. Killing? Maybe.
To me, this debate isn't about whether or not it is killing or murdering children or fetuses. To me it is very simply about the right to one's own body.
Pro-lifers then say - but what about the child's rights to their own body, what about that?
So here's the thing. There are several examples of how we decide the fates of other people. If my sister was dying of kidney disease, and the only way to save her life were if I donated my kidney to her - would anyone force me? Legally, no one can force me. Why? Because it is my body, everything about my body is mine, and no one can or should decide what I should do with it. We could all agree the moral thing to do would be to donate my kidney - I agree. That would be the moral thing, however morality and law are two very different things.
This example is not different from the abortion debate. Pregnancy is not insignificant to a woman's life. Pregnancy is risky, it can cause permanent complications, and unwanted changes in appearance. To force someone to give birth would be as crazy as forcing someone to donate kidney - We don't even force people to donate blood, by the way. Because your body is really the only thing you have, EVEN when another life depends on it.
Below is a link comparing cost of living in Denmark and the United States.
What you'll see is that stuff like consumer prices and restaurant prices are significantly HIGHER in Denmark. however -- Rent prices are over 20% lower, and groceries prices are over 8% lower in Denmark.
Which means yeah - your iphone will cost a lot more here, your date night will cost a lot more. But you'll probably be able to afford it, since groceries and rent is cheaper. OH yeah - and you don't have student loans or medical bills - which makes life easier for many.
I live in Denmark, which has a governmental system built upon the principles of democratic socialism. I pay around 40% of my income partially to the state government, and the rest goes to the governmental body dealing with more local stuff, like schools for children, and a bunch of other practical things.
Given that I pay a very large amount of my paycheck to this system, I think it is fair to say, that the "cheese" is definitely not free. The analogy of the cheese, the mouse and the mousetrap is very misleading in trying to describe democratic socialism.
Some people just don't wish to understand. That is the feeling I get, when seeing this debate. The creator doesn't wish to understand, he has understood his version of how he thinks reality works, and he probably has no intention of changing his mind. Why??? I honestly don't know, because socialism works for the working people. Maybe he is rich.
You can't really ignore the fact that democratic socialism is thriving in several countries, and is outperforming capitalism when it comes to things like defeating corruption, poverty, illness, illiteracy, and many other things.
What you're doing is categorizing countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden in the same pile as Venezuela - which honestly just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about.
But wouldn't you say all understandings are more or less an interpretation of an expression? In the case of written expressions, every reader is more or less understanding their own versions of the written - who is to say which understanding is closest to the intention of the writer?
I don't really understand the debate. It could both mean bringing phones to school for personal use, but maybe you're asking if phones should be used for educational purposes in class?
I think if a teacher can find a way to use mobile phones in a meaningful and educational way, I don't see why he shouldn't use them. Personally, speaking as a teacher, I cannot find a purpose for mobile phones in my classes.
For personal use, I find it sad to see pupils, especially young children sitting alone with their phones in their free time at school. I don't think it is stimulating at all, however phones are necessary for a smooth communication with parents, so therefore for many children they are necessary. But the school as a policy concerning mobile phones, that they may be used as a means of communication with parents concerning rides, or whatever. I think it's a fine policy,
Why is it in your opinion necessary for a christian to understand genesis literally in order to be a christian?
What I mean is, that many christians would argue that they don't read the bible literally, they read it metaphorically or symbolically, or however you'd say.
