Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure how it is an ad hominem. I never made any such statement that a certain level of academic achievement was necessary. Merely wondering exactly where your strong conviction arises from on the subject of evolution whether it be hours upon hours of digging through websites, studies in school, research journals, whatever.
I have no "strong conviction", unless you think pointing out that a claim to fact is not fact is a strong conviction. You have offered many assumptions as to my intent, you have also implied emotional aspects to which are not present, and you now ask for qualification. This is a fallacious reasoning process as it attempts to ignore the argument while it seeks to question the one making the argument. I simply pointed out that such approach is fallacious and irrelevant to the argument. Stick to the main issue, you made a claim to which you rely on authority as its only position of validity and now argue that position as valid to which I asked you to properly support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
I've yet to hear exactly how or why the subject isn't a valid theory, but strawman arguments where you expect posters on a political message board to be able to detail exactly how evolution (in the broadest sense) conforms to the scientific method.
A straw man is taking the other persons argument, changing it so it can be easily defeated. I have not changed your argument, I am simply requiring you to validate it to your claim. You state it is scientifically valid, I asked by what means of the scientific method does it establish this validity. You have failed to answer and are now asking me to prove the opposite of your claim rather than answering to that of the issues with your own position. Sorry, but... that is a fallacious tactic.
Again, you state it is valid, and again, I ask by what means of the scientific method makes it so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
Your attempt at a gotcha is again one giant fallacy as if we must all be an authoritative source on a subject for it to be valid.
No gotcha, just a simple question that you seem unwilling to answer. If asking you to provide some form of validation to your claim is a "giant fallacy", then I assume you also are not familiar with what a logical argument is either as you seem to be misusing it.
I asked you what specific fallacy, you used the claim of straw man, unfortunately you did not understand what that fallacy is as you misused it. So again, what fallacy am I using by simply asking you to validate your claim?
So far, as you have already stated, you are appealing to an authority, fine... but I don't accept appeals to an authority in such arguments as it does not answer to the question. Your link you provided did not answer to the question I gave. So you can either accept that you really aren't sure if your position is valid and we will be done, or you can continue to grasp at being correct and use fallacious tactics to discuss. I will only attend the latter for a bit and then I will disregard your discussion as internet chatter. /shrug
That's why George Wallace, democrat, literally stood in a schoolhouse door to deny entry to blacks. And the Ed dept was created under Carter -long after desegregation was a fact of life.
Failed attempt at propaganda here, nothing to see.
Remember folks: It has to be racism. If it wasn't, they'd have to debate us on the merits.
How about the simple fact that the federal government was never given any authority or power in regard to education? Or do you consider it a good thing that the federal government usurps powers they were never granted away from the States?
One benefit your children will gain by abolishing the Department of Education is the comprehension that the power of the federal government is limited by the US Constitution. Which is more than you have now.
An ideological point that I wholeheartedly agree with. But you could say the same thing about lots of issues that we've amended the constitution for (women's right to vote, etc.)
I don't think it's a good thing for Gov't to usurp power from the states, but again... hindsight. I stated before that I'm not defending the DoE.
The DoE exists. They ARE doing something (maybe not the right thing, no argument there). They employ thousands. They enact policy. They've had the backing of generations of legislators. We don't have a time machine to go back and rethink the original implementation, so what's the point of beating each other up over it? Taking ideological stands in a vacuum of hindsight are a waste of energy imo.
I have a problem with sound bite governing. I have a problem with standing at a podium and yelling "We need to axe these programs immediately!" without a backing that statement up with concrete reasons WHY that wouldn't pass muster for a 5th grade book report.
I'm sure this makes me a liberal/commie/pinko/marxist or whatever.
Don't you see the inherent problem with this type of epistemology?
If knowledge were a popularity contest, like campaigns season, isn't that problematic? Doesn't that make human knowledge rather arbitrary?
What if society got together and voted in referendum style on what was true and correct...say society voted that 2+2=5? Of course, empirically this is wrong and people would not vote for something so ridiculous, but in effect, this is what people do when they vote in a political candidate who is going to run either their local, state, or federal Dept. of Edu. Knowledge then will be disseminated according to their whims, beliefs, prejudices, etc.
I think this is entirely problematic.
Further, you seemed to assert that for you, knowledge is constituted by its monetary value -- it's extrinsic value rather than its intrinsic value. I think such is a recipe for a quickly degenerating society. And this has played itself out in American politics at all levels. I'm going to use Mississippi as an example because their educational policy is what I research and it's easy to criticize Mississippi. Seriously, I think the following case example contains broader pertinence:
Mississippians prefer that the less spent on education, the better. What results is a system of education in that state that does little for its population other than providing an elaborate and bureaucratic baby-sitting service while the majority of the population is enduring their low-paid service industry type of job. As a result, the state's population elects officials who share this view that if this is what people want...a poorly funded and poorly operating educational system, then so be it. These officials then construct a knowledge system bereft of much benefit that could be utilized by its people.
It's dangerous for society to have such low or arbitrary epistemological standards.
you missed the point i made. when you spend money on video games you are encouraging education in a specific field namely programming, graphics etc. i didn't mean people voting specifically.
i'm not going to respond to the rest of your point other than to say that school in poor areas is exactly what you say it is, a baby sitting service. where the education works in its stated goals ie wealthier neighborhoods, it is far more nefarious, it teaches blind obedience!
EVERY program should be up for review and reorg if not every 4 years, certainly on a reasonable schedule. The lack of accountability in our Gov't is an extremely serious issue across the board.
Jerry Brown eliminated the office of education in the state of California when he took office earlier this year.
you mean he did one thing right?
Sorry I couldn't resist that..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the Ed dept was created under Carter -long after desegregation was a fact of life.
