History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedCatholic church slams new teaching code which woul

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Poll Question: Does the British government have the moral right...
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [11.76%]
7 [41.18%]
8 [47.06%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 14:54
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I can see a reason we may be talking at cross-purposes here. I'm talking about being unbiassed as between people (or groups of people). Even if one is biassed to Christianity, a Christian judge should not favour a Christian brought before him over a Muslim.  Even if one is biassed to liberal democracy, a judge should not prefer a liberal democrat to a communist in court.  I don't think that's an unattainable ideal.
 
Similarly a teacher should not favour Christians over Muslims (or any other combination) in he course of his professional duties.
What you call unbiased, seems to be something else: equality before the law (rules).
Yes
Quote
If it's about people practicing or enforcing their beliefs and not merely holding them, I'm quite sure the court will be biased towards pro-liberal democracy.
My point was that that is different from being biassed towards liberal democrats. Obviously a judge is biassed towards the law, just as football referees are hopefully biassed towards upholding the rules of the game.
 
But foorball rules and society's laws are facts not beliefs. I expect a geography teacher to be biassed toward thinking New York is not the capital of Germany (or indeed of anywhere).
Quote
The First Amendment was mentioned earlier in the thread. 
 
As for teacher the discussion was not about favoring directly some children in the class (which can happen regardless of religion, ideologies or anything else), but about teaching certain things.
Things which probably favour or disfavour some children in the class. Or indeed all the children in the class as against children elsewhere.
 
There is no difference between teaching the superiority of believers in a certain religion and teaching the superiority of people of a certain race.
Quote
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
and
Quote
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Note 'by teaching and education'. The US signed that declaration. So did everyone in 1945 (except for Saudi Arabia) and so have most countries that have emerged since.
Quote
 And there's an inherent bias in curriculum, in the mandatory and optional disciplines. And frankly I see no harm to have optional religion classes - or optional classes of anything which can be taught (and if a Muslim decides to enroll into a Catholic Christianity class and he complains is like he'd complain that in the maths class they don't do biology).
I assume you mean Roman Catholic. It's not like that at all. It's more like complaining that in one maths course they teach you the Continuum Hypothesis is true and in the other they teach it is false.
 
The correct answer of course is that either statement is a matter of assumption.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 15:04
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I do not always trust the state and I ask who is behind the curriculum?

I mean will the school be forced to teach a PC or whitewashed lesson about ... or... or... fill in the blank
Only if people like Sewall or Barton are allowed to run it.
Quote
It is already happening and this is one of my fears about a state mandated program on religious schools.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=446156
That's the same story that started the thread. All it is is one man's allegations, as reported by Fox News. And, ironically, what he is doing is complaining that schools are NOT forced to teach what he thinks is true.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 15:43
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I do not always trust the state and I ask who is behind the curriculum?
I mean will the school be forced to teach a PC or whitewashed lesson about ... or... or... fill in the blank
It is already happening and this is one of my fears about a state mandated program on religious schools.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=446156
You don't always trust the state but you have no second toughts about the Constitution. Think there's a possibility to have a Constitution without having a state?
The people living in the USA seem to have become fond of this cliche "The state should mind it's own business". Well, its your business. The US citizens are defining USA. So if you don't trust the state then you don't trust your conationals. The state is not something immaterial, like God, its an institution invented by humans and driven by them. There are all kind of states and none is perfect. If you are able to comprehend this then you must realise that USA, as bad as it looks, is one of the most democratic states. Mistakes are made by the "state" but in a normal society these are going to be corrected. So is the case with a curriculum.
As for the "whitewashing", you probably fail to realise that school textbooks are adressed to children and exhaustive information is not the aim of such materials. Just the fundamentals. If you expect schools to teach kids everything about anything then you really need to think about it. So, if Islam is "whitewashed" because what is taught in schools does not connect it to terrorism or something alike, it's better for the children because they have less chances to get a wrong impression of what Islam is. If you have so much trouble with whitewashing how about teaching that some of the magnificent "Founding Fathers" were slave owners and had no problem with that?
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 16:59
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But foorball rules and society's laws are facts not beliefs.
 
You seem to use labels the way it suits your point. A law is "should", a fact is "is".
 
Societal laws, religious laws, are all the same, conventions. They are not based on facts, they are based on beliefs. If you believe otherwise, prove a law. Prove as in formally (mathematically) prove it.
 
Quote Things which probably favour or disfavour some children in the class. Or indeed all the children in the class as against children elsewhere.
If a child sucks at maths or hates maths, he'll probably feel disfavoured in a maths class.
 
Quote There is no difference between teaching the superiority of believers in a certain religion and teaching the superiority of people of a certain race.
One main difference is that religions exist, races don't. But the actual point is that in the religious curriculum I know of (or the religion education I experienced) they don't teach superiority. I'd argue that on the contrary, the flavour of Christianity which is most wide-spread in my place holds humility as a virtue.
 
Quote I assume you mean Roman Catholic.
No, I don't, I take any branch of Christianity, but with examples I could argue for the Orthodox one.
 
Quote  It's not like that at all. It's more like complaining that in one maths course they teach you the Continuum Hypothesis is true and in the other they teach it is false.
 
You just fail to understand my analogy. In a Christianity class they don't mention Allah.
Anyway, in the English class and in the French class they say the same meaning is represented by two different words. So who's right the English teacher or the French teacher?
Moreover in a history class one is taught that a certain battle was a victory for a certain polity, in another history class he is taught that the battle was a defeat and in another history class he was taught that different scholars have different points of view. The youngsters are taught that 2-3 is impossible, when they grow old they learn that 2-3 = -1. The same goes for square roots, for Newton's laws, for anything.
 
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 18:37
gcle2003 - I am waiting for a reply but I will show you more recent case law where the First Amendment has been used to defend the rights of private school against an ever encroaching government.

I respected the fact that British law is different and I do not live there. I have been to the UK several times though and love the country.
But, you do not live in the USA so why do you care??????

You can pm me this but how would your interpretation differ on the Second Amendment from the five Supreme court judges who recently ruled in favor of it, keep it brief. (anyone else this is not about the second Amendment so please do not go that direction.) It will also help me understand how you poetically interpret our Constitution. I don’t plan to add to this till I get examples I promised.

I thank yo though because you made me realize I need to know more about this so I plan to go through a course with the First Amendment Foundation about our Constiution.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 18:38
delete

Edited by eaglecap - 12-Mar-2009 at 18:54
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 18:52
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I do not always trust the state and I ask who is behind the curriculum? I mean will the school be forced to teach a PC or whitewashed lesson about ... or... or... fill in the blank It is already happening and this is one of my fears about a state mandated program on religious schools. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=446156

You don't always trust the state but you have no second toughts about the Constitution. Think there's a possibility to have a Constitution without having a state?

The people living in the USA seem to have become fond of this cliche "The state should mind it's own business". Well, its your business. The US citizens are defining USA. So if you don't trust the state then you don't trust your conationals. The state is not something immaterial, like God, its an institution invented by humans and driven by them. There are all kind of states and none is perfect. If you are able to comprehend this then you must realise that USA, as bad as it looks, is one of the most democratic states. Mistakes are made by the "state" but in a normal society these are going to be corrected. So is the case with a curriculum.

As for the "whitewashing", you probably fail to realise that school textbooks are adressed to children and exhaustive information is not the aim of such materials. Just the fundamentals. If you expect schools to teach kids everything about anything then you really need to think about it. So, if Islam is "whitewashed" because what is taught in schools does not connect it to terrorism or something alike, it's better for the children because they have less chances to get a wrong impression of what Islam is. If you have so much trouble with whitewashing how about teaching that some of the magnificent "Founding Fathers" were slave owners and had no problem with that?


I agree that government has its place but where do you draw the line between individual freedoms and the state's right to dictate and control?   If you read the article then you will see the whitewashing has an agenda and it is supported by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. I suggest reading up on CAIR!! If any school were to allow Chritians or any other group were to pray then the ACLU would jump in a heart beat. Get a wrong impression- truth is truth and lies are lies, they need to see the whole picture which would include terrorism. They also need to know that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The same could be said about any Cnhristian group, they cannot teach about their version of Salvation or have the children pray to Jesus in any way. I can see them say, "Now children raise your hand if you want to accept Jesus into your heart." Funny, this cannot be found in the Bible ooh I diverge -

All I am saying is the state has no right to control private school if it is against their convictions. I am waiting for some more case law that will be emailed to me so I can prove my point. The First Amendment does protect this cherished freedom.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 19:54
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:


But, you do not live in the USA so why do you care??????

Why do you defend Geert Wilders if you don't live in the Netherlands?
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 20:10
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

But, you do not live in the USA so why do you care??????
Why do you defend Geert Wilders if you don't live in the Netherlands?


If you know what is going on with the UN and these so-called anti defamation of religion laws then you will understand what is happening there could come here, despite our First Amendment. Except for a little Native American I am mostly European in Origin so I have a concern. I was only trying to get a better understanding of where he is coming from so Mixcoastl please do not think I don't believe he has a right to speak about our constitution. He is very much entitled to an opinion and frankly he has made me realize I need to study it more. I also acknowledge it is a manmade document subject to human flaws but it has kept us together as a nation for over 200 years. I am still waiting for that email to post case law about the First Amendment and private schools.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 20:49
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But foorball rules and society's laws are facts not beliefs.
 
You seem to use labels the way it suits your point. A law is "should", a fact is "is".
That theft is illegal in Britain is a fact. A law is a fact. It may only be one in potentia - i.e. you could say 'Theft should be illegal in Britain' - but whether it actually is illegal is a matter of fact.
Quote  
Societal laws, religious laws, are all the same, conventions. They are not based on facts, they are based on beliefs. If you believe otherwise, prove a law. Prove as in formally (mathematically) prove it.
They are not based on facts, they are facts. If you want to have it proven that theft is illegal, then go to England, steal something, and confess. You'll soon find out it is a fact, not merely an opinion. Watch next time a football player handles the ball with the referee watching. There'll be a totally factual free kick because the law forbidding playing the ball with the hand is a fact. Not a belief. Not a theory.
 
Laws are indeed conceptions, but conventions are also fact.
 
To ask for a mathematical proof is of course simply idiotic. This isn't mathematics, and mathematical proofs have nothing to do with facts but with logic structure and demonstrating tautologies. It's not logically or mathematically true that Paris is the capital of France, but it's a bet-your-bottom-dollar-on-it fact. 
Quote  
Quote Things which probably favour or disfavour some children in the class. Or indeed all the children in the class as against children elsewhere.
If a child sucks at maths or hates maths, he'll probably feel disfavoured in a maths class.
Not necessarily. He's just as likely to feel disfavoured if he's bright but is forcved to proveed at the pace of the slowest student. I've taugh maths in school. It's perfectly easy to demonstrate to a poor student that he is being favoured, by giving him special attention (actually in my experience, unless it's taken too far, the brighter students don't mind that.)
 
Quote
Quote There is no difference between teaching the superiority of believers in a certain religion and teaching the superiority of people of a certain race.
One main difference is that religions exist, races don't.
A quibble. It doesn't matter if they exist or not as long as they are perceived to exist. It's the perception that leads to harm.
Quote
But the actual point is that in the religious curriculum I know of (or the religion education I experienced) they don't teach superiority. I'd argue that on the contrary, the flavour of Christianity which is most wide-spread in my place holds humility as a virtue.
Then, as I pointed out before, you are very lucky to live somewhere like that. You could live under the Taleban. You could go to a fundamentalist institution like Bob Jones University. You could have lived in Northern Ireland a generation or two ago (though it seems to be improving now). Or in any of the other places threatened by religious discrimination and intolerance.
Quote  
Quote I assume you mean Roman Catholic.
No, I don't, I take any branch of Christianity, but with examples I could argue for the Orthodox one.
 
Quote  It's not like that at all. It's more like complaining that in one maths course they teach you the Continuum Hypothesis is true and in the other they teach it is false.
 
You just fail to understand my analogy. In a Christianity class they don't mention Allah.
So? We're not talking about 'Christianity classes' but classes in religion at schools.
[/QUOTE]
Anyway, in the English class and in the French class they say the same meaning is represented by two different words. So who's right the English teacher or the French teacher?
[/QUOTE]
As far as I can decipher that, both of them, though I'd need a more specific example of the words to be sure.
Quote
Moreover in a history class one is taught that a certain battle was a victory for a certain polity, in another history class he is taught that the battle was a defeat and in another history class he was taught that different scholars have different points of view. The youngsters are taught that 2-3 is impossible, when they grow old they learn that 2-3 = -1. The same goes for square roots, for Newton's laws, for anything.
 
I don't understand that remark about square roots. As for the 2-3 example in the first place they shouldn't be taught that 2-3 is impossible in any circumstances. At that stage of the game arithmetic has to be still confiined to integer-type situations. You can't eat three apples if you only have two, but that will still be true no matter how much maths you learn.
 
However that's in serious danger of turning into a totally irrelevant discussion.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 20:57
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

gcle2003 - I am waiting for a reply but I will show you more recent case law where the First Amendment has been used to defend the rights of private school against an ever encroaching government.

I respected the fact that British law is different and I do not live there. I have been to the UK several times though and love the country.
But, you do not live in the USA so why do you care??????
I have an 11-year-old grandson growing up there. Will that do? Anyway this thread started about the UK I thought. Other people nrought the US in.
Quote
You can pm me this but how would your interpretation differ on the Second Amendment from the five Supreme court judges who recently ruled in favor of it, keep it brief. (anyone else this is not about the second Amendment so please do not go that direction.) It will also help me understand how you poetically interpret our Constitution. I don’t plan to add to this till I get examples I promised.
I think it is clear from the Second Amendment, and considering the intentions of the founding fathers, that encroachimng on the right to bear arms is against the constitution. Laws to that effect should be backed by a repealm of the amendment. I think that under the second amendment that if Bill Gates wants to build his own nuclear sub, he should be allowed to.
 
I also think the amendment should be repealed as soon as possible.
Quote
I thank yo though because you made me realize I need to know more about this so I plan to go through a course with the First Amendment Foundation about our Constiution.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 21:57
I have an 11-year-old grandson growing up there. Will that do? Anyway this thread started about the UK I thought. Other people nrought the US in.


That is a fair reply but I am still waiting for the case law about the First Amendment. What happens there, well, could it spread here with the current administration and the UN?


think it is clear from the Second Amendment, and considering the intentions of the founding fathers, that encroachimng on the right to bear arms is against the constitution. Laws to that effect should be backed by a repealm of the amendment. I think that under the second amendment that if Bill Gates wants to build his own nuclear sub, he should be allowed to.   


For another thread but LOL I think that is a bit extreme but I sense a bit of British sarcasm


I also think the amendment should be repealed as soon as possible.




I recall several threads about this that only went in circles like this one.   

Edited by eaglecap - 16-Mar-2009 at 19:31
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 22:39
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That theft is illegal in Britain is a fact. A law is a fact. It may only be one in potentia - i.e. you could say 'Theft should be illegal in Britain' - but whether it actually is illegal is a matter of fact.
You don't seem to understand. We don't talk about what is illegal or not (you may, but then you're just monologuing), but about how things should be or not (we started from what "truths" should be told to children, what things should they know). That theft is illegal in some countries may be a fact (and who cares?). That stealing is bad is just a belief (and this is what is taught). You seem not to understand the difference between descriptions (facts) and prescriptions (rules, laws).
 
Quote
They are not based on facts, they are facts. If you want to have it proven that theft is illegal, then go to England, steal something, and confess. You'll soon find out it is a fact, not merely an opinion. Watch next time a football player handles the ball with the referee watching. There'll be a totally factual free kick because the law forbidding playing the ball with the hand is a fact. Not a belief. Not a theory.
 
Laws are indeed conceptions, but conventions are also fact.
It is just a mere belief that stealing is bad, that freedom is good, or anything else. This was my initial point which you missed (you - and only you - talk about illegalities). If you don't address my points, then why do you reply to me?
 
 You also create a fallacy. You earlier said "But foorball rules and society's laws are facts not beliefs.". But many (most) laws and rules do not say "x is illegal" (we know it's illegal, because it's against that law, it's also a convention we have) but "people should/should not do x" (and sometimes prescribe penalties). But "should"s are not facts. I can steal something in England and do not get caught or punished for that.
 
Quote
To ask for a mathematical proof is of course simply idiotic. This isn't mathematics, and mathematical proofs have nothing to do with facts but with logic structure and demonstrating tautologies. It's not logically or mathematically true that Paris is the capital of France, but it's a bet-your-bottom-dollar-on-it fact. 
 It's not at all idiotic, it's the awareness of "factness" (about your "understanding" of maths see below) In particular, you can't irrefutably prove Paris is the capital of France. I'll give the money only after I'll see the proof.
 
Quote
Not necessarily. He's just as likely to feel disfavoured if he's bright but is forcved to proveed at the pace of the slowest student. I've taugh maths in school. It's perfectly easy to demonstrate to a poor student that he is being favoured, by giving him special attention (actually in my experience, unless it's taken too far, the brighter students don't mind that.)
I also felt disfavoured in classes I didn't give a damn about. I felt disfavoured because they were mandatory. I felt disfavoured because I felt they were wasting my time and on the other hand the formal recognition I needed required for me to attend those classes. I also taught and got similar feedback from some students. And when is hate, the more the teacher tries to explain, sometimes the more student hates it. You seem to live the encyclopedist illusion that everyone wants to know everything better.
 
So, no matter what you can teach, the students won't feel the same about what's been taught. Some are too knowledgeable, some are not interested in it. Based on what they already know, they'll even perceive differently what's been said.
 
Quote A quibble. It doesn't matter if they exist or not as long as they are perceived to exist. It's the perception that leads to harm.
An idiotic reply. The perception of gravity leads to harm?
 
Quote Then, as I pointed out before, you are very lucky to live somewhere like that. You could live under the Taleban. You could go to a fundamentalist institution like Bob Jones University. You could have lived in Northern Ireland a generation or two ago (though it seems to be improving now). Or in any of the other places threatened by religious discrimination and intolerance.
 You also are lucky to live in your world. You could live under a Communism regime, where secular intolerance makes victims.
Nothing can prove that teaching religion is bad in itself. My point still remains, in a religion like Christianity humility can be a virtue. Saying that teaching Christianity leads to intolerance or feelings of superiority towards other religions is simply unwarranted. It may do so, but similarly, any ethics can arguably lead to intolerance.
 
Quote So? We're not talking about 'Christianity classes' but classes in religion at schools.
My example was about the irrelevance of non-Christians whining about optional Christian classes (I earlier said "and if a Muslim decides to enroll into a Catholic Christianity class and he complains is like he'd complain that in the maths class they don't do biology").
 
Quote As far as I can decipher that, both of them, though I'd need a more specific example of the words to be sure.
I'm not feeding such trolling. Either you understand my analogy or you don't. But looking at the next paragraph from you, I'm betting on the latter.
 
Quote I don't understand that remark about square roots. As for the 2-3 example in the first place they shouldn't be taught that 2-3 is impossible in any circumstances. At that stage of the game arithmetic has to be still confiined to integer-type situations. You can't eat three apples if you only have two, but that will still be true no matter how much maths you learn.
I know you're aged, but did you really graduate a high-school?
 
a)  Your remark is quite stupid because -1 is an integer number, so 2-3 = -1 is confined to integer-type situations. The younger students don't know of integers, they just know of natural numbers (positive integers, that is). In natural numbers 2-3 is impossible. In integer numbers, 2-3 = -1.
Maths is not about apples, pomiculture may be. However, if from my two apples, you manage to get three, it means I have to take one back from you. If it's hard to understand with apples, try with money. Perhaps you understand the term "debt".
 
b) Square root of negative numbers is said to be impossible at some point during the school years. Later, the students learn that square root of negative numbers is not defined for real numbers, but it is defined for complex numbers.
 
However, the point of all my analogies (also that with the battle with different outcomes, which I see you decided to avoid), is that students during school learn sometimes several conflicting "truths", depending on the perspective (historical interpretations, mathematic axioms and definitions, theoretical models, languages spoken). Why religion is refused to be such a perspective (especially as a free choice)?
 
Quote
However that's in serious danger of turning into a totally irrelevant discussion.
Considering you started to nit-pick my replies, I take this as an impertinent hypocrisy. It's not me talking about football, it's not me who started to talk about judges or courtrooms.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 12-Mar-2009 at 22:50
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2009 at 22:59
Saying that teaching Christianity leads to intolerance or feelings of superiority towards other religions is simply unwarranted. It may do so, but similarly, any ethics can arguably lead to intolerance.

   I can agree with this!! I went to a Christian church for a few years but I have evolved past that since then.

But, before I went to this church I hated gays and thought they should be Ostracized from society or worse. Since then I think different and learned to love the sinner but hate the sin. I have moved beyond that but I will never go back to my previous way of thinking. So, how does this lead to intolerance? Private schools should never been forced into this but like I said the law are not the same in the UK. I lived with some gays once and enjoyed them but I never hid my views from them and they still respected me. Christianity only taught me more tolerance but I am sure, like in all things, there are exceptions.


The church also taught us to love Muslims, although, you do not have to agree with their beliefs. I tend to believe this is what Jesus taught.

I think I can end this by saying you have your beliefs and I have mine but I will still post some case law whenever I get them.
respectfully
eaglehat
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That theft is illegal in Britain is a fact. A law is a fact. It may only be one in potentia - i.e. you could say 'Theft should be illegal in Britain' - but whether it actually is illegal is a matter of fact.
You don't seem to understand. We don't talk about what is illegal or not (you may, but then you're just monologuing), but about how things should be or not (we started from what "truths" should be told to children, what things should they know).
As a matter of fact (!) we did not start with that question, but with the question of whether the British government has a moral right to impose standards on religious education. Not on what those standards should be, though it's an interesting enough spin-off.
 
You said laws weren't facts. Whatever reason you had for saying that, it certainly opened the gate to my refuting the statement, which happens to be wrong.
Quote
 
That theft is illegal in some countries may be a fact (and who cares?).
The people who live in them. How do you not understand that?
Quote
That stealing is bad is just a belief (and this is what is taught). You seem not to understand the difference between descriptions (facts) and prescriptions (rules, laws).
It isn't me that doesn't understand. You're totally confusinig what laws outght to be, and what they are. Whether a law is a law or not is completely independent of anyone's belief. It either is or it isn't. Whether it is moral or acceptable or not - those are opinions and matters of belief.
Quote  
Quote
They are not based on facts, they are facts. If you want to have it proven that theft is illegal, then go to England, steal something, and confess. You'll soon find out it is a fact, not merely an opinion. Watch next time a football player handles the ball with the referee watching. There'll be a totally factual free kick because the law forbidding playing the ball with the hand is a fact. Not a belief. Not a theory.
 
Laws are indeed conceptions, but conventions are also fact.
It is just a mere belief that stealing is bad, that freedom is good, or anything else. This was my initial point which you missed (you - and only you - talk about illegalities). If you don't address my points, then why do you reply to me?
I was addressing your points. You were wrong.
 
Quote
 You also create a fallacy. You earlier said "But foorball rules and society's laws are facts not beliefs.". But many (most) laws and rules do not say "x is illegal" (we know it's illegal, because it's against that law, it's also a convention we have) but "people should/should not do x" (and sometimes prescribe penalties). But "should"s are not facts. I can steal something in England and do not get caught or punished for that.
 
What's that got to do with anything? You can have a precept 'stealing is wrong'. Fine. That's a matter of opinion. Or you can have a law 'stealing is illegal and the thief is liable to incarceration'. That's a fact, checkable by inspecting the law books. It has nothing to do with what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, good, bad, or anything subjective. It either is le law or it isn't.
 
And children should be taught what the law is. Not because the law is good or bad or moral or immoral or indifferent or anything else subjective, but because it exists and if they break it they risk punishment. They need to be told that as part of the process of joining in society just as they need to be taught to speak.
Quote
To ask for a mathematical proof is of course simply idiotic. This isn't mathematics, and mathematical proofs have nothing to do with facts but with logic structure and demonstrating tautologies. It's not logically or mathematically true that Paris is the capital of France, but it's a bet-your-bottom-dollar-on-it fact. 
 It's not at all idiotic, it's the awareness of "factness" (about your "understanding" of maths see below) In particular, you can't irrefutably prove Paris is the capital of France. I'll give the money only after I'll see the proof.
[/QUOTE]
Once more you show your lack of understanding. No empirical fact can be irrefutably proven. None. None whatsoever. Only mathematical and logical propositions can be proven true and then only within the bounds of the active assumptions - the axioms of the system.
 
You can prove Pythagoras' theorem IF and only if you accept the axioms of Euclidean space.  And that's an analytic statement. For a synthetic statement like 'Paris is the capital of France' or 'c is the limiting speed of light' you can only test it by experiment.
 
The capital of a country is where its seat of government lies. In France the seat of government is where the Chamber of Deputies sits, where the President and premier have their offices, and the majority of government departments are headquartered. All of those things are true of Paris, and can be tested by going and watching the verious people perform their duties.
 
Life would be so much easier if you weren't all the time trying these smart-aleck half-understood dodges.
Quote  
Quote
Not necessarily. He's just as likely to feel disfavoured if he's bright but is forcved to proveed at the pace of the slowest student. I've taugh maths in school. It's perfectly easy to demonstrate to a poor student that he is being favoured, by giving him special attention (actually in my experience, unless it's taken too far, the brighter students don't mind that.)
I also felt disfavoured in classes I didn't give a damn about. I felt disfavoured because they were mandatory. I felt disfavoured because I felt they were wasting my time and on the other hand the formal recognition I needed required for me to attend those classes. I also taught and got similar feedback from some students. And when is hate, the more the teacher tries to explain, sometimes the more student hates it. You seem to live the encyclopedist illusion that everyone wants to know everything better.
No I don't. And there's nothing in what I wrote that would indicate that. That you were disfavoured, or felt you were is one thing. There are lots of reasons a child might feel he was wasting his time learning things he didn't want to.
 
But that's no reason anyone shoud let that interfere with their assessment of whether some children should be deliberately disfavoured (or unduly favoured, for that matter).
Quote  
So, no matter what you can teach, the students won't feel the same about what's been taught. Some are too knowledgeable, some are not interested in it. Based on what they already know, they'll even perceive differently what's been said.
You seem to be piling up arguments against any form of education at all (other than letting the child do whatever he likes).
Quote  
Quote A quibble. It doesn't matter if they exist or not as long as they are perceived to exist. It's the perception that leads to harm.
An idiotic reply. The perception of gravity leads to harm?
That really is stupid. I note you carefully cut out my reply so yours would look clever instead of dumb, but I was referring to your statement about race not existing. It's the perception of racial difference that causes harm, not the racial difference itself (which may not even exist).
 
If you're going to call something 'idiotic' it would be sensible to quote what you are referring to in full.
Quote  
Quote Then, as I pointed out before, you are very lucky to live somewhere like that. You could live under the Taleban. You could go to a fundamentalist institution like Bob Jones University. You could have lived in Northern Ireland a generation or two ago (though it seems to be improving now). Or in any of the other places threatened by religious discrimination and intolerance.
 You also are lucky to live in your world. You could live under a Communism regime, where secular intolerance makes victims.
I agree I am/was liucky in that regard. The point about Communism is irrelevant since we've already agreed that precahing Communism is as bad as precahing religion. In fact in my own view Communism is a religion, though I accept that no everybody sees it that way.
Quote
Nothing can prove that teaching religion is bad in itself. My point still remains, in a religion like Christianity humility can be a virtue. Saying that teaching Christianity leads to intolerance or feelings of superiority towards other religions is simply unwarranted. It may do so, but similarly, any ethics can arguably lead to intolerance.
You've just summed up my/our entire case. It may do so, just llike any other ideology/religion/ethical system may. And it has done so and continues to do so, even, sadly, in Northern Ireland again. So it nees to be guarded against.
 
Quote
Quote So? We're not talking about 'Christianity classes' but classes in religion at schools.
My example was about the irrelevance of non-Christians whining about optional Christian classes (I earlier said "and if a Muslim decides to enroll into a Catholic Christianity class and he complains is like he'd complain that in the maths class they don't do biology").
 
Quote As far as I can decipher that, both of them, though I'd need a more specific example of the words to be sure.
I'm not feeding such trolling. Either you understand my analogy or you don't. But looking at the next paragraph from you, I'm betting on the latter.
I thought I said I didn't understand it. And I have no idea why you refer to asking for examples as 'trolling'. Again incidentally you've cut out what you are complaining against.
 
Quote
Quote I don't understand that remark about square roots. As for the 2-3 example in the first place they shouldn't be taught that 2-3 is impossible in any circumstances. At that stage of the game arithmetic has to be still confiined to integer-type situations. You can't eat three apples if you only have two, but that will still be true no matter how much maths you learn.
I know you're aged, but did you really graduate a high-school?
And I've lectured in finance and economics at business school/university. Bith of which require a certain degree of familiarity with mathematics.
Quote  
a)  Your remark is quite stupid because -1 is an integer number,
It isn't only an integer, but never mind.
Quote
so 2-3 = -1 is confined to integer-type situations.
No it isn't.
Quote
The younger students don't know of integers, they just know of natural numbers (positive integers, that is). In natural numbers 2-3 is impossible.
That doesn't mean they should be told it is impossible, which was the point. That's laying up problems for later.
Quote
In integer numbers, 2-3 = -1.
Maths is not about apples, pomiculture may be. However, if from my two apples, you manage to get three, it means I have to take one back from you. If it's hard to understand with apples, try with money. Perhaps you understand the term "debt".
Oh don't be childish. You know bloody well I do. 
 
If a child as two apples the child knows damned well he can't give away three. And that's fine. It IS impossible to take three apples from someone who only has two apples. So you stick to talikig about apples (or pears and oranges or pennies or whatever). What you avoid for the moment is concept of taking 3 away from 2, until you are ready to start teaching more abstract concepts.
Quote  
b) Square root of negative numbers is said to be impossible at some point during the school years.
Not if the teacher is any good it isn't. What you're taught is that a 'simple' number can't be multiplied by itself and produce a negative answer.
Quote
Later, the students learn that square root of negative numbers is not defined for real numbers, but it is defined for complex numbers.
 
However, the point of all my analogies (also that with the battle with different outcomes, which I see you decided to avoid), is that students during school learn sometimes several conflicting "truths", depending on the perspective (historical interpretations, mathematic axioms and definitions, theoretical models, languages spoken). Why religion is refused to be such a perspective (especially as a free choice)?
It isn't. The suggestion is that pupils should be taught several conflicting truths about religion. If you want to make an analogy to teaching conflicting truths in other fields that's fine. That's why I introduced the Continuum Hypothesis into the discussion, since it is both 'true' and 'untrue' since either assumption leads to consistent results.
Quote
Quote
However that's in serious danger of turning into a totally irrelevant discussion.
Considering you started to nit-pick my replies, I take this as an impertinent hypocrisy. It's not me talking about football, it's not me who started to talk about judges or courtrooms.
That's not what is irrelevant. The original question was about 'moral right' but it quickly also involved discussing legal rights, which is how judges and courtrooms become relevant.
 
What is irrelevant is all the stuff about mathematics and how to teach it to children and 'conflicting truths' in other disciplines.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2009 at 04:27

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You said laws weren't facts. Whatever reason you had for saying that, it certainly opened the gate to my refuting the statement, which happens to be wrong.
Laws are not facts, that's for certain. You can look for the definiton of the law, you can quote many laws (I will actually quote one to prove my point).

Quote The people who live in them. How do you not understand that?
If you don't understand what a rhetorical question is, there's little chance you can actually understand anything of what I'm writing here ...

Quote It isn't me that doesn't understand. You're totally confusinig what laws outght to be, and what they are. Whether a law is a law or not is completely independent of anyone's belief. It either is or it isn't. Whether it is moral or acceptable or not - those are opinions and matters of belief.
Let's look at laws as they are. I select a random example from EU:
http://www.eel.nl/documents/ectreaty/freemove.html
If you don't understand the "shall" part, then I'm wasting my time.

Quote I was addressing your points. You were wrong.
In your dreams...

Quote What's that got to do with anything? You can have a precept 'stealing is wrong'. Fine. That's a matter of opinion. Or you can have a law 'stealing is illegal and the thief is liable to incarceration'. That's a fact, checkable by inspecting the law books. It has nothing to do with what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, good, bad, or anything subjective. It either is le law or it isn't.
You're fabulating, most laws do not say "x is illegal", most of them only say "you shall do x" or "x shall be done" (see link above) or "you shall not do x"  - none of these are facts. You can choose to do or not do x. The law "thou shall not kill" cannot guarantee that someone will kill or not - this law by itself is no fact. Of course, you can argue that killing is illegal in whatever country but that's already a different claim (and I don't dispute that this can be regarded as fact).

Quote Once more you show your lack of understanding. No empirical fact can be irrefutably proven. None. None whatsoever. Only mathematical and logical propositions can be proven true and then only within the bounds of the active assumptions - the axioms of the system.

I know that, my unwitty companion, that's why I told you can't prove it. But my earlier point was that facts can (and usually do) receive a formal (even mathematical, physics is modelled through mathematics) proof.

Quote You can prove Pythagoras' theorem IF and only if you accept the axioms of Euclidean space.  And that's an analytic statement. For a synthetic statement like 'Paris is the capital of France' or 'c is the limiting speed of light' you can only test it by experiment.
You're using notions you don't know of. There are no analytic statements in this paragraph of yours.

Quote No I don't. And there's nothing in what I wrote that would indicate that.
Actually there is. Your understanding of how maths should be taught is a good start (see below for details)

Quote That you were disfavoured, or felt you were is one thing. There are lots of reasons a child might feel he was wasting his time learning things he didn't want to.

But that's no reason anyone shoud let that interfere with their assessment of whether some children should be deliberately disfavoured (or unduly favoured, for that matter).

You seem to be piling up arguments against any form of education at all (other than letting the child do whatever he likes).

You miss my point entirely. It all started with how could religion classes disfavour children - my answer is: like any other class.

I'm not making the arguments you imagine. I know that not all students will get the same thing. I have nothing against that. That's why I have nothing against religion being taught (optional classes for those willing to follow them).

Quote That really is stupid. I note you carefully cut out my reply so yours would look clever instead of dumb, but I was referring to your statement about race not existing. It's the perception of racial difference that causes harm, not the racial difference itself (which may not even exist).

If you're going to call something 'idiotic' it would be sensible to quote what you are referring to in full.

You're paranoid and blind, I reproduced your paragraph in entirety. I know what you were referring to, it's idiotic to claim that perception (of anything) causes harm. If I perceive myself to be white and my neighbour to be black (or even perceive my neighbour to have a darker skin than mine) I cause no harm. Perception by itself causes no harm.

You seldom quote me in full (almost in any discussion you eventually massacre the paragraphs and sometimes even the sentences of your opponents) and in almost any discussion with me you used at your convenience labels such as 'childish', 'idiotic', 'dumb', etc. - so don't tell me what's "sensible". Considering my past experience with you, don't ever hope I'll show any courtesy towards you.

Quote I agree I am/was liucky in that regard. The point about Communism is irrelevant since we've already agreed that precahing Communism is as bad as precahing religion. In fact in my own view Communism is a religion, though I accept that no everybody sees it that way.
You keep calling my points irrelevant, but perhaps it's you who doesn't get it. There's no argument against those who say religion is not necessarily harmful "well, you were lucky, you're not living in Northern Ireland". All our experiences are lucky or unlucky, and a lot of the values and ideas being defended here can support good causes and bad causes.
And my point about a Communism was not about preaching it, but about living in it, about living in a secular Orwellian world. You can call it a religion (the Christians had/ve their Satan, you the Religion), but Communist regimes were in general secular and sometimes violently anti-religion.

Quote You've just summed up my/our entire case. It may do so, just llike any other ideology/religion/ethical system may. And it has done so and continues to do so, even, sadly, in Northern Ireland again. So it nees to be guarded against.
 
I'm not sure what you understand of my case, but ethics are being taught, ideologies are being taught, why should religion be left out?

Quote I thought I said I didn't understand it. And I have no idea why you refer to asking for examples as 'trolling'. Again incidentally you've cut out what you are complaining against.
My point was not about giving examples of words (though I can). Since you miss it continuously and indulge in creating endlessly smaller discussions born by your urge to comment anything I say, how can I regard it as something else but trolling. It all started with one analogy of mine, did you get it? No. Instead we talk about laws and maths. What else do you expect? Languages?

And again, I reproduced your paragraph in entirety, so I'm not guilty of any cut.

Quote And I've lectured in finance and economics at business school/university. Bith of which require a certain degree of familiarity with mathematics.
Incompetence can get everywhere. You certainly are not familiar with mathematics. For proofs, see below.

Quote It isn't only an integer, but never mind.
If I say x is y, I don't mean that x is only y (nor that y is only x).

Quote No it isn't.
Like I said, your grasp over maths is not really a good one. I'll use from now on Z to note the set of integer numbers.
On one hand the numbers -1, 2, 3, are members of Z. On the other hand Z is closed to addition, substraction, and multiplication, therefore any of these operations between any numbers from Z will have as result also a number from Z. Consequently, no matter how you look at it, "2-3 = -1 is confined to integer-type situations". Or in other words, substracting an integer number from another will always result in an integer.

Quote That doesn't mean they should be told it is impossible, which was the point. That's laying up problems for later.
But they are told that. It's weird though that you also acknowledge it by saying "If a child as two apples the child knows damned well he can't give away three." - "can't" means is impossible. Either he learns that he can, or that he cannot.

Quote
Oh don't be childish. You know bloody well I do. 

If a child as two apples the child knows damned well he can't give away three. And that's fine. It IS impossible to take three apples from someone who only has two apples. So you stick to talikig about apples (or pears and oranges or pennies or whatever). What you avoid for the moment is concept of taking 3 away from 2, until you are ready to start teaching more abstract concepts.

I don't think you really do, because you can't understand that three apples can be taken from someone having two. Even as a child, if I promised someone three apples from my two, I had to "borrow" one more to keep my promise, so in the end he had three and I had to return one apple. Of course, I didn't think of maths, but I knew the situation. That one apple which is to be returned is what later is learnt to be a negative quantity.

Quote Not if the teacher is any good it isn't. What you're taught is that a 'simple' number can't be multiplied by itself and produce a negative answer.
Obviously you know little to nothing about mathematics, even less about teaching it. Students certainly are taught that square roots of negative (real) numbers are impossible. Let me give you an example, when as a student you're asked to solve equations or inequalities involving square roots, always the radicands have to be considered positive. E.g. in -2 < sqrt(x) < 2, the solution is x E [0, 4). If you believe I'm making things up, you're free to attend classes, or alternatively to search the google:
http://www.mathwizz.com/algebra/chooseineq.htm
"can't have the square root of a negative number" proves my point.

Moreover even your "argument" (btw, someone familiar with maths speaks of real numbers not of 'simple' numbers) has as immediate consequence that square roots of negative numbers are impossible.

Quote It isn't. The suggestion is that pupils should be taught several conflicting truths about religion. If you want to make an analogy to teaching conflicting truths in other fields that's fine. That's why I introduced the Continuum Hypothesis into the discussion, since it is both 'true' and 'untrue' since either assumption leads to consistent results.
Not all students are taught all existing conflicting "truths", and there's no existing curriculum nor reasonable argument that they should learn of all "truths" out there (you denied that you don't have encyclopedist ideals, but your promote them continuously). I already made an analogy about teaching conflicting truths, it's not my fault you can't or refuse to get it. I mean look how disastrous is your understanding of maths.

Your analogy on the other hand is stupid. CH is merely a hypothesis, better said a conjecture, and I believe in many countries is not even part of the high school curriculum.

Quote The original question was about 'moral right' but it quickly also involved discussing legal rights, which is how judges and courtrooms become relevant.
My points were not about legal rights (until you suffocated me with "laws" and "facts"), so when replying to me they are rather irrelevant (you started this trend when to my "One cannot provide an education free of any bias" you replied with "You cannot provide a judicial system free from bias" and you kept on diverging more and more)

Quote What is irrelevant is all the stuff about mathematics and how to teach it to children and 'conflicting truths' in other disciplines.
More hypocrisy. We're discussing all these because you expanded them (for instance, you splitted in 7 parts a piece of text I wrote on maths, to throw in 7 distinct comments!) being too dumb to understand some short sentences or paragraphs of mine. And they are not irrelevant at all, they were part of the same argument of mine which originally was: "And frankly I see no harm to have optional religion classes - or optional classes of anything which can be taught (and if a Muslim decides to enroll into a Catholic Christianity class and he complains is like he'd complain that in the maths class they don't do biology).".

One more reply like this one I have just answered to, and you'll lose my interest in this discussion. Suit yourself ....


Edited by Chilbudios - 15-Mar-2009 at 04:48
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2009 at 14:16
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You said laws weren't facts. Whatever reason you had for saying that, it certainly opened the gate to my refuting the statement, which happens to be wrong.
Laws are not facts, that's for certain. You can look for the definiton of the law, you can quote many laws (I will actually quote one to prove my point).

If you don't think it's a fact that theft is illegal in Britain - or probably anywhere else - try - as I already said, but you dodged answering - stealing something and confessing.
 
Whether theft OUGHT to be illegal is a matter of opinion. That is IS illegal is simply a fact. A fact that can be checked in any law book. To hold otherwise is just crazy.
Quote
Quote The people who live in them. How do you not understand that?
If you don't understand what a rhetorical question is, there's little chance you can actually understand anything of what I'm writing here ...
If you use rhetorical questions no wonder people can't understand you.
Quote

Quote It isn't me that doesn't understand. You're totally confusinig what laws outght to be, and what they are. Whether a law is a law or not is completely independent of anyone's belief. It either is or it isn't. Whether it is moral or acceptable or not - those are opinions and matters of belief.
Let's look at laws as they are. I select a random example from EU:
http://www.eel.nl/documents/ectreaty/freemove.html
If you don't understand the "shall" part, then I'm wasting my time.

You're wasting everyone's time. You obviously don't understand what 'shall' means in English. It doesn't mean 'should'. It is simply a future declaratory tense. English has two future tenses using the auxiliary verb 'will/shall'. One goes 'I shall, you will (thou wilt), he will, we shall, you will, they will " and simply represents the future tense. The other goes "I will, you shall (thou shalt), he shall, we will, you shall, they shall', and indicates determination on the part of the speaker.
 
Here we have "Free movement of workers SHALL be ensured..." i.e. the speaker (the EU) is 'laying down the law' that it WILL and MUST BE ensured.
 
It's excusable you don't understand the difference because lots of English-speakers ignore it, especially in the US, but it definitely has nothing to do with 'should'.
 
Moreover it's queryable that this is really a law, since it is actually part of a treaty. But treaties are also facts.
Quote
 
Quote I was addressing your points. You were wrong.
In your dreams...
Quote What's that got to do with anything? You can have a precept 'stealing is wrong'. Fine. That's a matter of opinion. Or you can have a law 'stealing is illegal and the thief is liable to incarceration'. That's a fact, checkable by inspecting the law books. It has nothing to do with what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, good, bad, or anything subjective. It either is le law or it isn't.
You're fabulating, most laws do not say "x is illegal", most of them only say "you shall do x" or "x shall be done" (see link above) or "you shall not do x"  - none of these are facts.
See above. You completely misunderstand what 'shall' means in accurate, legal, English. It's not a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact - 'you shall do it' does not mean 'you will do it' but 'you will do it or face the consequences'.
Quote
You can choose to do or not do x. The law "thou shall not kill" cannot guarantee that someone will kill or not - this law by itself is no fact. Of course, you can argue that killing is illegal in whatever country but that's already a different claim (and I don't dispute that this can be regarded as fact).
Then what on earth are you carrying on about? Laws are facts. They exist. And - which it's why it's relevant here - children should be taught what the laws of their country are. For their self-preservation if nothing else.
Quote

Quote Once more you show your lack of understanding. No empirical fact can be irrefutably proven. None. None whatsoever. Only mathematical and logical propositions can be proven true and then only within the bounds of the active assumptions - the axioms of the system.

I know that, my unwitty companion, that's why I told you can't prove it. But my earlier point was that facts can (and usually do) receive a formal (even mathematical, physics is modelled through mathematics) proof.

No it isn't. And if you know no fact can be proven, why were you stupid enough to suggest that I prove my statement. Asking mke to prove that Paris is the capital of France is the request of an idiot. That you know it's idiotic doesn't change that.
Quote
Quote You can prove Pythagoras' theorem IF and only if you accept the axioms of Euclidean space.  And that's an analytic statement. For a synthetic statement like 'Paris is the capital of France' or 'c is the limiting speed of light' you can only test it by experiment.
You're using notions you don't know of. There are no analytic statements in this paragraph of yours.
Read it more carefully. I was referring to Pythagoras' theorem. THAT is an analytic statement.
Quote

Quote No I don't. And there's nothing in what I wrote that would indicate that.
Actually there is. Your understanding of how maths should be taught is a good start (see below for details)

I quite obviously know a lot more about it than you do.
Quote
Quote That you were disfavoured, or felt you were is one thing. There are lots of reasons a child might feel he was wasting his time learning things he didn't want to.

But that's no reason anyone shoud let that interfere with their assessment of whether some children should be deliberately disfavoured (or unduly favoured, for that matter).

You seem to be piling up arguments against any form of education at all (other than letting the child do whatever he likes).

You miss my point entirely. It all started with how could religion classes disfavour children - my answer is: like any other class.

And your answer is uninformed at best, silly at worst. People do not murder each other over whether or not you can subtract 3 from 2. They do murder each other because they have been taught the other guy's religion is evil - something that you're perfectly willing to accept.
Quote  
I'm not making the arguments you imagine. I know that not all students will get the same thing. I have nothing against that. That's why I have nothing against religion being taught (optional classes for those willing to follow them).
Nobody here has anything against religion being taught, as far as I've seen. Certainly not me since I wrote a school textbook on religion. The common objection is to some people being taught that they are better than others because of their religion, and there are also objections to children of impressionable age being threatened with eternal hellfire unless they do as they are told.
 
The question is should the teaching be supervised, and does the government have a moral right to intervene in how it is taught.
Quote

Quote That really is stupid. I note you carefully cut out my reply so yours would look clever instead of dumb, but I was referring to your statement about race not existing. It's the perception of racial difference that causes harm, not the racial difference itself (which may not even exist).

If you're going to call something 'idiotic' it would be sensible to quote what you are referring to in full.

You're paranoid and blind, I reproduced your paragraph in entirety.

Nor surprisingly since you're on a hook, you are wriggling. You reproduced my paragraph, but you did NOT reproduce your paragraph to which mine was a reply. THAT paragraph set the context to race, but you jumped at the chance to distort the passage in an attempt to make me look foolish.
Actually it's you with the egg on your face.
Quote
I know what you were referring to,
Then why make that stupid remark? I know you knew what I meant. That just makes your duplicitousness worse.
Quote
it's idiotic to claim that perception (of anything) causes harm.
Then that's simply what you should have said in the first place instead of trying the smart-aleck stuff.
Quote
If I perceive myself to be white and my neighbour to be black (or even perceive my neighbour to have a darker skin than mine) I cause no harm. Perception by itself causes no harm.
Well, I could argue that, but in context I'll agree. However harm results from teaching children that the racial differences they perceive are such that they are superior to the others. It doesn't matter whether the perceived differences are real or not, which was my point - and which anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised was the point.
 
If A kills B because he thinks B belongs to another race or religion, it doesn't really matter whether B is really of another race or religion.
 
How you can even think of challenging that simple fact is beyond me.
Quote
You seldom quote me in full (almost in any discussion you eventually massacre the paragraphs and sometimes even the sentences of your opponents)
I very rarely cut anything out of a previous post unless I am not replying to it. You on the other hand as we have just seen do manipulate your quotes very significantly and deliberately.
Quote
and in almost any discussion with me you used at your convenience labels such as 'childish', 'idiotic', 'dumb', etc. -
Certainly frequently, true. That's the way you come over to me much of the time, once you stray away from your special subjects.
Quote
so don't tell me what's "sensible". Considering my past experience with you, don't ever hope I'll show any courtesy towards you.
This from someone who flooded me with abusinve PMs until I have to bar you from sending to me?
Quote

Quote I agree I am/was liucky in that regard. The point about Communism is irrelevant since we've already agreed that precahing Communism is as bad as precahing religion. In fact in my own view Communism is a religion, though I accept that no everybody sees it that way.
You keep calling my points irrelevant, but perhaps it's you who doesn't get it. There's no argument against those who say religion is not necessarily harmful "well, you were lucky, you're not living in Northern Ireland". All our experiences are lucky or unlucky, and a lot of the values and ideas being defended here can support good causes and bad causes.
And my point about a Communism was not about preaching it, but about living in it, about living in a secular Orwellian world. You can call it a religion (the Christians had/ve their Satan, you the Religion), but Communist regimes were in general secular and sometimes violently anti-religion.

 
I'm not anti-religion. I just don't see any reason to prefer one religion to another except insofar as they differ on moral precepts. The likelihood of any one of them actually being true is vanishingly small.
As for Communism being violently anti-religion, nothing is as violently anti-religion as an opposed religion. That's the underlying reason for the concerns that started this thread.
Quote
Quote You've just summed up my/our entire case. It may do so, just llike any other ideology/religion/ethical system may. And it has done so and continues to do so, even, sadly, in Northern Ireland again. So it nees to be guarded against.
 
I'm not sure what you understand of my case, but ethics are being taught, ideologies are being taught, why should religion be left out?
Courses in ethics are supervised, courses in ideologies are supervised, why should religion be left out?
Quote

Quote I thought I said I didn't understand it. And I have no idea why you refer to asking for examples as 'trolling'. Again incidentally you've cut out what you are complaining against.
My point was not about giving examples of words (though I can). Since you miss it continuously and indulge in creating endlessly smaller discussions born by your urge to comment anything I say, how can I regard it as something else but trolling. It all started with one analogy of mine, did you get it? No. Instead we talk about laws and maths. What else do you expect? Languages?

Sensible discussions, no rhetorical questions, no sarcasm, and no other debating tricks and attempts to appear 'clever'.
Quote
Quote
Laws are an essential part of this thread, since it was about whether the British government has a right to pass laws in a certain field. The rationale of the whole thread is about laws, right from the beginning.
And again, I reproduced your paragraph in entirety, so I'm not guilty of any cut.
Same comment. Divorcing my comment from what it was a reply to is distortion.
Quote

Quote And I've lectured in finance and economics at business school/university. Bith of which require a certain degree of familiarity with mathematics.
Incompetence can get everywhere. You certainly are not familiar with mathematics. For proofs, see below.

Quote It isn't only an integer, but never mind.
If I say x is y, I don't mean that x is only y (nor that y is only x).

You've just done it again. What was 'it' I was referring to? You cut it out, making my comment look meaningless.
 
In fact I was laying the ground for the point where you said the result was 'confined to integer situations'. It isn't so confined, simply because 'it' was not only an integer. Now you've had time to reflect you realise you made a mistake, but you don't want to admit it.
 
Quote
Quote No it isn't.
Like I said, your grasp over maths is not really a good one.
And here you did it again! Twice in a row, just after saying, with incredible chutzpah, that you never cut anything. What did my 'it' refer to there?
Quote
 
I'll use from now on Z to note the set of integer numbers.
Conventionally the whole rest of the world uses N. Z is conventional for the field of complex numbers, and R (and sometimes C) for the reals. But I guess you didn't know that. Or you're being rhetorical or something
Quote
On one hand the numbers -1, 2, 3, are members of Z. On the other hand Z is closed to addition, substraction, and multiplication, therefore any of these operations between any numbers from Z will have as result also a number from Z. Consequently, no matter how you look at it, "2-3 = -1 is confined to integer-type situations". Or in other words, substracting an integer number from another will always result in an integer.
But 2-3=-1 makes sense and is perfectly sensible if you are dealing with rational, real or even, at a push, complex numbers (2 = 2+0i). So it's not confined to integers.
 
The accurate statement would be that the set of positive integers is not closed under subtraction.
 
But this isn't the kind of thing you teach kids, not in the kind of age range where you're talking about taking three apples from two apples.
Quote

Quote That doesn't mean they should be told it is impossible, which was the point. That's laying up problems for later.
But they are told that. It's weird though that you also acknowledge it by saying "If a child as two apples the child knows damned well he can't give away three." - "can't" means is impossible. Either he learns that he can, or that he cannot.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between three apples and three. Most children can readily recognise the difference. I don't know why you can't.
 
Moreover you don't actually have to teach children that if they have only two apples they can't give you three apples.
Quote
Quote
Oh don't be childish. You know bloody well I do. 

If a child as two apples the child knows damned well he can't give away three. And that's fine. It IS impossible to take three apples from someone who only has two apples. So you stick to talikig about apples (or pears and oranges or pennies or whatever). What you avoid for the moment is concept of taking 3 away from 2, until you are ready to start teaching more abstract concepts.

I don't think you really do, because you can't understand that three apples can be taken from someone having two. Even as a child, if I promised someone three apples from my two, I had to "borrow" one more to keep my promise, so in the end he had three and I had to return one apple. Of course, I didn't think of maths, but I knew the situation. That one apple which is to be returned is what later is learnt to be a negative quantity.

This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to the confusion. Children don't 'promise three apples from their two'. They may promise three apples. They may give two apples. They know that they still owe one apple. But that one apple is not a negative apple. It's not -1 apples. It's one apple that they owe (plus one, not minus one). You can't eat it, you can't peel it. The child knows to fill his promise he still has to get one apple from somewhere: one POSITIVE apple. Telling such children they would have -1 apples - and I agree there are people who do that - ought to be some kind of offence.
 
When you do get into teaching negative numbers by far the better approach is to work on things like going up two stairs and down three to go down one. Or, maybe better, going two miles east and three miles west to end up one mile west. Or on tueday it's two degrees hotter than on Monday, and on Wednesday it is three degrees cooler than on Tuesday, so Wednesday is one degree cooler than Tuesday.
 
And so on.
 
Negation throughout maths (and you're laying groundwork here for vectors and matrices and even in the distance tensor algebra) reverses direction, it doesn't change magnitude.
Quote
Quote Not if the teacher is any good it isn't. What you're taught is that a 'simple' number can't be multiplied by itself and produce a negative answer.
Obviously you know little to nothing about mathematics, even less about teaching it. Students certainly are taught that square roots of negative (real) numbers are impossible.
I didn't say they weren't taught it. I'm complaining that they are.
And, incidentally, you again selectively cut the passage I was replying to, so wthe meaning of what I said is gone.
Quote
Let me give you an example, when as a student you're asked to solve equations or inequalities involving square roots, always the radicands have to be considered positive. E.g. in -2 < sqrt(x) < 2, the solution is x E [0, 4). If you believe I'm making things up, you're free to attend classes, or alternatively to search the google:
http://www.mathwizz.com/algebra/chooseineq.htm
"can't have the square root of a negative number" proves my point.
No it doesn't. The correct formulation would be ' if so-and-so were negative the root would be imaginary, not real'.
 
You were obviously badly taught as a child, and never had proper corrective training later. But not everyone has to go through the same route.
Quote

Moreover even your "argument" (btw, someone familiar with maths speaks of real numbers not of 'simple' numbers)

You for once haven't actually deleted the context but it's some way away. I indicated I was coining 'simple' by putting it in quotes to indicate that I knew that wasn't a standard description. Anyway it wasn't being used to indicate reals, but integers.
Quote
 
has as immediate consequence that square roots of negative numbers are impossible.

Quote It isn't. The suggestion is that pupils should be taught several conflicting truths about religion. If you want to make an analogy to teaching conflicting truths in other fields that's fine. That's why I introduced the Continuum Hypothesis into the discussion, since it is both 'true' and 'untrue' since either assumption leads to consistent results.
Not all students are taught all existing conflicting "truths", and there's no existing curriculum nor reasonable argument that they should learn of all "truths" out there (you denied that you don't have encyclopedist ideals,
Another cut?
Quote

but your promote them continuously). I already made an analogy about teaching conflicting truths, it's not my fault you can't or refuse to get it. I mean look how disastrous is your understanding of maths.
Just what mathematical qualifications do you have?

Quote

Your analogy on the other hand is stupid. CH is merely a hypothesis, better said a conjecture, and I believe in many countries is not even part of the high school curriculum.
It's probably not on the high school curriculum. Did I say it was?
 
D'uh! Of course it's a hypothesis. That's why it is called the Continuum Hypothesis. Anything that may or may not be true is a hypothesis, including e.g. the creation of the Earth in 4004 BC.
Quote

Quote The original question was about 'moral right' but it quickly also involved discussing legal rights, which is how judges and courtrooms become relevant.
My points were not about legal rights (until you suffocated me with "laws" and "facts"), so when replying to me they are rather irrelevant (you started this trend when to my "One cannot provide an education free of any bias" you replied with "You cannot provide a judicial system free from bias" and you kept on diverging more and more)

Another example of your selective cutting. I was replying to your mistaken version of what the thread was about. But you cut that out.
 
It's a perfectly valid comparison to suggest the same problems exist in the judicial system, which has to combat the same problem of providing a bias-free environment.
 
What I was attacking, and would continue to do, was your assertion that it was impossible to be completely bias-free, not by suggesting it is possible (which it isn't) but by pointing out that it negates any point in TRYING to be bias-free. The idea is to be as bias-free as possible and just to sit back and try and look wise and say 'Well nothing can be completely bias-free' is defeatist, counterproductive and generally irritatingly pointless and smacks of post,odernist tommyrot.
Quote
Quote What is irrelevant is all the stuff about mathematics and how to teach it to children and 'conflicting truths' in other disciplines.
More hypocrisy. We're discussing all these because you expanded them (for instance, you splitted in 7 parts a piece of text I wrote on maths, to throw in 7 distinct comments!) being too dumb to understand some short sentences or paragraphs of mine. And they are not irrelevant at all, they were part of the same argument of mine which originally was: "And frankly I see no harm to have optional religion classes - or optional classes of anything which can be taught (and if a Muslim decides to enroll into a Catholic Christianity class and he complains is like he'd complain that in the maths class they don't do biology).".
One more reply like this one I have just answered to, and you'll lose my interest in this discussion. Suit yourself ....
But who brought maths in in the first place?
 
You can't expect to make incorrect - or even just dubiously certain - statements and simply have people accept them, even if they are about irrelevant topics.


Edited by gcle2003 - 15-Mar-2009 at 14:36
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2009 at 16:03
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You're wasting everyone's time. You obviously don't understand what 'shall' means in English. It doesn't mean 'should'. It is simple a future declaratory tense. English has two future tenses using the auxiliary verb 'will/shall'. One goes 'I shall, you will (thou wilt), he will, we shall, you will, they will " and simply represents the future tense. The other goes "I will, you shall (thou shalt), he shall, we will, you shall, they shall', and indicates determination on the part of the speaker.
 
Here we have "Free movement of workers SHALL be ensured..." i.e. the speaker (the EU) is 'laying down the law that it WILL and MUST BE ensured.
 
It's excusable you don't understand the difference because lots of English-speakers ignore it, especially in the US, but it definitely has nothing to do with 'should'.
 
Moreover it's queryable that this is really a law, since it is actually part of a Treaty. But treaties are also facts.
It's you the one lacking understanding of English language (in particular, the difference between descriptions and prescriptions and between verbal tenses). "Shall be ensured" doesn't mean  "is ensured". No "shall" statement is a fact and it has a lot to do with "should". I can disobey any law at my choice and if I want I "shall not do x" (shall not ensure, in this case). 
 
Quote Read it more carefully. I was referring to Pythagoras' theorem. THAT is an analytic statement.
It's not. An analytical statement would be "a triangle has three angles". 
 
Quote And your answer is uninformed at best, silly at worst. People do not murder each other over whether or not you can subtract 3 from 2. They do murder each other because they have been taught the other guy's religion is evil - something that you're perfectly willing to accept.
 Non sequitur, I can learn an ideology is evil and not kill those
holding it. But this is missing the point, as I have already pointed in most Christian classes, there's nothing said about Allah.
 
Quote The question is should the teaching be supervised, and does the government have a moral right to intervene in how it is taught.
 
Courses in ethics are supervised, courses in ideologies are supervised, why should religion be left out?
 
All disciplines which are taught are supervised. I was talking about curriculum all along (if you have any idea what that is).
 
Quote
Nor surprisingly since you're on a hook, you are wriggling. You reproduced my paragraph, but you did NOT reproduce your paragraph to which mine was a reply. THAT paragraph set the context to race, but you jumped at the chance to distort the passage in an attempt to make me look foolish.
Actually it's you with the egg on your face.
You're hopeless, I almost always quote only what I'm replying to (your text, that is). I seldom delete and if I do I usually note it with "[...]". Occasionally I strip something from a sentence, but usually when my opponent indulges in the same practice, my personal preference is for longer, dedicated paragraphs.
 
I have absolutely no reason to go back and quote/copy-paste an entire discussion for those with memory losses, unable to focus and so on. I have absolutely no reason to avoid rhetorical questoins and various other methods of discourse. If have mental problems, then look for professional treatment, I'm not your nurse to feed you with concepts already chewed and understood. You have to put some effort to understand me. If you're unable to and you insist in replying to me, then you're just trolling.
 
And I don't need to make you look foolish, you're doing a great job yourself.
 
Quote I very raely cur anything out of a previous post unless I am not replying to it.  You on the other hand as we have just seen do manipulate your quotes very significantly and deliberately.
You're a blatant liar. Even when you wrote this reply, you cut my sentence in half. From a single text (sometimes even paragraph or sentence) of mine you create several sub-threads of discussion (counting the number of "quote" tags) mercilessly cutting through it .
 
Quote This from someone who flooded me with abusinve PMs until I have to bar you from sending to me?
 I sent only two PMs (and is my right to do so, I have this option enabled on this forum) and you didn't have to do anything, because I didn't send any other. And I sent the second one because you're an abject creature making a private conversation public without approval. I actually have no reason whatsoever to maintain anything private with such a character, don't flatter yourself.
 
Quote Sensible discussions, no rhetorical questions, no sarcasm, and no other debating tricks and attempts to appear 'clever'.
My discourse is full of rhetorics and subtleties. I create sometimes complicated sentences (I know). My point can sometimes be understood only by reading my paragraphs in full, or sometimes several consecutive posts of mine. I would not compete for most eloquent person, but I believe I can make my points for those with patience and intelligence.
My discourse assumes my opponents are bright and either knowledgeable or honest enough not to engage critically towards me if they lack the knowledge. Especially when they pretend to be intellectuals, they brag with published books, with their expertise and experience, with their readings. 
 
On the other hand, it's you who keeps jumping at my throat, believing you have something worthy to comment. If my discourse is so thorny, why do you even bother to reply to me?
 
Quote
Conventionally the whole rest of the world uses N. Z is conventional for the field of complex numbers. But I guess you didn't know that.
How ignorant can you really be? N is the set of natural numbers. Z is the set of integer numbers. C is the set of complex numbers. (R is the set of real numbers. Q is the set of rational numbers).
 
Tell me again, with what maths are you familiar with? Certainly I didn't know that "Z is conventional for the field of complex numbers" and honestly I don't wanna know it.
 
Quote But 2-3=-1 makes sense and is perfectly sensible if you are dealing with rational, real or even, at a push, complex numbers (2 = 2+0i). So it's not confined to integers.
It makes sense because Z is a subset of Q, R, C. But 2-3=-1 is confined to integers, because -1,2,3 are members of Z, and never members of Q-Z, R-Z or C-Z. Always an integer number, never a non-integer number, to me looks like a confinment. If you believe otherwise, please show how 2-3 can have as result a non-integer.
 
Quote
This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to the confusion. Children don't 'promise three apples from their two'. They may promise three apples. They may give two apples. They know that they still owe one apple. But that one apple is not a negative apple. It's not -1 apples. It's one apple that they owe (plus one, not minus one). You can't eat it, you can't peel it. The child knows to fill his promise he still has to get one apple from somewhere: one POSITIVE apple. Telling such children they would have -1 apples - and I agree there are people who do that - ought to be some kind of offence.
It's you who is confused. One apple you owe is -1 apple. The sign is merely a mathematical convention (you can always change 2-3=-1 into -2+3=1). The apple you borrowed can be eaten and peeled (because it exists, it was borrowed and given to that person who has 3 apples now).
 
Quote
No it doesn't. The correct formulation would be ' if so-and-so were negative the root would be imaginary, not real'.
Yes it does. I know infinitely better than you what my point is. The correct formulation is the one you just saw there, which was taught to me and still is taught in many (most, I'd dare to say) schools worldwide: the radicand can't be negative. At this level students know nothing of complex numbers.
 
Quote You've deleted the context again. Anyway I was being trying not to say 'scalars' not 'reals'
  I did not delete any context, you actually said "What you're taught is that a 'simple' number can't be multiplied by itself and produce a negative answer." which is stupid remark as there are no such things are 'simple' numbers. Your self-proclaimed familiarity with maths is ludicrous.
'Scalars' and 'real' in most of the cases are quasi-synonimous. I guess you didn't google enough to find that out.
 
I see you edited it out, looking for a better excuse: google-talking in progress, I'm not changing my answer and what I've quoted from you (but I must remark that "it wasn't being used to indicate reals, but integers" is an even stupider remark, as square roots are first learnt for real numbers, sqrt(2) is a not an integer!)
 
Quote
It's probably not on the high school curriculum. Did I say it was?
 
D'uh! Of course it's a hypothesis. That's why it is called the Continuum Hypothesis. Anything that may or may not be true is a hypothesis, including e.g. the creation of the Earth in 4004 BC.
If it's not in the curriculum is irrelevant because it's not taught at this level. While religion is, like everything else I've said of maths, languages or history.
 
And if you'd knew it's a conjecture, you'd knew that in maths it's neither true, nor untrue. Your earlier remarks betray misunderstanding.
 
Quote defeatist, counterproductive and generally irritatingly pointless and smacks of post,odernist tommyrot
When the positivist simpleminds can't understand they blame it on postmodernism.
 
  
I left a lot of your comments aside because I'm either too bored to reply to them or they are obvious imbecilities (but so are several few I chose to answer to, but I couldn't miss some golden opportunities like showing you're tabula rasa in maths). The morale is: the more imbecile you choose to be, the less answers you'll get from me.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 15-Mar-2009 at 16:54
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 12:34
After a most welcome and entertaining dicussion between Gcle and Chil, I guess I can get back to eagle.
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I agree that government has its place but where do you draw the line between individual freedoms and the state's right to dictate and control?
But you keep on bringing forward the Constitution. A piece of paper against the "state". I mean that no matter what the Constitution states, the "state" can have its own way. Still, for as long as the USA have existed the threat to become a totaliarian regime has been quite insignificant.
I'll give you two articles from the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Romania. Just what do you make of them, since I think you know at least a few things of my country recent history:

ART. 13

În Republica Socialistă România, întreaga activitate de stat are drept scop dezvoltarea orînduirii şi înflorirea naţiunii socialiste, creşterea continuă a bunăstării materiale şi culturale a poporului, asigurarea libertăţii şi demnităţii omului, afirmarea multilaterală a personalităţii umane. (in the SRR the whole state activity has the purpose of developing and flourishing of the socialist order and nation, continous growth of material and cultural welfare of the people, insuring human freedom and dignity, multilateral affirmation of human personality) - cool, don't you think?

Pentru aceasta, statul socialist român:( in order to achieve these, tho romanian socialist state:)

Organizează, planifică şi conduce economia naţională; (organises, plnifies and leads the national economy)  - yeah, lead on!

Apără proprietatea socialistă;(defends the socialist property) - off course, because it's "state property" but that's another discussion.

Garantează exercitarea deplină a drepturilor cetăţenilor, asigură legalitatea socialistă şi apără ordinea de drept;(guarantees full exercise of citizens rights, secures socialist law and defends order under the law) - that would have been great, alas....

ART. 28

Cetăţenilor Republicii Socialiste România li se garantează libertatea cuvîntului, a presei, a întrunirilor, a mitingurilor şi a demonstraţiilor.(Freedom of speech, press, association and public meetings and demostrations is guaranteed for the citizens of SRR) - yeah, right...

ART. 30

Libertatea conştiinţei este garantată tuturor cetăţenilor Republicii Socialiste România.(freedom of conscience is guranteed for the citizens of SRR)

Oricine este liber să împărtăşească sau nu o credinţă religioasă. Libertatea exercitării cultului religios este garantată. Cultele religioase se organizează şi funcţionează liber. Modul de organizare şi funcţionare a cultelor religioase este reglementat prin lege.(Anyone is free to share or not a religion. Freedom of religion exercise is guaranteed. Religious cults are organised and function freely. Organising and functioning of religious cults are regulated by the law) 

Şcoala este despărţită de biserică. Nici o confesiune, congregaţie sau comunitate religioasă nu poate deschide sau întreţine alte instituţii de învăţămînt decît şcoli speciale pentru pregătirea personalului de cult. (School is separated from the church. No confession, congragation or religious community can open or maintain other teaching establishments other than those for the preparation of cult personel)

*I hope my translation is good enough for you to comprehend
According to your point of view, I should have trusted the Condtitution and not the state. But the document became useless after the Socialist Republic of Romania was no more. Not that it was of more use when the state was, in fact.
Quote If you read the article then you will see the whitewashing has an agenda and it is supported by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. I suggest reading up on CAIR!! If any school were to allow Chritians or any other group were to pray then the ACLU would jump in a heart beat. Get a wrong impression- truth is truth and lies are lies, they need to see the whole picture which would include terrorism. They also need to know that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The same could be said about any Cnhristian group, they cannot teach about their version of Salvation or have the children pray to Jesus in any way. I can see them say, "Now children raise your hand if you want to accept Jesus into your heart." Funny, this cannot be found in the Bible ooh I diverge -
Well, you have a point here but the problem is: does the "state" have an agenda or is controoled by a group that has one? If so, then it is up to the US citizens to intervene. But this concerns not only regulations regarding teaching or religion. My sensation from across the globe is that US citizens have become so individualistic that they are incapable of any effective reaction against their own chosen representatives. But I don't live in the USAEmbarrassed.

Quote All I am saying is the state has no right to control private school if it is against their convictions. I am waiting for some more case law that will be emailed to me so I can prove my point. The First Amendment does protect this cherished freedom.
A private school is not just a public place. Public manifestations of hate, discrimination and the like are to be confined for the most. Any person should be allowed to chose how to live. But if that way of living is harmful to others the state should intevene.
In the case of schools there should be under no circumstances allowed any kind of teaching that would instill hate in the mind of the chidren. The children should be allowed to make their choice when they are legally entitled. So the state should must control what is taught in any kind of school. And that goes up to even master or even doctorate. The curriculum has nothing to do with the truth you so much cherish. To a 6 years kids I think it is not good to tell that Islamist terrorists hit the twin towers. Not before you make sure that the said kid understands the difference between "some Muslims" and "all Muslims". So a contingent and safe though "whitewashed" curriculum is better than one that describes all the facts but could make things more confusing.
 
*Just for fun. My daughter is three weeks old. Last week I was having a hard time getting her asleep so I started playing some music. Among other kinds I like military music and I have some marches of the Third Reich. She fell asleep on "Horst Wessel". Should I be concernedWink?
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 19:39
thank you
But you keep on bringing forward the Constitution. A piece of paper against the "state". I mean that no matter what the Constitution states, the "state" can have its own way. Still, for as long as the USA have existed the threat to become a totaliarian regime has been quite insignificant.

You are talking about State rights I assume but I am talking about government in general meddling in private school's affairs. This can be; city, county, state or federal meddling I do not care, it is still meddling.

Yes I know and Abraham Lincoln even suspended parts of the Constitution during the war between the states which was largely fought over State rights. Today, the UN is the biggest threat to our sovereignty but not just ours.

I had a paper I wrote about the cause of the American civil war in academic but it is longer there.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.