Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: "The difference being that religious conviction resulted in the inquisition based on the beliefs of the people involved. The invention of chemical and nuclear weapons did not cause the conviction for them to be used. Rather the political convictions and differences caused the weapons use.
Imagine the religious convictions of the Crusades or Inquisition, armed with the weapons to bring "divine justice" on a literally biblical scale.
Is the problem the weapons or the people who wield them? On 9/11 people with strong beliefs turned the technology of safe swift travel into efficient Fuel Air bombs of devastating power. Is air travel to blame?"
Hey, we might have found common ground. Does this mean you're for people's right to bear arms? After all, is it about the gun...?
My first response ... I really could give a flying fig about conviction. Dead is dead. If someone I loved died, I would not care if death was due to a certain conviction. Now, I'm guessing some would. "Damned religious freaks." I don't run that way. Wrong is wrong. Dead is dead. The action is more important than the intentions. Of course, I'm that way regarding a lot of things. Intentions...? Yeah, .... Intentions can mean a lot of nothing. I'm also not anti-religion, so that wouldn't be my first and, perhaps, only reaction.
My second response ....
Pope Urban with nukes. Hmmm.... I actually need to take time to think about that.
My third response ... this deals with your last point ...
What is to blame? The technology or the people who use the technology? (I remember making the same argument about religion and being told I was wrong, wrong, wrong ... but that's an aside.)
Knee-jerk response ... the people.
I wonder if it's that easy, though.
If I were a scientist (I understand the laughter) and knew I could build something or create something that could be, and likely would be, used for both good and ill, I'd be in quite a quandary. I can honestly see myself weighing the risks. Further, when dealing with, for example, the lives of children, I don't gamble. The odds would need to be pretty darned low for me to take the risk. I follow that on my own ... in my own life. It's all about unintended consequences. What might happen as a result of my actions?
So, ....
Regardless of the fact that, ultimately, it's about the people who use the technology, .... I think it's more complicated.
Sort of like the "right to bear arms" ...
Imagine the religious convictions of the Crusades or Inquisition, armed with the weapons to bring "divine justice" on a literally biblical scale.
Is the problem the weapons or the people who wield them? On 9/11 people with strong beliefs turned the technology of safe swift travel into efficient Fuel Air bombs of devastating power. Is air travel to blame?"
Hey, we might have found common ground. Does this mean you're for people's right to bear arms? After all, is it about the gun...?
My first response ... I really could give a flying fig about conviction. Dead is dead. If someone I loved died, I would not care if death was due to a certain conviction. Now, I'm guessing some would. "Damned religious freaks." I don't run that way. Wrong is wrong. Dead is dead. The action is more important than the intentions. Of course, I'm that way regarding a lot of things. Intentions...? Yeah, .... Intentions can mean a lot of nothing. I'm also not anti-religion, so that wouldn't be my first and, perhaps, only reaction.
My second response ....
Pope Urban with nukes. Hmmm.... I actually need to take time to think about that.
My third response ... this deals with your last point ...
What is to blame? The technology or the people who use the technology? (I remember making the same argument about religion and being told I was wrong, wrong, wrong ... but that's an aside.)
Knee-jerk response ... the people.
I wonder if it's that easy, though.
If I were a scientist (I understand the laughter) and knew I could build something or create something that could be, and likely would be, used for both good and ill, I'd be in quite a quandary. I can honestly see myself weighing the risks. Further, when dealing with, for example, the lives of children, I don't gamble. The odds would need to be pretty darned low for me to take the risk. I follow that on my own ... in my own life. It's all about unintended consequences. What might happen as a result of my actions?
So, ....
Regardless of the fact that, ultimately, it's about the people who use the technology, .... I think it's more complicated.
Sort of like the "right to bear arms" ...
Gary wrote: "The main people attacking this system at the moment though are actually the US Congressional "Science" Committee, who are wanting to stop funding being assigned by peer review and instead want funding directly assigned on "merit" (i.e. political will). "
Wait ....
Lord What's His Name, the scientist screaming from the rooftops and the only scientist I've seen named in the two articles I've read, is from the UK and Oxford.
??
Wait ....
Lord What's His Name, the scientist screaming from the rooftops and the only scientist I've seen named in the two articles I've read, is from the UK and Oxford.
??
Shannon wrote: "Looked at another article regarding China's scientists and the flu ....http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style......"
now, imagine how atheists feel, as there is even less oversight and self-policing involved in most organized religions.
Not to mention the general attitude of discouraging too much questioning of religion, as we must be respectful of beliefs.
Gary wrote: "It is concerning, and again the main concern is not so much the research (as other research subjects can be dangerous if mishandled) but the authority controlling said research."
I agree, to a point....
Why did they put a self-imposed ban on this to begin with? I'm guessing they had reasons. All of a sudden, a year later, those reasons no longer exist. As the WHO stated, they need to do a better job in explaining this to the people.
If the security isn't in place, they shouldn't do it. That's my opinion.
I agree, to a point....
Why did they put a self-imposed ban on this to begin with? I'm guessing they had reasons. All of a sudden, a year later, those reasons no longer exist. As the WHO stated, they need to do a better job in explaining this to the people.
If the security isn't in place, they shouldn't do it. That's my opinion.
Heather wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Evident this set some fires blazing!!! Someone did not remember the adage that goes not to talk about religion. Reading just a few posts the polarization is amazing, but pretty much..."Especially since we also hear so much about god's 'mysterious ways'.
If he's so mysterious how do so many people know he has a plan and how come nobody seems to know what that plan is?
Gary wrote: "Put it this way, it may be a scary article"
Yes, it is.
It's also scary that this broke a few weeks after or at the same time as the new avian flu strain, now spreading and killing in China. A strain that some say is passing from human to human.
Sure it's just a coincidence ....
Need to claim coincidence else people will say I'm a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, it is.
It's also scary that this broke a few weeks after or at the same time as the new avian flu strain, now spreading and killing in China. A strain that some say is passing from human to human.
Sure it's just a coincidence ....
Need to claim coincidence else people will say I'm a conspiracy theorist.
Gary wrote: "Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (disproven) idea that vaccination is linked to Autism, or is part of some huge government conspiracy. This is far more dangerous than some Chinese researchers engineering influenza. "
A lot here and in your post ... and ... I'm short on time. Will have to come back to this after work.
Two things ....
In America, children aren't, supposedly, allowed in school without immunizations. The same goes for college .... I was pulled my freshman year regarding an immunization. My father was in the service when I was a baby, and we were going to be stationed in Rhode Island. My doctor in my birth state gave me some shot, whatever it was, a month or two before it was supposed to be given. I almost think it was measles, mumps, rubella .... The nurse told me I had to have the immunization right that second or leave the campus.
Yes, I'm aware one home-schooler could screw us all, but .... So could a freak sex offender who locked three women in his basement, impregnated a woman, had a baby and ... likely ... never took the child to a doctor. Hence ... no immunizations. And, ... he supposedly took the child to play in a park once in awhile.
Again, regarding belief, if someone I loved died from being at a park with a homeschooling family who didn't immunize or from a sex offender who imprisoned women and didn't take his daughter to the doctor ... well, ... it wouldn't much matter to me which was which. Dead is dead.
Regarding beliefs around immunizations, ....
It's not all religious folk who believe autism was linked to vaccines. Just to state that. Further, in America, at least, people have a reason, a lot of them, not to trust the government with regard to vaccines. That is what it is ... and a fact. Maybe it's wrong that we continue to go to past crimes ... crimes, as if there were ever any consequences ... but there you have it. There was also a family who sued the government regarding vaccines and autism. The government settled out of court, while they didn't in all of the other cases. Placed a condition of silence on it. A lot of people wonder about that case. Anyway ....
A lot here and in your post ... and ... I'm short on time. Will have to come back to this after work.
Two things ....
In America, children aren't, supposedly, allowed in school without immunizations. The same goes for college .... I was pulled my freshman year regarding an immunization. My father was in the service when I was a baby, and we were going to be stationed in Rhode Island. My doctor in my birth state gave me some shot, whatever it was, a month or two before it was supposed to be given. I almost think it was measles, mumps, rubella .... The nurse told me I had to have the immunization right that second or leave the campus.
Yes, I'm aware one home-schooler could screw us all, but .... So could a freak sex offender who locked three women in his basement, impregnated a woman, had a baby and ... likely ... never took the child to a doctor. Hence ... no immunizations. And, ... he supposedly took the child to play in a park once in awhile.
Again, regarding belief, if someone I loved died from being at a park with a homeschooling family who didn't immunize or from a sex offender who imprisoned women and didn't take his daughter to the doctor ... well, ... it wouldn't much matter to me which was which. Dead is dead.
Regarding beliefs around immunizations, ....
It's not all religious folk who believe autism was linked to vaccines. Just to state that. Further, in America, at least, people have a reason, a lot of them, not to trust the government with regard to vaccines. That is what it is ... and a fact. Maybe it's wrong that we continue to go to past crimes ... crimes, as if there were ever any consequences ... but there you have it. There was also a family who sued the government regarding vaccines and autism. The government settled out of court, while they didn't in all of the other cases. Placed a condition of silence on it. A lot of people wonder about that case. Anyway ....
Shannon wrote: "Hey, we might have found common ground. Does this mean you're for people's right to bear arms? After all, is it about the gun...?"Interesting point. Again that comes down to belief versus evidence.
The belief is that guns allow one to protect oneself from others, be it criminals or the government itself.
The evidence is that most people who die by guns in the US are shot by the weapon owned by themselves or by someone they know. So it doesn't really protect them from criminals.
As for the government, well the US army has trillions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry that are not allowed to common citizens.
The belief is that the tyrannical dictators of the 20th century took their peoples guns away before taking control. That's not really true. Furthermore almost every other developed country has restricted guns with tyranny not appearing. One of the most recent being Australia that brought in gun control after a spate of mass killings. The result - no tyranny, no rampant criminals, just a huge drop in gun related deaths and zero mass killings since the change.
Shannon wrote: "My first response ... I really could give a flying fig about conviction? Dead is dead. If someone I loved died, I would not care if death was due to a certain conviction. Now, I'm guessing some would. Damned religious freaks. I don't run that way. Wrong is wrong. Dead is dead. The action is more important than the intentions. Of course, I'm that way regarding a lot of things."
So for example you do not link the racist policies of the slave-owning south to the torment and killing of people with different coloured skin? It doesn't matter to you if some people have the conviction that the "white race" can kill and enslave "lesser" peoples because they believe they have the right?
Or are they entitled to their beliefs and the actions that result from having the convictions of that belief?
Shannon wrote: "Intentions...? Yeah, .... Intentions can mean a lot of nothing. I'm also not anti-religion, so I don't have an ax to grind on this subject. So, ...."
No you are pro-religion hence you have an axe to grind against those who do not think it is right to place belief above reason and conviction above morality?
Shannon wrote: "Pope Urban with nukes. Hmmm.... I actually need to take time to think about that."
It's worth considering, especially since people with similar convictions in their beliefs in when violence is justified and who against are developing nuclear capability (Iran & Korea). Does it matter if Iran is controlled by extremists who believe that erasing Israel in nuclear fire as soon as possible is a good thing? Or if Korea is controlled by people who believe that the glorious leader should "free" the people of the South of the peninsula?
Shannon wrote: "What is to blame? The technology or the people who use the technology? (I remember making the same argument about religion and being told I was wrong, wrong, wrong ... but that's an aside.)"
That's because technology is a tool. It provides opportunity and efficiency. Religion is an ideology that provides the motivations to act that technology does not.
Shannon wrote: "If I were a scientist (I understand the laughter) and knew I could build something or create something that could be and likely would be used for both good and ill, I'd be in quite a quandary. I can honestly see myself weighing the risks. Further, when dealing with, for example, the lives of children, I don't gamble. The odds would need to be pretty darned low for me to take the risk. I follow that on my own ... in my own life. It's all about unintended consequences. What might happen as a result of my actions?"
No laughter from me. To paraphrase Phil Plait 'we are all born scientists, with curiosity, wonder and seeking answers. Unfortunately some of us are born into cultures or families were we are taught dogmatic answers and taught not to look further.'
You are right about the risks versus benefits. The only problem is that it seldom works so clearly. Scientists didn't seek out more and more powerful explosives and finally invented nuclear weapons. In fact it was the investigation of the strange properties of certain elements that led to the discovery. The actual Manhattan project was a race to realise the potential of an unexpected discovery before the enemies of America did. Meanwhile, the same technology that resulted in that also resulted in medical instruments, engineering and other technologies that may eventually save the lives of far more people than nuclear weapons have claimed.
Non-scientists often think that scientists choose the things they discover, but in a way it's the other way around. That's because science is discovery of what's there, not the imposition of ones own concepts onto reality.
So if you were a scientist, there is no way really to tell. The interesting thing you may discover may lead to something mundane, or it may lead to something wonderful, or to something terrifying. Sometimes it will do all three. The best you can hope for is that those that wield your knowledge do so with reason and compassion.
Just like a teacher who equips a student with knowledge and skills may be aiding the career of the next great thinker, artist or tyrant.
Shannon wrote: "Regardless of the fact that, ultimately, it's about the people who use the technology, .... I think it's more complicated.
Sort of like the "right to bear arms" ... "
Definitely complicated, but there are still commonalities that can be observed. For example, in your 2nd amendment arguments, evidence is routinely ignored for belief. Yet conversely the eagerness to discard rights and amendments reverses as soon as you consider terrorism. Yet terrorism has killed far less people than the proliferation of guns in the states.
Gary wrote: The invention of chemical and nuclear weapons did not cause the conviction for them to be used. Rather the political convictions and differences caused the weapons use.Imagine the religious convictions of the Crusades or Inquisition, armed with the weapons to bring "divine justice" on a literally biblical scale.
Is the problem the weapons or the people who wield them? On 9/11 people with strong beliefs turned the technology of safe swift travel into efficient Fuel Air bombs of devastating power. Is air travel to blame?
....."
If I can butt in here. This is an argument that could be used both ways and just because it fits, to a degree here, does not mean it fits correctly.
'Conviction', (firmly held belief) is an odd word to use in that context.
If you own a dangerous dog do you have the 'Conviction' that it may well harm a child or it won't?
Airplanes are not weapons any more than my pillow is, but in the right (or is it wrong) hands they could be used as a weapon.
I sure the Nuclear bomb was developed as a 'deterrent' because the thought was that Germany was near to having it. But what good is a deterrent if you are not prepared to use it?
It is 'political convictions' that allow science to develop more and more weapons so that the so called deterrent can be used to kill.
Depending which side you are on one could argue that 'drone planes' save lives, or are they an easier way to kill more lives safely?
Shannon wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Known fact: Over thousands of years wars that reslut in lives lost, pain and suffering, and usually no resolution are based on religious beliefs and playing off people's fear of the u..."No, not every war or conflict was the result of religious beliefs. But does it not seem the wars lasting the longest where the most lives are lost have their foundation in religion? Some have been going on for hundreds of years. No end in sight. No chance of any peace treaty or compromise. One generation just takes up where another has died out and on and on.
We can pick up books that tell us the causes based on perception of facts and the times. Facts can be revealed as time goes by, or slanted this way or that. (Can anyone say "weapons of mass destruction?" Would be interesting to be alive to see how this is written about 100 years from now.) Misinformation or misperception with the purpose of instilling fear.
While in our time we have access to more information than ever before, can we ever be thoroughly aware of what all the causes are? Where religion may be only one of several factors.
And even for those wars where we are able to see events as they unfold daily, perceptions vary.
Religion could be in addition to, or riding right along side of boundary disputes, culture, and the form of government.
And for many the cause is immaterial; dead is dead. Sometimes I think it is a curse to be interested in finding the cause when the result is often the same.
So in essence zealots (or arguably those really, really committed to the cause) force those who just want to live in peace to sacrifice the same although they have not made the same commitment.
Gary wrote: "Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (disproven) idea that vaccination is linked to Autism, or is part of some huge government conspiracy. "
It came to me driving to work. Would it? Really? A pandemic? Twenty to 40 million in a year? I'm thinking of all of the poor children the world over who aren't immunized. To this day .... Have we had a worldwide pandemic of .... Measles? Mumps? Not saying it's not bad. Not saying it's not preventable and lamentable if it's not prevented. Questioning the scale. Really? Twenty million deaths in a year?
Do you have any good sources for this? I'd really be interested in reading about such pandemics, historic, at least ... for diseases that we currently have vaccinations for. It would save me the research time. But, if you don't have the sources, I'll likely look into it anyway. I do find the subject interesting.
It came to me driving to work. Would it? Really? A pandemic? Twenty to 40 million in a year? I'm thinking of all of the poor children the world over who aren't immunized. To this day .... Have we had a worldwide pandemic of .... Measles? Mumps? Not saying it's not bad. Not saying it's not preventable and lamentable if it's not prevented. Questioning the scale. Really? Twenty million deaths in a year?
Do you have any good sources for this? I'd really be interested in reading about such pandemics, historic, at least ... for diseases that we currently have vaccinations for. It would save me the research time. But, if you don't have the sources, I'll likely look into it anyway. I do find the subject interesting.
Travis wrote: "now, imagine how atheists feel, as there is even less oversight and self-policing involved in most organized religions.
Not to mention the general attitude of discouraging too much questioning of religion, as we must be respectful of beliefs. "
Huh....
I've always said religion has issues. Big time. I've always said many of the world's religions have caused horrid and unwarranted pain and death. Right?
Yeah, I imagine non-believers get distraught at the idea that there isn't religious oversight to ... well, I don't know what. Decide what to teach in parochial schools. Decide upon science curriculum. Preach about the evils of vaccinations. Birth control. Abortion. Of course, a lot of people, believers and non-believers would take issue with that. Right?
This sort of, in a weird way, reminds me of Benghazi.
The Republicans scream. (Would they have screamed under a Republican president?)
The Democrats cry foul and, despite the evidence, say, "The Republicans are playing political games. Benghazi happened so long ago. There's death in life. Also, what about the terrorism under Bush. Huh? Huh? What about it?"
Meanwhile, one could ask ....
Isn't it ever going to be about the issue? Do we always and forever have to see ourselves as one or the other? Fighting until the end of time for our cause?
Can't I see that there are problems within religion and science?
Can't you see my statement, for example, about China making this strain without a secure facility, supposedly, and say, "Wow! That could be scary!" versus ... now you know how atheists feel.
If, ....
If China's facility isn't secure, it's scary and it's a problem and it shouldn't be done there. It really doesn't need to be a statement about science ... or religion. It could be a statement about humanity.
Not to mention the general attitude of discouraging too much questioning of religion, as we must be respectful of beliefs. "
Huh....
I've always said religion has issues. Big time. I've always said many of the world's religions have caused horrid and unwarranted pain and death. Right?
Yeah, I imagine non-believers get distraught at the idea that there isn't religious oversight to ... well, I don't know what. Decide what to teach in parochial schools. Decide upon science curriculum. Preach about the evils of vaccinations. Birth control. Abortion. Of course, a lot of people, believers and non-believers would take issue with that. Right?
This sort of, in a weird way, reminds me of Benghazi.
The Republicans scream. (Would they have screamed under a Republican president?)
The Democrats cry foul and, despite the evidence, say, "The Republicans are playing political games. Benghazi happened so long ago. There's death in life. Also, what about the terrorism under Bush. Huh? Huh? What about it?"
Meanwhile, one could ask ....
Isn't it ever going to be about the issue? Do we always and forever have to see ourselves as one or the other? Fighting until the end of time for our cause?
Can't I see that there are problems within religion and science?
Can't you see my statement, for example, about China making this strain without a secure facility, supposedly, and say, "Wow! That could be scary!" versus ... now you know how atheists feel.
If, ....
If China's facility isn't secure, it's scary and it's a problem and it shouldn't be done there. It really doesn't need to be a statement about science ... or religion. It could be a statement about humanity.
Kathy wrote: "But does it not seem the wars lasting the longest where the most lives are lost have their foundation in religion? Some have been going on for hundreds of years. No end in sight. No chance of any peace treaty or compromise."
Such as ...?
Such as ...?
Gary wrote: "The evidence is that most people who die by guns in the US are shot by the weapon owned by themselves or by someone they know. So it doesn't really protect them from criminals.
"
Are you going to give all of the evidence? Which provides the bigger picture?
How many people actually protect themselves with guns in America?
How many times have the murder rates, etc... risen in cities and at times when stricter gun control laws were enacted?
My students just did an extensive research paper on this topic, some pro gun and some con.
We can talk evidence. I'm game for that. But, .... We'd need to talk about ALL of the evidence.
"
Are you going to give all of the evidence? Which provides the bigger picture?
How many people actually protect themselves with guns in America?
How many times have the murder rates, etc... risen in cities and at times when stricter gun control laws were enacted?
My students just did an extensive research paper on this topic, some pro gun and some con.
We can talk evidence. I'm game for that. But, .... We'd need to talk about ALL of the evidence.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Intentions...? Yeah, .... Intentions can mean a lot of nothing. I'm also not anti-religion, so I don't have an ax to grind on this subject. So, ...."
No you are pro-religion hence you have an axe to grind against those who do not think it is right to place belief above reason and conviction above morality?"
Fast on the draw today ....
As soon as I made the axe comment, I went back in and took it out. I didn't think it fair. Even though I wasn't pointing to a specific non-believer and saying ... you have an axe to grind, I didn't think it fair, didn't think it set the right tone, and ... since it would be a general statement, didn't think it would be right. Not all non-believers would ....
Now, you've called me, specifically, out for being pro-religion, which doesn't provide the full picture (for the new folks who are out there), and isn't really a fair statement ... given who I am and what I stand for.
Question ....
Did you make that statement in retaliation? I said what I said, so you gave it right back to me ... more specifically?
Or, do you really, after all of the months I've been here and after everything I've said, think I'm simply a pro-religious woman running round with an axe to throw at the nearest non-believer or most recent issue within the realm of science?
Care to clarify?
No you are pro-religion hence you have an axe to grind against those who do not think it is right to place belief above reason and conviction above morality?"
Fast on the draw today ....
As soon as I made the axe comment, I went back in and took it out. I didn't think it fair. Even though I wasn't pointing to a specific non-believer and saying ... you have an axe to grind, I didn't think it fair, didn't think it set the right tone, and ... since it would be a general statement, didn't think it would be right. Not all non-believers would ....
Now, you've called me, specifically, out for being pro-religion, which doesn't provide the full picture (for the new folks who are out there), and isn't really a fair statement ... given who I am and what I stand for.
Question ....
Did you make that statement in retaliation? I said what I said, so you gave it right back to me ... more specifically?
Or, do you really, after all of the months I've been here and after everything I've said, think I'm simply a pro-religious woman running round with an axe to throw at the nearest non-believer or most recent issue within the realm of science?
Care to clarify?
cHriS wrote: "If I can butt in here. This is an argument that could be used both ways and just because it fits, to a degree here, does not mean it fits correctly."You are correct, it is often misused. Often it is used to imply that somehow "science" is at fault for the use of technology to the detriment of people. This is not the case. Knowing how to build a bomb does not mean that you then must build that bomb and then must use it. However ideological differences, be they religious or political, do provide motivation to both build and wield more powerful weapons than your ideological opponents if they will not compromise or convert.
cHriS wrote: "'Conviction', (firmly held belief) is an odd word to use in that context.
If you own a dangerous dog do you have the 'Conviction' that it may well harm a child or it won't?"
Exactly. If you have a dangerous dog it may harm a child whether you want it to or not, or others may release their dogs to potential harm of others.
The conviction would be that of the desire to own the dangerous dog, or the gun, or the nuclear weapon, and the reason for doing so. Whether you believe that the dog keeps you safe from invaders for example. If you believe you have the right to use deadly force to expel an intruder, does it matter in the end whether you beat them to death with your fists, stabbed them, set a dog on them or nuked them (collatoral damage is another issue there :-D)
That is the difference. Science can give you tools to heal or harm to great effect. It is ideology that causes those tools to be wielded.
cHriS wrote: "Airplanes are not weapons any more than my pillow is, but in the right (or is it wrong) hands they could be used as a weapon."
Exactly. Civilian Pilot or Extremist Terrorist does not depend on the technology, it depends on the ideological convictions of the pilot.
cHriS wrote: "I sure the Nuclear bomb was developed as a 'deterrent' because the thought was that Germany was near to having it. But what good is a deterrent if you are not prepared to use it?"
Actually it was developed with the full intent to use it before the enemy did, as the potential of the new science had been discovered by both sides. However the intent to use it was nothing to do with the science but to do with the conflict of the ideologies in the war.
Ironically in the end it was likely used as a deterrent. Not just to try to get Japan to end the war early and save allied lives (and money), but to show to the new ideological enemies - the soviets - that the US had these weapons and were fully prepared to use them in the advent of war.
cHriS wrote: "It is 'political convictions' that allow science to develop more and more weapons so that the so called deterrent can be used to kill."
No it is political conviction that chooses to take the developments of science and use them as weapons. Science isn't "allowed" to develop weapons, most science doesn't choose how it will be applied.
cHriS wrote: "Depending which side you are on one could argue that 'drone planes' save lives, or are they an easier way to kill more lives safely? "
True, but that is a political argument, not a scientific one. Drones can be used to do other tasks than kill people, and their current main use to kill people is based on an ideological conflict of politics and religion.
Kathy wrote: This really ticks me off. Funerals, at least Christian ceremonies. Ministers are saying a few words of consolation to a congregation. Then they come up with this "well we can all be thankful that now he/she is in God's hands.". It is usually the next of kin that arrange all this. The person who's funeral it is, is the last person who should be bothered or concerned (if they indeed could be) with what ever is going on. The next of kin can have 'said' what ever words they want. But why does it seem strange that if you choose a Christian service then some where along the line god ‘things’ are going to be mentioned. I think it's best not to have anything said. What winds me up is a long speech about the persons life. If you are at the funeral then you should know about that person already.
Kathy wrote: I am even upset because my neighbor won't prune his tree and the leaves fall on my lawn. I want him to adopt my beliefs about yard maintenance!!!! .
Chop down your neighbours branches that over hang into your garden and throw them back into his garden. And forget about him adopting your beliefs about yard maintenance
This is the atheist argument, at least the atheists here. They say that anyone with a belief, wants the atheist to adopt them as well. Of course we don't. If they want to remain lost souls that is up to them. :)
Kathy wrote: And doesn't a better place imply, at least at that moment, that this was not a good place?
."
......yes it does.
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (dispro..."Not sure what the cut off to qualify for pandemic is, but there are cases in Africa and some areas of South America of illnesses that we consider to be easy cures in the USA have swept through communities.
So, really it takes very little for a common, easy cure illness to get ugly and out of control.
Shannon wrote: "It came to me driving to work. Would it? Really? A pandemic? Twenty to 40 million in a year? I'm thinking of all of the poor children the world over who aren't immunized. To this day .... Have we had a worldwide pandemic of .... Measles? Mumps? Not saying it's not bad. Not saying it's not preventable and lamentable if it's not prevented. Questioning the scale. Really? Twenty million deaths in a year?Do you have any good sources for this? I'd really be interested in reading about such pandemics, historic, at least ... for diseases that we currently have vaccinations for. It would save me the research time. But, if you don't have the sources, I'll likely look into it anyway. I do find the subject interesting. "
Potentially more deaths that a "mere" 20 million. Unfortunately history doesn't help us much here as we are in a different time to what there has ever been.
We have quelled disease like no other point in human history, which is partially why there are 7 billion people on the planet now. Between vaccination and antibiotics we have all but eliminated many major diseases.
Certainly in the third world, certain diseases are still surviving, but they can be treated and because the population is of low density and low mobility diseases can be contained, and often careful application of antibiotics can do wonders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_imm...
However, if vaccinations are abandoned in large enough portions of first world society we could be in big trouble. If a disease breaks out here because of population density and mobility it could spread across the globe before the first people started to show symptoms. Worse still is that here antibiotics are commonly available, often mis-prescribed and not taken for a complete course. This can lead to the anti-biotics killing off the susceptible strains but allowing those with resistance to reinfect, meaning that the more antibiotic resistant strains would spread.
In two years, spread by the slow travel of ships and horse the Black Death killed maybe 75M-100M people out of a dispersed population of around 200M in Europe. Just extrapolating those numbers to modern populations and ignoring the fact that dense populations will cause infections to go up geometrically rather than linearly, that would put the death toll around 3 to 4 billion over a significantly shorter time thanks to commuter travel and air travel.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astron...
In the end, whether it's a few hundred that die of a disease that we could have easily prevented, or 4 billion, is it not worth saving those lives?
Shannon wrote: "Or, do you really, after all of the months I've been here and after everything I've said, think I'm simply a pro-religious woman running round with an axe to throw at the nearest non-believer or most recent issue within the realm of science?Care to clarify?
"
Note the question mark at the end, indicating a question rather than a statement. Meant to address the comment made about axe grinding. Since you decided to retract it, then the question is also withdrawn.
Gary wrote: Often it is used to imply that somehow "science" is at fault for the use of technology to the detriment of people. This is not the case. Knowing how to build a bomb does not mean that you then must build that bomb and then must use it What else would it mean? Lets build a bomb at a cost of billions and not use it? What else would you want to use a bomb for?
Take North Korea why are we so anti them developing nuclear capabilities?
Gary wrote: Exactly. If you have a dangerous dog it may harm a child whether you want it to or not, or others may release their dogs to potential harm of others.
If a dog is classed as dangerous then you should not have one at all. It is the law that is wrong.
Gary wrote: The conviction would be that of the desire to own the dangerous dog, or the gun, or the nuclear weapon, and the reason for doing so. Whether you believe that the dog keeps you safe from invaders for example. If you believe you have the right to use deadly force to expel an intruder, does it matter in the end whether you beat them to death with your fists, stabbed them, set a dog on them or nuked them (collatoral damage is another issue there :-D)
..."
It does matter. You can't do what ever you want; you are only allowed to use reasonable force.
I feel that there is a slight contradiction in your reasoning. You said "The conviction would be that of the desire to own the dangerous dog..." So for you to own the dog one would have to be available. If we ban all dangerous dogs there would not be an issue.
Then you say about the bomb, "Actually it was developed with the full intent to use it before the enemy did". So if science did not develop it.....?
Gary wrote: No it is political conviction that chooses to take the developments of science and use them as weapons. Science isn't "allowed" to develop weapons, most science doesn't choose how it will be applied.
If you want that way of thinking to be used to let science 'off the hook' then you should apply the same way of thinking to god and religion. It's man's conviction that chooses to take the developments of god and religion etc........
Travis wrote: "Not sure what the cut off to qualify for pandemic is, but there are cases in Africa and some areas of South America of illnesses that we consider to be easy cures in the USA have swept through communities."
I'm not sure either....
I'm not sure either....
Gary wrote: "In the end, whether it's a few hundred that die of a disease that we could have easily prevented, or 4 billion, is it not worth saving those lives? "
Absolutely....
My question is only ... a pandemic that can kill millions of people could be caused by religion and some religious folk refusing vaccinations? Questioning whether or not that is possible and asking for follow-up info. That's all.
Don't really like the idea of babies dying, regardless of the cause or how it came about. Obviously.
Absolutely....
My question is only ... a pandemic that can kill millions of people could be caused by religion and some religious folk refusing vaccinations? Questioning whether or not that is possible and asking for follow-up info. That's all.
Don't really like the idea of babies dying, regardless of the cause or how it came about. Obviously.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or, do you really, after all of the months I've been here and after everything I've said, think I'm simply a pro-religious woman running round with an axe to throw at the nearest no..."
"No you are pro-religion hence you have an axe to grind against those who do not think it is right to place belief above reason and conviction above morality?"
I'd not say that's a question, regardless of the question mark at the end. It's not phrased as a question nor does it read as one. It reads as something else altogether. It reads as a statement or judgment with a question mark at the end.
Withdrawn, fine. Interestingly, though, you're not answering my questions or sharing your thought process ... as I shared mine.
Though, that's your right....
"No you are pro-religion hence you have an axe to grind against those who do not think it is right to place belief above reason and conviction above morality?"
I'd not say that's a question, regardless of the question mark at the end. It's not phrased as a question nor does it read as one. It reads as something else altogether. It reads as a statement or judgment with a question mark at the end.
Withdrawn, fine. Interestingly, though, you're not answering my questions or sharing your thought process ... as I shared mine.
Though, that's your right....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Not sure what the cut off to qualify for pandemic is, but there are cases in Africa and some areas of South America of illnesses that we consider to be easy cures in the USA have swe..."Kind of like 'Weapons of mass destruction', I wonder what the offficial measurements are.
Can't find an actual number for pandemic. Just that it has to include a large area and a large amount of afflicted people.
Gary wrote: "Non-scientists often think that scientists choose the things they discover, but in a way it's the other way around. That's because science is discovery of what's there, not the imposition of ones own concepts onto reality."
A good point and likely often true.
Regarding what I was originally discussing, .... Chinese scientists who are combining a strain of avian flu and human flu ....
I don't see that as clearly.
I'm guess that has to do with my personality. Not my religious beliefs and not how I feel about science. I'm not one to take risks when it comes to the lives of others. Let's face it. I'm the woman who decided not to have children, even though I always wanted children, do to the possible risks to them given the fact that my ovaries got zapped in an X-ray. Which, of course, had certain implications regarding marriage. Both things, children and marriage, were things I always wanted and, I think, would fill me with joy. But, .... Even though there's a chance that, .... Even though there was only a chance that there'd be issues ....
I made a very deliberate decision not to roll the dice and play with the lives of my unborn children. Period. Regardless of the price I've paid.
That's how I am with most things, when dealing with life and death.
I'm not the woman who would make the crazy flu strain, even if it might save millions in the end, if I was in a lab or facility that lacked proper security or if there was a risk that it might be stollen. I just wouldn't. Someone else can say they would. Okay. Someone could say I'm not thinking enough of all the things that could be discovered as a result. Okay. But, ultimately, I disagree. My opinion. If this was a threat, I'd rather it not be done. Not going to change my mind. I don't play fast and loose with lives. I just don't. That's a big deal for me and always has been, due to who I am, my experiences, etc....
Not a statement about science .... Yes, I know why scientists would want to do this thing.
It's a statement about security, benefits versus risk, etc....
A good point and likely often true.
Regarding what I was originally discussing, .... Chinese scientists who are combining a strain of avian flu and human flu ....
I don't see that as clearly.
I'm guess that has to do with my personality. Not my religious beliefs and not how I feel about science. I'm not one to take risks when it comes to the lives of others. Let's face it. I'm the woman who decided not to have children, even though I always wanted children, do to the possible risks to them given the fact that my ovaries got zapped in an X-ray. Which, of course, had certain implications regarding marriage. Both things, children and marriage, were things I always wanted and, I think, would fill me with joy. But, .... Even though there's a chance that, .... Even though there was only a chance that there'd be issues ....
I made a very deliberate decision not to roll the dice and play with the lives of my unborn children. Period. Regardless of the price I've paid.
That's how I am with most things, when dealing with life and death.
I'm not the woman who would make the crazy flu strain, even if it might save millions in the end, if I was in a lab or facility that lacked proper security or if there was a risk that it might be stollen. I just wouldn't. Someone else can say they would. Okay. Someone could say I'm not thinking enough of all the things that could be discovered as a result. Okay. But, ultimately, I disagree. My opinion. If this was a threat, I'd rather it not be done. Not going to change my mind. I don't play fast and loose with lives. I just don't. That's a big deal for me and always has been, due to who I am, my experiences, etc....
Not a statement about science .... Yes, I know why scientists would want to do this thing.
It's a statement about security, benefits versus risk, etc....
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "In the end, whether it's a few hundred that die of a disease that we could have easily prevented, or 4 billion, is it not worth saving those lives? "Absolutely....
My question is on..."
Will it happen is only guess work, but could it, sure.
that's the horrible beauty about religion, you can get a huge group of people to go along with all kinds stuff that is against their best interest, has little fact to back it up and has the potential to injury and death.
Look at how hard the pro-life movement has worked to shut down planned parenthood and all sorts of other clinics.
Doesn't matter what other health services they provide and that they are some women's only access to cancer screenings and health services, they also provide abortions, so must go.
Travis wrote: "Will it happen is only guess work, but could it, sure."
I'd want some facts and figures, I'm afraid.
If the world's poor don't get the vaccine for measles or if people who fear their children will get autism if they vaccinate them for measles, will an outbreak of measles wipe out 20 to 40 million people in a year? After all, that is what happened with the pandemic of 1918. And, we're talking about combining a strain of avian flu and human flu in a facility that might not be secure.
So, we know, beyond doubt, that a strain of that flu would kill millions. Millions and millions. They were using a strain of avian flu that, what, killed 50% or more of the people who contracted it. I believe it was more. Believe because I'm not 100% certain.
No guesses. No maybes. It would. No cure. Antibiotics? Nope. Millions and millions. A worldwide pandemic.
I'm not sure that measles could cause a pandemic, which was the assertion. What else are we vaccinated for? Measles, mumps, rubella. Polio. Girls are getting vaccinated for HPV. I'm not sure. Am I missing something? Would those things cause a worldwide pandemic that would kill 20 to 40 million people in a year? I'm guessing the answer is no. But, prove it to me.
Share thoughts that don't have to do with the jerk religious people who ruin it for all of us.
What pandemics were caused by the above prior to vaccinations and antibiotics, in recent history but prior to? What pandemics have been caused regarding these illnesses since? How many people are wiped out by measles each year? I honestly don't know.
Make a case. Give me sites from reputable outfits that detail this information. I'm willing to learn. I find this sort of thing fascinating.
I'd want some facts and figures, I'm afraid.
If the world's poor don't get the vaccine for measles or if people who fear their children will get autism if they vaccinate them for measles, will an outbreak of measles wipe out 20 to 40 million people in a year? After all, that is what happened with the pandemic of 1918. And, we're talking about combining a strain of avian flu and human flu in a facility that might not be secure.
So, we know, beyond doubt, that a strain of that flu would kill millions. Millions and millions. They were using a strain of avian flu that, what, killed 50% or more of the people who contracted it. I believe it was more. Believe because I'm not 100% certain.
No guesses. No maybes. It would. No cure. Antibiotics? Nope. Millions and millions. A worldwide pandemic.
I'm not sure that measles could cause a pandemic, which was the assertion. What else are we vaccinated for? Measles, mumps, rubella. Polio. Girls are getting vaccinated for HPV. I'm not sure. Am I missing something? Would those things cause a worldwide pandemic that would kill 20 to 40 million people in a year? I'm guessing the answer is no. But, prove it to me.
Share thoughts that don't have to do with the jerk religious people who ruin it for all of us.
What pandemics were caused by the above prior to vaccinations and antibiotics, in recent history but prior to? What pandemics have been caused regarding these illnesses since? How many people are wiped out by measles each year? I honestly don't know.
Make a case. Give me sites from reputable outfits that detail this information. I'm willing to learn. I find this sort of thing fascinating.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Not sure what the cut off to qualify for pandemic is, but there are cases in Africa and some areas of South America of illnesses that we consider to be easy cures in the USA have swe..."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swi...
cHriS wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swi... "
Yuck!
I contracted it during the pandemic, along with about 75% of the middle school where I worked. In New England, for some reason, the overwhelming majority of those who developed it were from middle schools. It was awful, though, more annoying than anything. Fortunately. I was fine in the end as were all of the kiddos and adults I worked with. (Annoying due to the cough ... dry ... sounded like geese or fog horns. However, most of us ran a fever for days and days and days. Nothing touched it.)
Yuck!
I contracted it during the pandemic, along with about 75% of the middle school where I worked. In New England, for some reason, the overwhelming majority of those who developed it were from middle schools. It was awful, though, more annoying than anything. Fortunately. I was fine in the end as were all of the kiddos and adults I worked with. (Annoying due to the cough ... dry ... sounded like geese or fog horns. However, most of us ran a fever for days and days and days. Nothing touched it.)
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swi... "Yuck! "
Somewhere at the back of my mind I remember an interview about what is a pandemic. Maybe I'm wrong here but an epidemic can be controlled but a pandemic is where there is not enough vaccine to cover everybody. During the swine flu we only had a 70% coverage.
cHriS wrote: "Somewhere at the back of my mind I remember an interview about what is a pandemic. Maybe I'm wrong here but an epidemic can be controlled but a pandemic is where there is not enough vaccine to cover everybody. During the swine flu we only had a 70% coverage. "
This has been niggling at my brain all afternoon. Eureka! I found the following and think it has some really interesting info, including something we've not talked about and that I didn't think about at all. Often, not always, often pandemics are the result of a new disease or strain for which we lack immunity. But, that's just one of the interesting facts. It also gives a list of historical pandemics, etc....
ADDED, duh ... forgot this ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/artic...
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/wha...
This has been niggling at my brain all afternoon. Eureka! I found the following and think it has some really interesting info, including something we've not talked about and that I didn't think about at all. Often, not always, often pandemics are the result of a new disease or strain for which we lack immunity. But, that's just one of the interesting facts. It also gives a list of historical pandemics, etc....
ADDED, duh ... forgot this ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/artic...
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/wha...
Since cholera was on the list of historical pandemics, I did some looking around and about, wondering if we're vaccinated for that. Didn't think so but I was curious.
http://www.cdc.gov/cholera/general/#v...
In the US, no, we're not vaccinated. Further, I found the vaccine isn't even available here, which somewhat surprised me.
http://www.cdc.gov/cholera/general/#v...
In the US, no, we're not vaccinated. Further, I found the vaccine isn't even available here, which somewhat surprised me.
Shannon wrote: "Since cholera was on the list of historical pandemics, I did some looking around and about, wondering if we're vaccinated for that. Didn't think so but I was curious.
http://www.cdc.gov/cholera/g..."
Same with typhus. Although, some travelers in the US should be vaccinated and the vaccine is available here. Though, it's not recommended as a general rule.
http://www.cdc.gov/cholera/g..."
Same with typhus. Although, some travelers in the US should be vaccinated and the vaccine is available here. Though, it's not recommended as a general rule.
Since I believe in honesty, regardless, and full disclosure, I'll share the following ....
Just found it in my searching around regarding vaccines, etc....
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...
Not a pandemic and not sure if there's been one for this disease. But, it is something that could be vaccinated against.
It should be noted that Vermont is recognized as the least religious state in the US and Vermont's legislators serve under a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate.
Just found it in my searching around regarding vaccines, etc....
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...
Not a pandemic and not sure if there's been one for this disease. But, it is something that could be vaccinated against.
It should be noted that Vermont is recognized as the least religious state in the US and Vermont's legislators serve under a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate.
Gary wrote: "Agreed. Yet how can you see a big picture unless you are willing to listen to reason and evidence?"
Ah, come on now, Gary....
Finally got back to read the rest of your first post today ....
You and I know plenty of people, on both sides, absolutely refuse to listen to reason and deal with evidence.
Further, you have plenty of people, I'm one of them, who believe in "God" but also hold with science, evolution, got vaccinations, and value evidence and logic ... even more than some non-believers in some cases.
Ah, come on now, Gary....
Finally got back to read the rest of your first post today ....
You and I know plenty of people, on both sides, absolutely refuse to listen to reason and deal with evidence.
Further, you have plenty of people, I'm one of them, who believe in "God" but also hold with science, evolution, got vaccinations, and value evidence and logic ... even more than some non-believers in some cases.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "My first response ... I really could give a flying fig about conviction? Dead is dead. If someone I loved died, I would not care if death was due to a certain conviction. Now, I'm guessing some would. Damned religious freaks. I don't run that way. Wrong is wrong. Dead is dead. The action is more important than the intentions. Of course, I'm that way regarding a lot of things."
So for example you do not link the racist policies of the slave-owning south to the torment and killing of people with different coloured skin? It doesn't matter to you if some people have the conviction that the "white race" can kill and enslave "lesser" peoples because they believe they have the right?
Or are they entitled to their beliefs and the actions that result from having the convictions of that belief?"
First, please ... please tell me you didn't just ask me those questions.
Second, we're talking about playing with a flu strain. We're talking about the possible death of 20 million people due to a flu pandemic. That's what we're talking about. I'm not going to be led into the weeds.
If another flu pandemic strikes, I don't know that I'd care if the 40 million people who just died around me in the span of a year died of a flu that originated in a lab in China, due to a religious zealot who wouldn't take his children to the doctor, due to the poor of the world who aren't vaccinated, or the fact that some people, religious and not, don't believe in vaccination. The convictions or lack thereof of the scientists or the zealot or the poor or the untrusting folk who say :P when faced with a government they don't trust wouldn't matter a whit to me. Dead is dead. In this, ... what we were actually talking about ... conviction doesn't matter, at least to me.
(Not that 40 million people would die due to a measles outbreak as a result of lack of vaccination. One in 1,000 people infected with measles die; thanks for the article. Whereas, regarding avian flu ... "Up to 12 November 2007, there have been 335 confirmed cases in humans in Azerbaijan , Cambodia, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Laos, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. The death rate is high, with 206 deaths, but experts think only a few people have died as a result of catching it from another human."
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/infections...
That's the difference between an epidemic and a pandemic. In part.
Pertussis? "In 2010, whooping cough made more than 27,000 people sick. Twenty-five babies died. Many of these babies were too young to be fully protected against whooping cough. Several states had outbreaks of whooping cough." That's in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/p...
Now, if just about everyone on the planet stopped all vaccinations, we'd risk, possibly, a pandemic the likes of which have been caused by flus. However, I don't foresee that happening. And, if there are as many non-believers as has been claimed on this thread before, they'd have their babies vaccinated. Right? Since it's largely just the religious extremists who don't vaccinate. Or is it ...?
Today, flu strains cause pandemics; that's what the evidence points to.)
Going back to the questions you asked ....
If a new person asked them, I'd answer.
This is the first time that I'm refusing to answer questions posed to me on this thread. The first time. And, I've been asked a lot of questions.
I won't answer them from you, since you know me or should if you "listened" to me and observed my "behavior" here.
You know the answers to those questions.
So for example you do not link the racist policies of the slave-owning south to the torment and killing of people with different coloured skin? It doesn't matter to you if some people have the conviction that the "white race" can kill and enslave "lesser" peoples because they believe they have the right?
Or are they entitled to their beliefs and the actions that result from having the convictions of that belief?"
First, please ... please tell me you didn't just ask me those questions.
Second, we're talking about playing with a flu strain. We're talking about the possible death of 20 million people due to a flu pandemic. That's what we're talking about. I'm not going to be led into the weeds.
If another flu pandemic strikes, I don't know that I'd care if the 40 million people who just died around me in the span of a year died of a flu that originated in a lab in China, due to a religious zealot who wouldn't take his children to the doctor, due to the poor of the world who aren't vaccinated, or the fact that some people, religious and not, don't believe in vaccination. The convictions or lack thereof of the scientists or the zealot or the poor or the untrusting folk who say :P when faced with a government they don't trust wouldn't matter a whit to me. Dead is dead. In this, ... what we were actually talking about ... conviction doesn't matter, at least to me.
(Not that 40 million people would die due to a measles outbreak as a result of lack of vaccination. One in 1,000 people infected with measles die; thanks for the article. Whereas, regarding avian flu ... "Up to 12 November 2007, there have been 335 confirmed cases in humans in Azerbaijan , Cambodia, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Laos, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. The death rate is high, with 206 deaths, but experts think only a few people have died as a result of catching it from another human."
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/infections...
That's the difference between an epidemic and a pandemic. In part.
Pertussis? "In 2010, whooping cough made more than 27,000 people sick. Twenty-five babies died. Many of these babies were too young to be fully protected against whooping cough. Several states had outbreaks of whooping cough." That's in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/p...
Now, if just about everyone on the planet stopped all vaccinations, we'd risk, possibly, a pandemic the likes of which have been caused by flus. However, I don't foresee that happening. And, if there are as many non-believers as has been claimed on this thread before, they'd have their babies vaccinated. Right? Since it's largely just the religious extremists who don't vaccinate. Or is it ...?
Today, flu strains cause pandemics; that's what the evidence points to.)
Going back to the questions you asked ....
If a new person asked them, I'd answer.
This is the first time that I'm refusing to answer questions posed to me on this thread. The first time. And, I've been asked a lot of questions.
I won't answer them from you, since you know me or should if you "listened" to me and observed my "behavior" here.
You know the answers to those questions.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Pope Urban with nukes. Hmmm.... I actually need to take time to think about that."
It's worth considering, especially since people with similar convictions in their beliefs in when violence is justified and who against are developing nuclear capability (Iran & Korea). Does it matter if Iran is controlled by extremists who believe that erasing Israel in nuclear fire as soon as possible is a good thing? Or if Korea is controlled by people who believe that the glorious leader should "free" the people of the South of the peninsula?"
As I said, I need to take time to consider this ....
It's worth considering, especially since people with similar convictions in their beliefs in when violence is justified and who against are developing nuclear capability (Iran & Korea). Does it matter if Iran is controlled by extremists who believe that erasing Israel in nuclear fire as soon as possible is a good thing? Or if Korea is controlled by people who believe that the glorious leader should "free" the people of the South of the peninsula?"
As I said, I need to take time to consider this ....
I believe Science and Religion go hand in hand. Science explains religious claims.
An enlightening article regarding vaccines and US politics. Everyone, including the most progressive Democrats, had lots of questions, it would seem. And, .... Why wouldn't the scientist from the CDC answer the question regarding why mercury was taken out of all childhood vaccinations, short of multi-dose flu vaccines? I mean, they did it. They did it in 2001. So, clearly, they did it for a reason. However, the scientist, from the CDC, wouldn't answer the question.
Americans issues with vaccines doesn't hinge upon anti-science or anti-science religious extremist types.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k...
An article regarding the UN attempting to ban mercury in vaccines and doctors in the US arguing against the UN's attempts. Now, it seems the US docs might have a point ... some countries don't have refrigeration, etc.... However, one might ask ... why does the UN want to do this thing?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Nothing conclusive here but an ... interesting lead .... Wonder why I couldn't find information that's more recent than 2006? At any rate, while it doesn't prove that multi-dose vaccines led to Gulf War Syndrome in US soldiers, it shows why some Americans, regardless of conviction, are leery of multi-dose vaccines and wonder if the government is on the up-and-up with the citizenry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16...
The crimes I alluded to yesterday ... and a reason why some don't trust the government when told ... have the vaccine ... it's good for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethica...
Finally, this is just for fits and giggles, ... lest anyone think only Republicans who are religious do naughty, naughty things ...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-ap...
Yeah.... I'm trusting the government right about now! Woo Hoo!
Now, I'm not saying multi-dose vaccines and vaccines with mercury cause autism, etc.... I am, however, making a point. This ...
"Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (disproven) idea that vaccination is linked to Autism, or is part of some huge government conspiracy."
... isn't necessarily due to anti-science anti-vaccination movements. Do they exist? Yes. However, people who are pro-science have serious concerns that don't revolve around religious belief or the belief that science is the root of all evil ... grr ... anti-science ... but might deal with the belief that the government has played fast and loose with the lives of people for years and .... Well, .... They believe it can happen again. Now, is that a belief? Or, is it a possibility, especially given the evidence of the past? Scientists say evidence doesn't exist that proves mercury was the cause of autism ... in most people ... but people question if they're being told the truth and if the government is truly doing the right thing ... even progressive Dems have such questions.
What do they say in science?
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Is it any wonder that some would distrust the government and vaccines, given the history of abuse ... even if evidence for mercury and multi-dose vaccines causing diseases isn't on the table? They don't have to be anti-science people to go down that path. Bad things were done and there was never any serious acknowledgment or accounting. Most people think history repeats itself.
And, then, we have this .... The government settling in two vaccine/autism cases ... saying, though, that a link to vaccines couldn't be proven in at least one of the children. Whoa.... Does that mean it could be in one? That's possible news! Further, this was after mercury was removed. This would deal with multi-dose vaccines. What research has been done on that? Loads, I'm sure. No wait! The politicians in the above article said there's a dearth of research, though, I don't know who to believe ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k...
I don't know what the truth is regarding the above cases. But, I do know they give people pause. Again, while there are anti-science people out there, the people I know and have read about point to things like this. Are they anti-science freaks? No. They know about history and things like the above settlement, etc... and aren't overly eager to trust the government ... at least with regard to this.
Equal and opposite reaction ... it actually makes sense ... from a psychological standpoint.
Americans issues with vaccines doesn't hinge upon anti-science or anti-science religious extremist types.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k...
An article regarding the UN attempting to ban mercury in vaccines and doctors in the US arguing against the UN's attempts. Now, it seems the US docs might have a point ... some countries don't have refrigeration, etc.... However, one might ask ... why does the UN want to do this thing?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Nothing conclusive here but an ... interesting lead .... Wonder why I couldn't find information that's more recent than 2006? At any rate, while it doesn't prove that multi-dose vaccines led to Gulf War Syndrome in US soldiers, it shows why some Americans, regardless of conviction, are leery of multi-dose vaccines and wonder if the government is on the up-and-up with the citizenry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16...
The crimes I alluded to yesterday ... and a reason why some don't trust the government when told ... have the vaccine ... it's good for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethica...
Finally, this is just for fits and giggles, ... lest anyone think only Republicans who are religious do naughty, naughty things ...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-ap...
Yeah.... I'm trusting the government right about now! Woo Hoo!
Now, I'm not saying multi-dose vaccines and vaccines with mercury cause autism, etc.... I am, however, making a point. This ...
"Meanwhile, the beliefs of some may also end in a pandemic that kills millions of people. There are several anti-science anti-vaccination movements at the moment that spread the (disproven) idea that vaccination is linked to Autism, or is part of some huge government conspiracy."
... isn't necessarily due to anti-science anti-vaccination movements. Do they exist? Yes. However, people who are pro-science have serious concerns that don't revolve around religious belief or the belief that science is the root of all evil ... grr ... anti-science ... but might deal with the belief that the government has played fast and loose with the lives of people for years and .... Well, .... They believe it can happen again. Now, is that a belief? Or, is it a possibility, especially given the evidence of the past? Scientists say evidence doesn't exist that proves mercury was the cause of autism ... in most people ... but people question if they're being told the truth and if the government is truly doing the right thing ... even progressive Dems have such questions.
What do they say in science?
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Is it any wonder that some would distrust the government and vaccines, given the history of abuse ... even if evidence for mercury and multi-dose vaccines causing diseases isn't on the table? They don't have to be anti-science people to go down that path. Bad things were done and there was never any serious acknowledgment or accounting. Most people think history repeats itself.
And, then, we have this .... The government settling in two vaccine/autism cases ... saying, though, that a link to vaccines couldn't be proven in at least one of the children. Whoa.... Does that mean it could be in one? That's possible news! Further, this was after mercury was removed. This would deal with multi-dose vaccines. What research has been done on that? Loads, I'm sure. No wait! The politicians in the above article said there's a dearth of research, though, I don't know who to believe ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k...
I don't know what the truth is regarding the above cases. But, I do know they give people pause. Again, while there are anti-science people out there, the people I know and have read about point to things like this. Are they anti-science freaks? No. They know about history and things like the above settlement, etc... and aren't overly eager to trust the government ... at least with regard to this.
Equal and opposite reaction ... it actually makes sense ... from a psychological standpoint.
And, ... as a reason for distrust ...
I didn't even mention this ... but, on second thought, ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...
One doesn't need to be drinking the Kool-Aid to distrust what one is told by the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking...
I didn't even mention this ... but, on second thought, ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...
One doesn't need to be drinking the Kool-Aid to distrust what one is told by the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking...
Shannon wrote:often pandemics are the result of a new disease or strain for which we lack immunity. But, that's just one of the interesting facts"This could be another, if it is true........ the other side of science?
Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
I like science, but I also enjoy being a Wiccan.Though if I had to choose, I'd go with science.
cHriS wrote: "Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... "
I don't know.... I can understand, given the numbers possible with flus, the concern. Personally, I'd rather they overestimate the danger. Better safe than sorry.
I hope that was the reason .... Not the other. We'll see, I guess.
(I do remember hearing reports here over the last few years that drug companies weren't making "enough" money, supposedly, and people feared they wouldn't do more research. Either into new antibiotics, vaccines or both. I can't remember. In addition, I didn't attempt to research it in any way. So, I don't know if that reporting was accurate.)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... "
I don't know.... I can understand, given the numbers possible with flus, the concern. Personally, I'd rather they overestimate the danger. Better safe than sorry.
I hope that was the reason .... Not the other. We'll see, I guess.
(I do remember hearing reports here over the last few years that drug companies weren't making "enough" money, supposedly, and people feared they wouldn't do more research. Either into new antibiotics, vaccines or both. I can't remember. In addition, I didn't attempt to research it in any way. So, I don't know if that reporting was accurate.)
Shannon, it would never occur to me to make out that any war, or conflict, or disaster of worldwide proportions is or ever has been caused by one factor. But I think we can clearly say that the Crusades had as one factor the desire to smite the infidels and support and spread Christianity as it was practiced then. I am sure Richard did not just want a nice ride on his horse, and would he have done this even if he knew what would happen if he did not stay home and take care of his business instead of meddling in others? Ireland. Of course their conflict is much more complex than the Protestants vs. the Catholics. But let's go back and back and back to when the country was Protestant and along comes Mary, Queen of Scots fresh from France and Catholic.
And did the divide and desire to be independent from England start with her, or with her son, or even a long time before that? So again, not a single cause, but does it not seem ridiculous to us here in America that people would fight and die because some were Catholics and some were Protestants? (Yes, the right wing want everyone to be as they are supposedly committed to the one true God, but they have not yet, exactly, declared war on those who go to other churches. Of course everyone else is a Godless heathen and will rot in Hell, but that is at least not lethal.)
The Inquisition. Can't exactly be called a war, but certainly a period where Christians have nothing to be proud of.
What is going on in the Middle East. Again, reliion not the only factor, but has played a huge role for hundreds of years.
Israel. Everyone of every denomination fighting over not so much the right to worship as they please as over the ownership of a town. And of course territory. "We were here first." "No we were here first." "This is our home." NO, this is our home."
I am sure that opinions will vary drastically about these "wars." And the more the members of the forum, the wider the differences.
Much is done due to ignorance and fear and some of this might be either designed or supported by religion. What organized religion fears, it refuses to support. And sadly even in this country, as educated as so many are, people can be convinced that anything might be bad or evil.
I live in a town that has steadfasty refused to allow fluoridation of its water supply. I did not grow up in a time that there was any pill to take as a substitute. Guess what? I have lots of cavities. (Now lots of root canals.) It was and continues to be a communist plot, too expensive, no proof that it helps (what!!!). I have no idea where any of these stupid and irrational thoughts have come from.
Anyone afraid will listen to almost anything. And when we all say how shocking something is that happened in the past, well most likely it is happening somewhere in the world right now.
Like what kind of idiot would believe a woman living next door to you has caused your cow's milk to sour because she is a witch? Well, perhaps the same people who believe that a woman who goes out to shop without a male relative should be stoned in the street. Or the same guys that would go out and abuse and kill women who have only gone out to gather food for their family. And then to add insult to injury, if they make it back alive they are no longer of any worth because they are soiled. Nuts, right?
Aren't these examples religion based?
And then I put on the other hat, because of course I can see the merits of believing and having faith. I am in agreement with some members' posts where they hope there can be a way to bring these two elements together for the greater good. Why does organized religion have to be a snapshot of everyone who does not believe rotting in Hell? Why must everyone else from any other faith be taken out and shot (figuratively or literally)?
Maybe it is God's will, or maybe it is our own free choice. I know people who say every single bad thing that happens to them is just God's will. So they are saying they have no free will, they have no choice, and they are helpless. What an easy out!!!
Kathy wrote: "Shannon, it would never occur to me to make out that any war, or conflict, or disaster of worldwide proportions is or ever has been caused by one factor. But I think we can clearly say that the Cr..."
Right. Yes. But, when you said, "But does it not seem the wars lasting the longest where the most lives are lost have their foundation in religion? Some have been going on for hundreds of years. No end in sight. No chance of any peace treaty or compromise. One generation just takes up where another has died out and on and on," it read as present tense to me. Some have been going on for hundreds of years, no end in sight, no chance for peace. I couldn't think of a war, currently being waged, that has lasted for hundreds of years. If you knew of one, I was curious as to what it might be.
If you're talking past tense, wars that happened in the past, yes. The Crusades? Yes. Don't know that I'd go with the Inquisition but maybe. Was it truly a war in the traditional sense? I'm not sure. But, it definitely was persecution and the slaughter of innocents by the Catholic church. Etc... Yes. Ireland? I don't think a war is currently being waged there. Israel? The same. In addition, some don't even think the conflict that has occurred in those places, off and on throughout time, is based in religion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi...
People could argue that, I suppose. But, they'd need to battle the BBC. Sadly, I remember cHriS making a similar statement as that made by the BBC and their auditors; someone here said the most ugly things about him as a result, calling him a liar and worse. I found the above months later, when looking for reasons why so many think religion caused all wars.
At any rate, that's why I asked. If there's a war being waged that has been waged for hundreds of years with no end in sight, well, I want to know about it; I don't.
Glad, in general, that you'd never say wars are caused by one factor. People here, some very intelligent, loyal, and vocal posters and some first time posters, argued over and over and over again that all wars or almost all wars have been caused by religion. That, of course, is not even close to being true. At first, I wanted clarification ... were you making that claim ... I wasn't sure. Then, I wanted to know about those wars, the current ones, etc....
I'm the first to admit, have done so on several occasions, that religion has been the cause of some wars and has wrought, in several instances, horror on many. Definitely.
I just don't find it appropriate when some claim religion to be the root of all evil and propose all the world's ills would disappear, as if by magic, if religion was no more. But, you're not saying that. Awesome!
Right. Yes. But, when you said, "But does it not seem the wars lasting the longest where the most lives are lost have their foundation in religion? Some have been going on for hundreds of years. No end in sight. No chance of any peace treaty or compromise. One generation just takes up where another has died out and on and on," it read as present tense to me. Some have been going on for hundreds of years, no end in sight, no chance for peace. I couldn't think of a war, currently being waged, that has lasted for hundreds of years. If you knew of one, I was curious as to what it might be.
If you're talking past tense, wars that happened in the past, yes. The Crusades? Yes. Don't know that I'd go with the Inquisition but maybe. Was it truly a war in the traditional sense? I'm not sure. But, it definitely was persecution and the slaughter of innocents by the Catholic church. Etc... Yes. Ireland? I don't think a war is currently being waged there. Israel? The same. In addition, some don't even think the conflict that has occurred in those places, off and on throughout time, is based in religion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi...
People could argue that, I suppose. But, they'd need to battle the BBC. Sadly, I remember cHriS making a similar statement as that made by the BBC and their auditors; someone here said the most ugly things about him as a result, calling him a liar and worse. I found the above months later, when looking for reasons why so many think religion caused all wars.
At any rate, that's why I asked. If there's a war being waged that has been waged for hundreds of years with no end in sight, well, I want to know about it; I don't.
Glad, in general, that you'd never say wars are caused by one factor. People here, some very intelligent, loyal, and vocal posters and some first time posters, argued over and over and over again that all wars or almost all wars have been caused by religion. That, of course, is not even close to being true. At first, I wanted clarification ... were you making that claim ... I wasn't sure. Then, I wanted to know about those wars, the current ones, etc....
I'm the first to admit, have done so on several occasions, that religion has been the cause of some wars and has wrought, in several instances, horror on many. Definitely.
I just don't find it appropriate when some claim religion to be the root of all evil and propose all the world's ills would disappear, as if by magic, if religion was no more. But, you're not saying that. Awesome!
There were some legitimate concerns relating to the story about the science test that was in the news recently, but it appears to have been confirmed.
cerebus wrote: "There were some legitimate concerns relating to the story about the science test that was in the news recently, but it appears to have been confirmed."
Well, I, for one, am glad the overwhelming majority of America's school children, times a bunch, attend public schools ... where there is a division between church and state and teachers would be fired if they taught about creationism, etc....
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display....
Had difficulty finding the number of private schools that are religious and the number of children who attend religious schools. Unfortunately. After all, many of those private schools are "regular" schools for the wealthy.
Then, of course, you have the religious schools that likely actually teach science. For example, the Obama's send their daughters to the same private school Chelsea Clinton attended. Operated by the Quakers, I believe. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty sure they don't teach about the world being created in 7 days. Though, if any readers are among the affluent who send their children to that particular school, please let me know.
Obviously, I'm not into teaching children bunk.
However, one must ask, how many children are actually given this type of instruction.
Further, ... let's take the religion out of the argument for a moment. Religious angst and outrage, at least with regard to creationism, aside.
Having taught in the public school system for almost 15 years, the school system that educates most American children, I'd be pretty darned upset about something else.
What?
How about all of the elementary and middle school teachers tasked with teaching math who can't do a lot of math themselves? Oh. Yeah. One of education's dirty little secrets. Some strides are being made, but ... let's face it ... that, folks, is a serious problem. And, it has some serious implications for science.
By the way, until about two years ago, we got to deal with a lovely phenomena in the middle school. A few years back and going back aways, the newest fad in education was teaching kids some funky way of counting on their fingers. I'll never forget the first time I saw it. I was standing there and asked some question ... like when did the Revolution take place .... We were reading a Revolutionary war book, if memory serves. Then, I asked how many years ago the war took place, announcing math across the curriculum.
Yeah.... They, every one of them, put their hands up near their shoulders/ears, got a blank look on their faces, and started tapping at lightning speed with their fingers. What the...! For a second, I thought I had proof of an alien invasion of some sort. Mmmm.... The math teachers at the high school LOVED it. None of the kids knew their times tables or anything. They'd sit, zoned out, clicking their fingers with blank stares for, well, I can't tell you how long. Needless to say, we've moved away from that. But, I'd say it went on for about eight to ten years. Imagine. Imagine trying to do higher level math or certain things in science when, in order to figure out simple equations, you click away for close to a minute. Yikes.
And, of course, the woeful lack of mathematical expertise has a ridiculous impact on the majority of the populace.
Then, of course, you also have the schools, public, across America who are ditching science and history time in order to do more reading and math. Another dirty little secret. You know No Child. Well, you have all of these failing schools. Failing in, for the most part, math and reading. So, guess what happens? When gains aren't made, schools are actually told, via the rules within No Child and all of the ties to monies, that they need to increase math and reading time. How? Longer school day? My old school did that. Not enough gains. What next? What classes to cut back on or drop? Well, of course, everyone looked to the arts first. And, some schools do that. My old school, well, people flipped a widget. Art is important! Music is important! That's what the kids enjoy. Guess what they cut? Oh.... Just laughed but it's not funny. Science and history. Guess how many hours they had of science a week? Anyone? The 5th and 6th graders? Yeah, they had about an hour, maybe, a week. But, then, they flipped on and off between science and history. So, ultimately, I'm almost positive it was less than that. Yeah. Guess who flipped a widget about that genius move. Ms. Humanities. Yours truly. What the HE** were they thinking? I asked. Don't think my questioning was overly appreciated.
Mine wasn't the only school to do that, by the way.
Then, of course, you've got our high school graduation requirements. All of the schools I'm aware of require ... four years of English, three of math, and a whopping two or three of science. Yup! Stellar. And, of course, kids like me... Well, we get to pick here. I stunk at math and had a phobia, so.... I didn't want to go the Earth science and chemistry route. Chemistry. Numbers in a chart. Math-like. Therefore, to replace chemistry, I had to take two other sciences. I took Bio I and Bio II. Earth science and biology. That's it. That's all. Loved hatching those baby chicks, though. I was very dutiful.
You know, really and truly, as I said ... it disturbs me that some religious schools teach crap. It really does.
But, I'm also aware of something else. Something that doesn't get play, at least here, because it doesn't have that ... blah, religious education ... element. There are far worse things. Worse? Yes. Why? The impact is thousands of times greater.
Food for thought or not....
(And, that doesn't even cover what is being taught in poor countries.... From what I've been reading lately, well .... I'll try my hardest not to overgeneralize. I've been reading a lot of articles lately about children being sold into the ... trade .... I'll just say trade. Not sure if any tweens or teens read this, so .... I don't know numbers. But, shoot. Seems like a lot of poor children are being sold into slavery, of the housework, work, or "trade" variety. I'm guessing they're not being taught much that comes from a science text. That ... makes me very sad.)
Well, I, for one, am glad the overwhelming majority of America's school children, times a bunch, attend public schools ... where there is a division between church and state and teachers would be fired if they taught about creationism, etc....
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display....
Had difficulty finding the number of private schools that are religious and the number of children who attend religious schools. Unfortunately. After all, many of those private schools are "regular" schools for the wealthy.
Then, of course, you have the religious schools that likely actually teach science. For example, the Obama's send their daughters to the same private school Chelsea Clinton attended. Operated by the Quakers, I believe. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty sure they don't teach about the world being created in 7 days. Though, if any readers are among the affluent who send their children to that particular school, please let me know.
Obviously, I'm not into teaching children bunk.
However, one must ask, how many children are actually given this type of instruction.
Further, ... let's take the religion out of the argument for a moment. Religious angst and outrage, at least with regard to creationism, aside.
Having taught in the public school system for almost 15 years, the school system that educates most American children, I'd be pretty darned upset about something else.
What?
How about all of the elementary and middle school teachers tasked with teaching math who can't do a lot of math themselves? Oh. Yeah. One of education's dirty little secrets. Some strides are being made, but ... let's face it ... that, folks, is a serious problem. And, it has some serious implications for science.
By the way, until about two years ago, we got to deal with a lovely phenomena in the middle school. A few years back and going back aways, the newest fad in education was teaching kids some funky way of counting on their fingers. I'll never forget the first time I saw it. I was standing there and asked some question ... like when did the Revolution take place .... We were reading a Revolutionary war book, if memory serves. Then, I asked how many years ago the war took place, announcing math across the curriculum.
Yeah.... They, every one of them, put their hands up near their shoulders/ears, got a blank look on their faces, and started tapping at lightning speed with their fingers. What the...! For a second, I thought I had proof of an alien invasion of some sort. Mmmm.... The math teachers at the high school LOVED it. None of the kids knew their times tables or anything. They'd sit, zoned out, clicking their fingers with blank stares for, well, I can't tell you how long. Needless to say, we've moved away from that. But, I'd say it went on for about eight to ten years. Imagine. Imagine trying to do higher level math or certain things in science when, in order to figure out simple equations, you click away for close to a minute. Yikes.
And, of course, the woeful lack of mathematical expertise has a ridiculous impact on the majority of the populace.
Then, of course, you also have the schools, public, across America who are ditching science and history time in order to do more reading and math. Another dirty little secret. You know No Child. Well, you have all of these failing schools. Failing in, for the most part, math and reading. So, guess what happens? When gains aren't made, schools are actually told, via the rules within No Child and all of the ties to monies, that they need to increase math and reading time. How? Longer school day? My old school did that. Not enough gains. What next? What classes to cut back on or drop? Well, of course, everyone looked to the arts first. And, some schools do that. My old school, well, people flipped a widget. Art is important! Music is important! That's what the kids enjoy. Guess what they cut? Oh.... Just laughed but it's not funny. Science and history. Guess how many hours they had of science a week? Anyone? The 5th and 6th graders? Yeah, they had about an hour, maybe, a week. But, then, they flipped on and off between science and history. So, ultimately, I'm almost positive it was less than that. Yeah. Guess who flipped a widget about that genius move. Ms. Humanities. Yours truly. What the HE** were they thinking? I asked. Don't think my questioning was overly appreciated.
Mine wasn't the only school to do that, by the way.
Then, of course, you've got our high school graduation requirements. All of the schools I'm aware of require ... four years of English, three of math, and a whopping two or three of science. Yup! Stellar. And, of course, kids like me... Well, we get to pick here. I stunk at math and had a phobia, so.... I didn't want to go the Earth science and chemistry route. Chemistry. Numbers in a chart. Math-like. Therefore, to replace chemistry, I had to take two other sciences. I took Bio I and Bio II. Earth science and biology. That's it. That's all. Loved hatching those baby chicks, though. I was very dutiful.
You know, really and truly, as I said ... it disturbs me that some religious schools teach crap. It really does.
But, I'm also aware of something else. Something that doesn't get play, at least here, because it doesn't have that ... blah, religious education ... element. There are far worse things. Worse? Yes. Why? The impact is thousands of times greater.
Food for thought or not....
(And, that doesn't even cover what is being taught in poor countries.... From what I've been reading lately, well .... I'll try my hardest not to overgeneralize. I've been reading a lot of articles lately about children being sold into the ... trade .... I'll just say trade. Not sure if any tweens or teens read this, so .... I don't know numbers. But, shoot. Seems like a lot of poor children are being sold into slavery, of the housework, work, or "trade" variety. I'm guessing they're not being taught much that comes from a science text. That ... makes me very sad.)
All valid points, but based on experiences and knowledge of the US education system I don't have. You say "Something that doesn't get play..." in relation to these other things, but I would say that non-believers are asked what their objection to religion is, why do we care what other people believe. And this teaching of creationism as science is an example of our objection....yes, this is at a specific public school, but it is also an indication of the way some would like the public school system to go as well, I believe Louisiana would be a good current example.And again, I would say that highlighting a specific issue like this does not need to be accompanied by a disclaimer saying "And I also object to....." Discussing one issue and not another is not an implicit acceptance of that other issue.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
I'm very sorry. I can't imagine.