TheRPGSite

In the thread "New Flash: RPGs are Different From BDSM (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41156-News-Flash-RPGs-are-Different-From-BDSM)" on the RPG forum, people had some differing views on gendered socialization. It's gotten off-topic from RPGs, so GeekyBugle suggested the discussion continue here, if Pundit is interested.

The starting point of disagreement was this post (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41156-News-Flash-RPGs-are-Different-From-BDSM&p=1105712&viewfull=1#post1105712) by Cloyer Bulse, where he said:

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1105712So-called safety rules and conflating rpgs with bdsm are all about our culture trying out this experiment where we blend the gender hierarchies. Men gaming with men, or men working together on oil rigs for that matter, don't need special safety rules or safe words. Men bully and harass each other as a natural way of weeding out useless, dependent males. It's only natural that women would find such behavior threatening. Feminists demand that men socialize according to female rules.

I've watched girls role-playing with each other and it's not something I want to be a part of any more than I want to watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-GsRpiezk). Let them have their fun. Let us men have our own fun.

My initial reaction was:

Quote from: jhkimBullying and harassment among men might well be natural and around for millenia -- but that doesn't make them a good thing. Stuff like democracy, free speech, tolerance, and forgiveness may not be in our genes -- but they're positive changes in human behavior from recent times.

I don't want my male-only games to be full of bullying and harassment. That's not behaving like women, in my opinion. That's just behaving like a decent human being. If a disabled man joins our group, maybe the evolutionary instinct is to weed him out by bullying him until he breaks -- but that's not behavior I want in my game.

Later, GeekyBugle replied:

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105864For starters I don't think there are gender hierarchies, not in the sense him and you are using the term.

I would like to know what he and you call bullying and harassment before talking on it. (because now a days buddy ribbing buddy is termed bullying by many.

Feel free to open a thread on pundie's forum so we can talk about feminists and their demands.

Mean Girls Cliques were a thing well before any feminist wrote about it, and I bet you even before the gender integration of schools women talked about it.

We should kemosabe? Yo do what you want and I'll do like wise, I don't find that my groups of friends need any major behavior adjustment, which is why they are my friends.

And before you keep talking about harassment and bullying you need to define those terms and give a few examples of what you consider falls into them. Best done in Pundies forum.

Spinachcat also had his reply:

Quote from: jhkimBullying and harassment among men might well be natural and around for millenia -- but that doesn't make them a good thing.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105908It's a phenomenally good thing. It toughens the weak or weeds them out. Bullying and harassment teach toughness, resilience and the drive to fight back and succeed, and swiftly identifies the weak who either learn to stand or get ostracized. Without it, we get the current generations full of weaklings.

Quote from: jhkimIf a disabled man joins our group, maybe the evolutionary instinct is to weed him out by bullying him until he breaks -- but that's not behavior I want in my game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105908Most disabled people either shatter or become steel. Disabled who maneuver outside their homes are usually tough hombres. There's nothing any bullying can do that compares to challenge of living 24/7/365 with a real disability (not the online wankery "disabilities").

I think this is a significant point of disagreement that anyone's welcome to weigh in on. I'll post more commentary in reply to GeekyBugle if this is approved.

You know, I genuinely feel sorry for guys who think that the way men normally mock and tease and bully their friends is somehow a bad thing. It means they've never ever been part of a group of true functioning male friends. It means that the only times they've ever been roasted on it was to reject them from the group because the group had judged them unwanted. But then I probably remember that the reason they were judged this way and thus don't know how normal men can mock the fuck out of each other and build closer bonds that way, bonds of trust, rather than feeling excluded, is because they probably have character traits they refuse to work on or change to be tolerable in normal society.

I work with a 23 year old kid who still lives with his mom. Very sheltered. He was shocked by the way us Vets treated each other on breaks or at lunch.

Buddies busting each others' figurative chops as a sign of mutual trust and amusement is one thing. Bullies humiliating those they see as weaklings for *their* amusement is something very different.

I doubt I could give an explicit definition that would work for all examples, but I think it's pretty clear to anyone who's gone through both how to tell them apart. I don't think that preventing the latter means you *have* to disallow the former ... but I do think people who want to preserve the mutual joshery of masculine friendships sometimes forget that in most cases, the joshery is a byproduct of the trust -- not, in fact, vice versa.

Since when was bullying NOT a part of women's way of socializing and forming cliques?

My friend's son runs a secret fight club...in his 8th grade.

As you can imagine, California public schools are feminized safe space shitholes, and recess is no exception from the PC indoctrination. However, the teachers can't be everywhere at once and kids know the places where to gather out of sight.

Dodgeball is - of course - not allowed on the schoolyard, but its the sport of choice behind that one wall at the far corner of the field where my friend's son and his friends gather. Not only do these tween boys of all colors play the forbidden sport of throwing balls at each other to knock each other out of the game, they have instituted their own rule....physical punishment for the loser by the winner.

If you lose the round, the winner gets to peg you in the head with the ball. Whammo to your fucking noggin!!

The end result? My friend's son is worried they are going to get caught because they have nearly 40 kids hiding behind the wall for the chance to get smacked in the head!

PS: If you don't take your hit in the head, the winner can punch you in the shoulder really hard. They're fucking animals!

Here's where things take a funnier turn. My friend's son now exercises at home and takes PE much more seriously to increase his chance of being the winner vs. the loser. AKA, to avoid pain, he makes the effort to improve his skills.

I'm seriously considering adding "Did you ever belong to a secret fight club?" to my list of hiring questions!

We've forgotten the simple wisdom of the man in black

[video=youtube;_Gbtm-93oqE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE[/youtube]

Like in most things, they find the point of rhetoric that's high-ground (what about the sociopathic-sadistic football player who torments for the pure joy of it?!?!!!) and use that to attack the underlying structure in its entirety.  The only thing worse than the sociopathic-sadistic football player tormenting undeserving people unable to defend themselves is the society which has replaced him.  But you never get rid of the sociopaths, you only tell people you can.

Nobody is worse to a woman than other women, particularly their "friends".

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106022Buddies busting each others' figurative chops as a sign of mutual trust and amusement is one thing. Bullies humiliating those they see as weaklings for *their* amusement is something very different.

The weakling must learn to stand against the bully. Even if standing means getting knocked back down. The weakling must also learn to ignore the words of bullies and drop the hammer on the bully in return.

If they do that, they won't be weaklings anymore and be worthy of mutual trust with others. This goes for either gender.  

Letting the weakling retreat to an adult controlled safe space and color pretty pictures to express their feelings means they'll always be a weakling. And this world does horrific things to the weak.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106027I'm seriously considering adding "Did you ever belong to a secret fight club?" to my list of hiring questions!

Oh, come on. The first (and second) rule of secret fight club is that you do not talk about secret fight club. So you should shut up, and you should clobber your friend's son with a dodgeball for talking about secret fight club.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106030The weakling must learn to stand against the bully. ...If they do that, they won't be weaklings anymore and be worthy of mutual trust with others. This goes for either gender.  ...(T)his world does horrific things to the weak.

Last I checked, civilization was by definition the institution and enforcement of rules intended to protect the weak from the strong. The horribleness of the world is precisely *why* we're obliged to demand better of ourselves in living here. I'm all for people learning to get stronger, or finding a way to take strength from their suffering; that doesn't excuse assholes justifying their sadism by claiming it's for their victims' "own good".

Now that said, again, friends giving each other a hard time is not the same thing, and people trying to shut this down because they can't tell this apart from real bullying are making a mistake. But in my experience real assholes don't stop being assholes just because a bullying victim strikes back once in a while.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036Last I checked, civilization was by definition the institution and enforcement of rules intended to protect the weak from the strong. The horribleness of the world is precisely *why* we're obliged to demand better of ourselves in living here. I'm all for people learning to get stronger, or finding a way to take strength from their suffering; that doesn't excuse assholes justifying their sadism by claiming it's for their victims' "own good".

Yeah. The fight club example strikes me as utter sophistry. Spinachcat -- If someone were to tell you that their son was bullied because he voluntarily participated in a fight club, how would you respond? I bet you'd say "that's not being bullied". That's what I would say.

A voluntary fair fight is the opposite of bullying. Bullying is deliberately targeting those who are weaker than you in order to feel stronger. Bullies don't want those they pick on to get stronger -- they want them to stay weak. And all too often, the result of bullying isn't in the weaker people becoming tougher -- it's the victims themselves becoming bullies of those even weaker than them.

And from the other thread:

Quote from: Alexander KalinowskiSo, when you (NOT refering to you personally here) go out on a date and I break into your home, stealing all your stuff - that's not theft/burglary. It's me teaching you to be smarter in protecting your worldly possessions instead; I'm just weeding out the dumbfucks here. Let them eat cake.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1105991That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

We didn't curb theft and burglarly with hugs, crayons and talking about feelings. We curbed break-ins by giving guns and cars to cops to patrol neighborhoods with the power to murder people for stealing. We buy and train guard dogs with sharp teeth to fuck up anybody who enters the house when we're out on a date. We invented security cameras to help ensure that thieves would be caught and punished by being thrown in prison hellpits for years of their lives.

AKA, we used "bullying" and "harassment" to curb burglars.

Likewise, if a person were to claim that he was bullied by the police because they arrested him, gave him a fair trial of his peers, and sent him to jail -- how would you respond? Personally, I would again tell the person, "You weren't bullied."

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036Last I checked, civilization was by definition the institution and enforcement of rules intended to protect the weak from the strong.

Most civilizations have been set up for the strong to rule over the weak. Even direct democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. In our modern era, we can often replace "rich and poor" for "strong and weak"

At best, civilization has rules intended to protect those who obey the rules from the rules-breakers. The burglar isn't stronger than the homeowner, just the one willing to break the rules against burglary. Same with the corporation who dumps garbage in the water supply.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036The horribleness of the world is precisely *why* we're obliged to demand better of ourselves in living here.

I missed the memo where we're obliged to do anything other than pay taxes and die.

The world was horrible in the past and will be horrible in the future. Star Trek is nothing but fantasy.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036that doesn't excuse assholes justifying their sadism by claiming it's for their victims' "own good".

What the asshole does or why isn't important. There will always be assholes and they will always have justifications.

What matters is the victim's response. Do they crumble or fight back?

And how can future generations end the current glorification of crumbling and instead learn to stand their ground? (hint: it's called gendered behavior!!!)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036But in my experience real assholes don't stop being assholes just because a bullying victim strikes back once in a while.

The bullying victim who strikes back again and again will no longer see themselves as a victim. They will reject victimhood mentality because they will always remember that feeling of standing up for themselves when it was hard and scary, but they stood up regardless.

Assholes can smell a victim. They're afraid of getting smacked (physically or verbally) and target those who won't fight back.

Quote from: rawma;1106033Oh, come on. The first (and second) rule of secret fight club is that you do not talk about secret fight club. So you should shut up, and you should clobber your friend's son with a dodgeball for talking about secret fight club.

LOL! So true! But I've noticed that there's nothing people want to tell you about more than their secrets!!

It's why I have a very hard time believing conspiracy theories. Humans rarely can keep their pieholes shut.

Quote from: jhkim;1106038The fight club example strikes me as utter sophistry. Spinachcat -- If someone were to tell you that their son was bullied because he voluntarily participated in a fight club, how would you respond? I bet you'd say "that's not being bullied". That's what I would say.

I wouldn't be as polite.

However, you know full well that parents crying about bullying aren't going to say the fight club was voluntary. Instead their precious little schmuck was innocently dreaming their gender non-binary goodthink when suddenly they were dragged into that nigh-Trump rally by those horrific bullies!

Quote from: jhkim;1106038A voluntary fair fight is the opposite of bullying. Bullying is deliberately targeting those who are weaker than you in order to feel stronger. Bullies don't want those they pick on to get stronger -- they want them to stay weak. And all too often, the result of bullying isn't in the weaker people becoming tougher -- it's the victims themselves becoming bullies of those even weaker than them.

You will never end bullying. The world will never be without bullies. Never. And you're right that many of the bullied will become bullies by seeking out those even weaker. They will mistake bullying for strength.

All the bullying by SJWs will never change those facts.

Feminists can cry about toxic masculinity all they like, and yet those facts will never change.

The best we can do is teach children to be strong. That's the point of the kid's fight club. Even though their entire school experience is designed to keep them weak and submissive, they instinctively understand they need to develop toughness.

And since they're adolescent boys full of crazy ass puberty, learning toughness involves punching.

Quote from: jhkim;1106038Likewise, if a person were to claim that he was bullied by the police because they arrested him, gave him a fair trial of his peers, and sent him to jail -- how would you respond? Personally, I would again tell the person, "You weren't bullied."

You are never gonna get invited to the Warren 2020 rally with that attitude mister!

And then, unless the criminal was a honky, you'd be deemed totally racist on Twitter.

Of course I agree with you, but I'm a irredeemable deplorable monster!

Late to the party, sad to see you all started without me and surprized to see you really made the thread jhkim.

Lets start with some quotes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1106006You know, I genuinely feel sorry for guys who think that the way men normally mock and tease and bully their friends is somehow a bad thing. It means they've never ever been part of a group of true functioning male friends. It means that the only times they've ever been roasted on it was to reject them from the group because the group had judged them unwanted. But then I probably remember that the reason they were judged this way and thus don't know how normal men can mock the fuck out of each other and build closer bonds that way, bonds of trust, rather than feeling excluded, is because they probably have character traits they refuse to work on or change to be tolerable in normal society.

Agreed, men (and boys) mock and tease each other and feminists are very busy banning all this behaviour everywhere by labelling it bullying or harassment.

Quote from: EOTB;1106028We've forgotten the simple wisdom of the man in black

[video=youtube;_Gbtm-93oqE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE[/youtube]

Like in most things, they find the point of rhetoric that's high-ground (what about the sociopathic-sadistic football player who torments for the pure joy of it?!?!!!) and use that to attack the underlying structure in its entirety.  The only thing worse than the sociopathic-sadistic football player tormenting undeserving people unable to defend themselves is the society which has replaced him.  But you never get rid of the sociopaths, you only tell people you can.

Agreed again, it's the old trick of here's this problem (often without proving it's a problem and exagerating it) if you give me power I'll fix it. Of course they never fix it and instead demand more power after switching lanes to distract you with other "problems".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106042You will never end bullying. The world will never be without bullies. Never. And you're right that many of the bullied will become bullies by seeking out those even weaker. They will mistake bullying for strength.

All the bullying by SJWs will never change those facts.

Feminists can cry about toxic masculinity all they like, and yet those facts will never change.

The best we can do is teach children to be strong. That's the point of the kid's fight club. Even though their entire school experience is designed to keep them weak and submissive, they instinctively understand they need to develop toughness.

And since they're adolescent boys full of crazy ass puberty, learning toughness involves punching.

Fucking agree again!

You'll never end bullying, rape, murder, etc. Instead of demanding "teach thiefs not to steal!" put some good locks on your doors and buy a shotgun.

And I seem to remember jhkim I was telling you about feminists demanding men act like wahmen, well, banning something as innocuous as dodge ball sure seems to qualify as evidence in my favor.

As for definitions :

Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying)


Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106022Buddies busting each others' figurative chops as a sign of mutual trust and amusement is one thing. Bullies humiliating those they see as weaklings for *their* amusement is something very different.

I doubt I could give an explicit definition that would work for all examples, but I think it's pretty clear to anyone who's gone through both how to tell them apart. I don't think that preventing the latter means you *have* to disallow the former ... but I do think people who want to preserve the mutual joshery of masculine friendships sometimes forget that in most cases, the joshery is a byproduct of the trust -- not, in fact, vice versa.

Yeah, that sounds right.

So last night my son told me there is a nasty boy in his school year (12 year olds) who likes to grope the other boys. He says it's been reported, but the school won't take proper action because his parents are wealthy and powerful, threaten to sue the school & the victims who report it, etc. Ugh, not a good situation.

I told my son, if this scumbag gropes him, then
1. Hit him! That's what I did at school, and it's an effective deterrent.
2. Report it to the authorities.

Edit: I just decided to follow my own advice and emailed the school to let them know what he told me. Still I think my point here was that both are necessary.

Greetings!

Geesus. Whaa, whaa, whaa. All these feminized, whiny fucking pussies. Our feminized society is breeding more dysfunctional, weak fucking eunuchs. Ultimately the burden returns to men who need to tell the feminist bitches to shut the fuck up. Our society gets more and more feminized and more dysfunctional with each passing year. Bullies everywhere enjoy preying on the weak. Weak boys--or weak girls for that matter--need to grow strong, and stand up for themselves. Bullies may not change being bullies to someone else--but they sure as fuck will change the way they treat YOU.

When I was in high school, I had this one kid, he was on the football team with me. For whatever reason, he decided to try and act like a jackass with me. Tensions between us continued to grow and such over several weeks, on the practice field, and off. Finally, he came up to me in the hallway one day, and insulted me, and told me he was going to kick my ass and so on. He pushed me, and got ready to fight. I stood there, and got right in his face. I told him "You think you're going to kickmy ass, heh? Well, you go ahead, you fucking prick, and throw the first punch. I looked him right in his eyes, and said, but before you throw that punch, and proceed to kick my ass, I'm telling you, right now, you better fucking kill me. I don't care if you beat me to a bloody pulp. When I get back up, I will hunt your fucking ass down, every day, and come for you. We will fight and fight, every day, until one day when I fucking kick your ass. I won't stop, and no matter what happens, every goddamn day, you will know you have been in a fight. So, now that you know what your are in for, you go ahead and throw that punch, you son of a bitch. You know what you are signing up for, because I am ready for you, bitch!" I stood there, ready to fight to the finish.

I looked at him square, relentless and unflinching, my eyes steady, my fists clenched and ready. He swallowed, and took two steps back away from me, and said to me, "It's cool, SHARK." He extended his open hand. He continued, saying "I'm sorry, man. You're cool. I was wrong." I then shook his hand.

After that incident, for the next year and a half, we became good friends. He joined the Marine Corps as well, just as I did. I never once had another problem with him, and he was a good friend entirely. It was like he was an entirely different person after that incident.

At the time, two of my friends standing by told me, "Goddamn, SHARK! You are a fucking badass, winning a fight without even throwing a single punch!" I just smiled, and laughed gently.

No matter the pain, no matter the cost. People need to stand up to any kind of bullies. Stand strong, stand proud, and fearless. No matter what the enemy is like, no matter how large, or how strong they are, you fighting fiercely or proving you will fight to the finish armed with if nothing else simply honour and raw courage will earn their respect.

Along the way, as time goes, people learn not to fuck with you. Whatever their inclinations or stupid desires, only the most foolish are eager to push their luck. Our society needs to ressurect masculine strength and courage, and get rid of the feminine crybabies. Stop celebrating being a fucking sheep and a weak, helpless victim. And don't give me this bullshit that only guys that are 6'6" monsters can win. I've known short, compact men that can put the fear of God in many men larger than they are. I've known more than a few chiseled Hispanic Marines that can spit fucking nails for breakfast, for example. Despite them being short, slender, wiry, they were made of absolute steel, and ruthless beasts. Standing strong and defeating bullies in your life, whatever form they may take, has less to do with your physical size or raw strength, and far more to do with fucking courage and the absolute determination to never give up, never quit, and fight on to the end. It is that courage, the honour of standing up for yourself, regardless of the odds, is what inspires men's respect and admiration, and can even gain a man's loyalty and friendship.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1106063Greetings!

Geesus. Whaa, whaa, whaa. All these feminized, whiny fucking pussies. Our feminized society is breeding more dysfunctional, weak fucking eunuchs. Ultimately the burden returns to men who need to tell the feminist bitches to shut the fuck up. Our society gets more and more feminized and more dysfunctional with each passing year. Bullies everywhere enjoy preying on the weak. Weak boys--or weak girls for that matter--need to grow strong, and stand up for themselves. Bullies may not change being bullies to someone else--but they sure as fuck will change the way they treat YOU.

When I was in high school, I had this one kid, he was on the football team with me. For whatever reason, he decided to try and act like a jackass with me. Tensions between us continued to grow and such over several weeks, on the practice field, and off. Finally, he came up to me in the hallway one day, and insulted me, and told me he was going to kick my ass and so on. He pushed me, and got ready to fight. I stood there, and got right in his face. I told him "You think you're going to kickmy ass, heh? Well, you go ahead, you fucking prick, and throw the first punch. I looked him right in his eyes, and said, but before you throw that punch, and proceed to kick my ass, I'm telling you, right now, you better fucking kill me. I don't care if you beat me to a bloody pulp. When I get back up, I will hunt your fucking ass down, every day, and come for you. We will fight and fight, every day, until one day when I fucking kick your ass. I won't stop, and no matter what happens, every goddamn day, you will know you have been in a fight. So, now that you know what your are in for, you go ahead and throw that punch, you son of a bitch. You know what you are signing up for, because I am ready for you, bitch!" I stood there, ready to fight to the finish.

I looked at him square, relentless and unflinching, my eyes steady, my fists clenched and ready. He swallowed, and took two steps back away from me, and said to me, "It's cool, SHARK." He extended his open hand. He continued, saying "I'm sorry, man. You're cool. I was wrong." I then shook his hand.

After that incident, for the next year and a half, we became good friends. He joined the Marine Corps as well, just as I did. I never once had another problem with him, and he was a good friend entirely. It was like he was an entirely different person after that incident.

At the time, two of my friends standing by told me, "Goddamn, SHARK! You are a fucking badass, winning a fight without even throwing a single punch!" I just smiled, and laughed gently.

No matter the pain, no matter the cost. People need to stand up to any kind of bullies. Stand strong, stand proud, and fearless. No matter what the enemy is like, no matter how large, or how strong they are, you fighting fiercely or proving you will fight to the finish armed with if nothing else simply honour and raw courage will earn their respect.

Along the way, as time goes, people learn not to fuck with you. Whatever their inclinations or stupid desires, only the most foolish are eager to push their luck. Our society needs to ressurect masculine strength and courage, and get rid of the feminine crybabies. Stop celebrating being a fucking sheep and a weak, helpless victim. And don't give me this bullshit that only guys that are 6'6" monsters can win. I've known short, compact men that can put the fear of God in many men larger than they are. I've known more than a few chiseled Hispanic Marines that can spit fucking nails for breakfast, for example. Despite them being short, slender, wiry, they were made of absolute steel, and ruthless beasts. Standing strong and defeating bullies in your life, whatever form they may take, has less to do with your physical size or raw strength, and far more to do with fucking courage and the absolute determination to never give up, never quit, and fight on to the end. It is that courage, the honour of standing up for yourself, regardless of the odds, is what inspires men's respect and admiration, and can even gain a man's loyalty and friendship.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Bravo sir. Bravo.

I think the point we're trying to make is there's a huge difference between bullying and "ball busting".

It's by who is doing it and intent.

I'm a vet myself. Spent 4 years in the Navy and another 6 in the OH ANG. One thing you learn is that you MUST have a thick skin. Imagine being on deployment for over a year, with a bunch of guys you barely know, and eventually go through some shit together as well. In that time, you learn who is who, and to relieve tension, you razz each other: ball busting.

I think with bullying, they don't know you and you don't know them. They just spout shit to rile you up and to show dominance. Ball busting on the other hand is among peers and the intent isn't to hurt you, but to say stupid shit about each other with no consequences.

When you stood up to that guy, you gave him a 100% understanding of what type of guy you are. With that, he changed his tune. You didn't back down and you gave it right back at him.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1106017I work with a 23 year old kid who still lives with his mom. Very sheltered. He was shocked by the way us Vets treated each other on breaks or at lunch.

I know. they look at us like we're crazy people.

Funny thing is, THEY'RE the crazy ones...

Quote from: blackstone;1106092I think with bullying, they don't know you and you don't know them. They just spout shit to rile you up and to show dominance. Ball busting on the other hand is among peers and the intent isn't to hurt you, but to say stupid shit about each other with no consequences.

Yeah. There's an important difference between ball busting and bullying. There's no camraderie in bullying, but there is in ball busting.

Quote from: SHARK;1106063No matter the pain, no matter the cost. People need to stand up to any kind of bullies. Stand strong, stand proud, and fearless. No matter what the enemy is like, no matter how large, or how strong they are, you fighting fiercely or proving you will fight to the finish armed with if nothing else simply honour and raw courage will earn their respect.

Along the way, as time goes, people learn not to fuck with you. Whatever their inclinations or stupid desires, only the most foolish are eager to push their luck. Our society needs to ressurect masculine strength and courage, and get rid of the feminine crybabies. Stop celebrating being a fucking sheep and a weak, helpless victim. And don't give me this bullshit that only guys that are 6'6" monsters can win. I've known short, compact men that can put the fear of God in many men larger than they are.

I completely agree that people need to stand up to bullies. There's a huge difference between ball-busting and bullying -- which is why I completely disagreed with Cloyer Bulse's positive take on bullying.

SHARK, I would go further than saying that even short men can stand up to bullies. I think even a small woman in a wheelchair can stand up to bullies. Because it's not about winning the physical fight. It's about not being afraid and standing up for what you believe. I don't know if I'd say that a small woman in a wheelchair has masculine strength, but they can have strength of character.

Quote from: blackstone;1106092Bravo sir. Bravo.

I think the point we're trying to make is there's a huge difference between bullying and "ball busting".

It's by who is doing it and intent.

I'm a vet myself. Spent 4 years in the Navy and another 6 in the OH ANG. One thing you learn is that you MUST have a thick skin. Imagine being on deployment for over a year, with a bunch of guys you barely know, and eventually go through some shit together as well. In that time, you learn who is who, and to relieve tension, you razz each other: ball busting.

I think with bullying, they don't know you and you don't know them. They just spout shit to rile you up and to show dominance. Ball busting on the other hand is among peers and the intent isn't to hurt you, but to say stupid shit about each other with no consequences.

When you stood up to that guy, you gave him a 100% understanding of what type of guy you are. With that, he changed his tune. You didn't back down and you gave it right back at him.

But do the schools make a difference between the two? Or those constantly talking about ending bullying? The answer is no, because it's about power to "protect" the weak, and to do so they'll ban anything they deem bullying. Making everybody miserable in the process.

This just showed up in my Facebook feed and seems timely.

https://www.wfla.com/mobile/bullied-middle-school-student-dies-after-fight/?fbclid=IwAR3l9kXKLW5lkxppjdRShJTM8yVn2zPOHoh2u6b78A4WtTzBy9LwPR5hou4

I've been less than sympathetic to the anti-bullying movement myself in the past, but there is a time when boys or men can't be left to sort it out among themselves. I'm not entirely sure when that is.

Obviously somewhere before what happened in this article, but exactly where I don't know. The term Toxic Masculinity is thrown about too freely, but there is a truth behind it.

Quote from: Joey2k;1106116This just showed up in my Facebook feed and seems timely.

https://www.wfla.com/mobile/bullied-middle-school-student-dies-after-fight/?fbclid=IwAR3l9kXKLW5lkxppjdRShJTM8yVn2zPOHoh2u6b78A4WtTzBy9LwPR5hou4

I've been less than sympathetic to the anti-bullying movement myself in the past, but there is a time when boys or men can't be left to sort it out among themselves. I'm not entirely sure when that is.

Obviously somewhere before what happened in this article, but exactly where I don't know. The term Toxic Masculinity is thrown about too freely, but there is a truth behind it.

Greetings!

Excellent, Joey2K! I agree, there is some truth in it, but the solution of a heavy handed, OMFG school policies and all the psycho monitoring and coddling is just fucking wrong, you know? Three main approaches stand out in my mind, only one of which has anything to do with school administrations or official "policies."

(1) The main solution here goes back to all the shitty fucking parents in our society that have no fucking clue about how to raise their kids, and in particular, all the single mommies that are celebrated--they are usually entirely ill-equipped to raise children properly, and especially boys, and training them to go from boys into men. But our feminized, weak society likes to applaud weak fucking parents being "friends" with their kids, scorns whipping their kids asses, and generally pushes spoiling kids and coddling them constantly. All of these elements don't help kids at all, and toss in shitty parental drama, divorce, drugs and other dysfunctions, on a mass scale, and you have the present ongoing mess. Kids are angry, depressed, drugged up, neglected, and bitter. They take their frustrations out by abusing themselves and everyone around them, because they have been raised to be selfish fucking animals.

(2) Stand up to bullies, be strong, and FIGHT BACK! Our pussy fucking society likes to discourage violence and strength. That is why our society is insane and fucking rotten to the core, because so many people in our society have embraced being weak fucking sheep, in every aspect of their lives. People defending themselves should be encouraged and applauded! They should be prepared and taught the virtues of being strong, proud, and courageous, and being quick to fight back, and to defend others. These values and the process relates to point (1) above.

(3) Weak, pussy schools and administrations need to get rid of the toxic feminized ideology, and celebrate strength, courage, and self-defense, not discourage, harass, and embarass or punish students, parents, or people in general for embracing such virtues, and living them.

There have always been outliers, and vicious bullies, but isn't it strange why we seem to have a mushroom explosion of this kind of behaviour everywhere in our society nowadays? They have always been around, though in the past there seem to have been far fewer of them, and people dealt with bullies swiftly and harshly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Joey2k;1106116This just showed up in my Facebook feed and seems timely.

https://www.wfla.com/mobile/bullied-middle-school-student-dies-after-fight/

I've been less than sympathetic to the anti-bullying movement myself in the past, but there is a time when boys or men can't be left to sort it out among themselves. I'm not entirely sure when that is.

From the link:

QuoteMORENO VALLEY, CA (WCMH/CNN) -- A teen in California died Tuesday, just over a week after a vicious fight at his middle school. Now the two other kids involved are in custody.

Cell phone video shows two boys punching a classmate, named Diego, on the Landmark Middle School campus more than a week ago.  

Diego, 13, was declared clinically dead more than week after the fight.

Quote from: SHARK;1106125There have always been outliers, and vicious bullies, but isn't it strange why we seem to have a mushroom explosion of this kind of behaviour everywhere in our society nowadays? They have always been around, though in the past there seem to have been far fewer of them, and people dealt with bullies swiftly and harshly.

Personally, I saw a lot more bullying when I was a teenager in the 1980s than my son went through in the 2010s. There have been some changes. Cyberbullying is a new thing, clearly. But overall, it seems like things have improved. This is matched by at least some research -- below are links on a study showing decrease in bullying in the U.S. from 2005 to 2014.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/is-bullying-decreasing

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/6/e20162615

These days, I feel like the news and social media tend to portray everything as an explosion of awfulness. But there are a lot of measures by which things are improving. Violent crime is down hugely compared to when I grew up, for example. Teen suicide rates are going up currently, but they're still below the peak in 1990.

Current approaches to bullying have problems -- and like always, teachers can make bad calls. However, I don't think that going back to the old way of stepping back and letting students beat each other and learn is a good approach. There have been a lot of students like Diego over the years. Sure, some students may have come through bullying and gotten better, but I don't think it's worth killing the weaker ones. Earlier, Spinachcat wrote about bullying:  

Quote from: SpinachcatIt's a phenomenally good thing. It toughens the weak or weeds them out. Bullying and harassment teach toughness, resilience and the drive to fight back and succeed, and swiftly identifies the weak who either learn to stand or get ostracized. Without it, we get the current generations full of weaklings.

I don't see weeding out students like Diego as being a good thing. I think there are much better ways to build strength. Bullying will always exist, but we can find ways to discourage it and reduce its frequency, and instill better values in our kids.

There's a difference between men busting each other's balls and flat out bullying.

I know the kids at school who were mocked and derided by everyone, who were treated like utter shit by the school itself. Almost always sitting alone at lunch, constantly picked on, and typically they were physically weak, so even when they fought back it just resulted in them getting their ass kicked. Hell, this is the kid that Emilo Estevez talks about in The Breakfast club, the kid whose butt cheeks he Duct Taped together and made walk home like that.

That is fucking terrible and needs to stop. I don't know what kind of psychopath you need to be, to look at that and think "Oh that's perfectly fine, that's making him stronger!" No, that makes people suicidal and have trouble dealing with other people for the rest of their lives.

Quote from: jhkim;1106131I don't see weeding out students like Diego as being a good thing. I think there are much better ways to build strength. Bullying will always exist, but we can find ways to discourage it and reduce its frequency, and instill better values in our kids.

Darwin always wins in the end. A society that celebrates weakness will fall to a society that demands strength. We are animals, nothing less and nothing more.

Strength is only built through resistance. It's painful, hard and not fun. It doesn't involve hugs and snuggles.

Diego's death is unfortunate, as are the deaths of all innocents, but "instill better values" is just doublespeak for a more feminized society.

I'd argue our feminized society is why Diego died. Why the hell didn't anyone intervene on Diego's behalf? When I was a teen, if a fight started getting out of hand, we always broke it up even if one of them deserved the whooping.

Quote from: Orphan81;1106143That is fucking terrible and needs to stop. I don't know what kind of psychopath you need to be, to look at that and think "Oh that's perfectly fine, that's making him stronger!" No, that makes people suicidal and have trouble dealing with other people for the rest of their lives.

It is fucking terrible and it will NEVER stop. Never.

The absolute best we "might" be able do is promote the development of strength and toughness with a sense of community and guardianship...so when the other kids see that lonely dork alone on the school bench getting bullied, they have the strength to intervene and support him.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106155Darwin always wins in the end. A society that celebrates weakness will fall to a society that demands strength. We are animals, nothing less and nothing more.

Strength is only built through resistance. It's painful, hard and not fun. It doesn't involve hugs and snuggles.

Diego's death is unfortunate, as are the deaths of all innocents, but "instill better values" is just doublespeak for a more feminized society.

I'd argue our feminized society is why Diego died. Why the hell didn't anyone intervene on Diego's behalf? When I was a teen, if a fight started getting out of hand, we always broke it up even if one of them deserved the whooping.

The absolute best we "might" be able do is promote the development of strength and toughness with a sense of community and guardianship...so when the other kids see that lonely dork alone on the school bench getting bullied, they have the strength to intervene and support him.

Why? Considering the rest of your post, I'd think you'd approve of kids weeding out the weaklings.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106155Darwin always wins in the end. A society that celebrates weakness will fall to a society that demands strength. We are animals, nothing less and nothing more.

Strength is only built through resistance. It's painful, hard and not fun. It doesn't involve hugs and snuggles.

Diego's death is unfortunate, as are the deaths of all innocents, but "instill better values" is just doublespeak for a more feminized society.

I'd argue our feminized society is why Diego died. Why the hell didn't anyone intervene on Diego's behalf? When I was a teen, if a fight started getting out of hand, we always broke it up even if one of them deserved the whooping.




It is fucking terrible and it will NEVER stop. Never.

The absolute best we "might" be able do is promote the development of strength and toughness with a sense of community and guardianship...so when the other kids see that lonely dork alone on the school bench getting bullied, they have the strength to intervene and support him.

It stopped when I was around because I could fight and I'm not small. So I did protect my friends, but I didn't want to get into internet tough guy stories.

What struck me more was the number of teachers aware of it who did nothing. There was a very real sense of powerlessness I felt when older bullies threatened me and I knew the teachers would do absolutely nothing about it.

Thankfully for me, I learned how to fight and I got bigger so I was eventually left alone. But I remember that feeling of fear and hopelessness and it's this reason some kids literally kill themselves over it.

There is nothing about "toughening" up here. The point of having a society and civilization in the first place is to prevent this sort of thing from happening to the physically weak.

Quote from: blackstone;1106092Bravo sir. Bravo.

I think the point we're trying to make is there's a huge difference between bullying and "ball busting".

It's by who is doing it and intent.

I'm a vet myself. Spent 4 years in the Navy and another 6 in the OH ANG. One thing you learn is that you MUST have a thick skin. Imagine being on deployment for over a year, with a bunch of guys you barely know, and eventually go through some shit together as well. In that time, you learn who is who, and to relieve tension, you razz each other: ball busting.

I think with bullying, they don't know you and you don't know them. They just spout shit to rile you up and to show dominance. Ball busting on the other hand is among peers and the intent isn't to hurt you, but to say stupid shit about each other with no consequences.

When you stood up to that guy, you gave him a 100% understanding of what type of guy you are. With that, he changed his tune. You didn't back down and you gave it right back at him.

Greetings!

OOH RAH Blackstone! Navy vet, huh? Outstanding! Indeed, being in the military, it's a harsh, demanding environment. Ball Busting is a normal tradition amongst men, in many environments. I also agree that Ball Busting amongst friends is distinctly different from Bullying, which is as you noted, entirely malicious. I think a big part of reducing *Bullies" begins at home, with the parents relentlessly teaching and insisting that their sons and daughters be honourable people, and people of integrity and character. Of defending their own dignity, and treating others with respect and dignity. I know to many such a task seems impossible, but I know from my own upbringing it can be done. Many of my childhood friends were raised with the same standards and values that were instilled in me from childhood by my parents. Further along into adulthood, my training and instructors reinforced such childhood standards and values with similar discipline and zeal. Our society today has largely abandoned such values, with predictable results. More and more, I feel like a dinosaur from a different age, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So jhkim, how come you're not against the bullying and harassment campaign called metoo? It has drove several people to commit suicide, yet you insist they should be able to keep on doing the same. Don't you get a bit of cognitive dissonance?

two honor students ganging up to beat another honor student to death probably is a result of none of them going through a traditional male hierarchy.  Two-on-one attacks isn't celebrated by any traditional male hierarchy structure I've ever seen.  This is the rhetorical high-grounding I'm talking about.  Also: curious how many male teachers they had, and what their male role models were at home.

Yes, there needs to be an outlet from traditional male hierarchy for those who aren't willing to undergo that sort of trial, where they can be safe.  But society also must be honest about what the likely results of quitting/withdrawing will really be, because lying about that to make these kids temporarily feel better about themselves is how you get angry young men shooting women who only sympathize with them but never want to date them - instead dating the type of guy the weaker male complains about.  Telling young men they can get what they really want out of life outside of the male structure will come true for some non-traditional males who ride today's economy to its heights, just like some kids really do strike it rich through athletics without ever learning how to read.  But that's a lottery ticket's chance with more angry losers than satisfied winners, in both directions.  

The greatest number of men will be happiest, and become the sort of men that society instinctively craves, by the older way of doing things.  Both the old and the new have horrible excesses and abuse cases that go against their rhetoric.  But the previous one produced more men who were satisfied with themselves and gained what they desired out of life.

QuoteThey [men] are always harassing each other, partly for amusement, partly to score points in the eternal dominance battle between them, but also partly to see what the other guy will do if he is subjected to social stress. It's part of the process of character evaluation, as well as camaraderie. When it works well (when everybody gets, and gives as good as they get, and can give and take) it's a big part of what allows men who work for a living to tolerate or even enjoy laying pipe and working on oil rigs and lumber-jacking and working in restaurant kitchens and all the other hot, dirty, physically demanding and dangerous work that is still done almost totally by men.

....Men enforce a code of behavior on each other, when working together. Do your work. Pull your weight. Stay awake and pay attention. Don't whine or be touchy. Stand up for your friends. Don't suck up and don't snitch. Don't be a slave to stupid rules. Don't, in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, be a girlie man. Don't be dependent. At all. Ever. Period. The harassment that is part of acceptance on a working crew is a test: are you tough, entertaining, competent and reliable? If not, go away. Simple as that. We don't need to feel sorry for you. We don't want to put up with your narcissism, and we don't want to do your work.

....It is to women's clear advantage that men do not happily put up with dependency among themselves. Part of the reason that so many a working-class woman does not marry, now, as we have alluded to, is because she does not want to look after a man, struggling for employment, as well as her children. And fair enough. A woman should look after her children -- although that is not all she should do. And a man should look after a woman and children -- although that is not all he should do. But a woman should not look after a man, because she must look after children, and a man should not be a child. This means that he must not be dependent. This is one of the reasons that men have little patience for dependent men. And let us not forget: wicked women may produce dependent sons, may support and even marry dependent men, but awake and conscious women want an awake and conscious partner."

-- 12 Rules for Life, an Antidote to Chaos; Rule 11: Do not bother children when they are skateboarding, pp. 327-330, Dr. Jordan B Peterson

The female marines in Aliens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYknBB_UVY) give as good as they get, and as such they are valued members of the team. There are many females who do well in male dominance hierarchies, who love math and physics, war-gaming, etc. That's why FREEDOM is important. Individuals must be allowed to pursue what they will.

However, nowadays girls are heavily pressured into joining male dominance hierarchies. Girls who want to be traditional house wives are ridiculed. It is not an option. Unlike the above mentioned girls who do well, most girls have no clue as to how males socialize. On the contrary, they are taught that males and females are exactly the same. Very often instinctive probing by males is misinterpreted. You cannot just bypass millions of years of genetic programming with feel-good rhetoric. Many SJW females who complain about harassment do not understand that they have been rejected because of their whiny, dependent behavior which males instinctively abhor. When male harassment turns malicious, that is their way of saying GTFO.

Dominance hierarchies are REAL. There is a part of your brain that is millions of years old that tracks where you are in the dominance hierarchy. If you are low in the dominance hierarchy, your brain produces less serotonin and you are more prone to depression and anxiety and more likely to freak out over small things. That's because being low in the hierarchy is DANGEROUS. Historically, you are more likely to be killed by rivals and less likely to mate and pass on your genes.  Males and females are programmed to respond differently within their respective hierarchies. It is not an accident that ALL mass shooters are omega males who are at the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy. They are driven by severe depression and overwhelming feelings of humiliation. Feminizing them makes them more dangerous, not less.

Quote from: SHARK;1106175Greetings!

OOH RAH Blackstone! Navy vet, huh? Outstanding!
Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

And 6 years in the Ohio ANG. Two TOTALLY different jobs: in the Navy I was an Avionics Tech, in the ANG I was a 19K Tank Crewman. Both were fun, but DAMN! Driving 67 tonnes of steel down the road is a big rush!

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1106205The female marines in Aliens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZYknBB_UVY) give as good as they get, and as such they are valued members of the team. There are many females who do well in male dominance hierarchies, who love math and physics, war-gaming, etc. That's why FREEDOM is important. Individuals must be allowed to pursue what they will.

I'm always leery of fictional examples for real world issues.

QuoteHowever, nowadays girls are heavily pressured into joining male dominance hierarchies. Girls who want to be traditional house wives are ridiculed. It is not an option. Unlike the above mentioned girls who do well, most girls have no clue as to how males socialize. On the contrary, they are taught that males and females are exactly the same. Very often instinctive probing by males is misinterpreted. You cannot just bypass millions of years of genetic programming with feel-good rhetoric. Many SJW females who complain about harassment do not understand that they have been rejected because of their whiny, dependent behavior which males instinctively abhor. When male harassment turns malicious, that is their way of saying GTFO.

Dominance hierarchies are REAL. There is a part of your brain that is millions of years old that tracks where you are in the dominance hierarchy. If you are low in the dominance hierarchy, your brain produces less serotonin and you are more prone to depression and anxiety and more likely to freak out over small things. That's because being low in the hierarchy is DANGEROUS. Historically, you are more likely to be killed by rivals and less likely to mate and pass on your genes.  Males and females are programmed to respond differently within their respective hierarchies. It is not an accident that ALL mass shooters are omega males who are at the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy. They are driven by severe depression and overwhelming feelings of humiliation. Feminizing them makes them more dangerous, not less.

This I think I agree with, especially the last paragraph.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1106245I'm always leery of fictional examples for real world issues.

I agree, but it's interesting how Cameron presents them (especially Vazquez) as acting masculine and earning respect on that basis. Our modern culture rarely does the 'honorary man' thing but historically it was quite common to treat the exceptional female as an honorary man.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1106205Dominance hierarchies are REAL. There is a part of your brain that is millions of years old that tracks where you are in the dominance hierarchy. If you are low in the dominance hierarchy, your brain produces less serotonin and you are more prone to depression and anxiety and more likely to freak out over small things. That's because being low in the hierarchy is DANGEROUS. Historically, you are more likely to be killed by rivals and less likely to mate and pass on your genes.  Males and females are programmed to respond differently within their respective hierarchies.

I don't disagree that there are social behaviors that we are programmed for. However, we can and have changed human behavior compared to a million years ago.

Basically, you're arguing that we have instinctively programmed behaviors -- and that modern feminism runs counter to those instincts. However, I would argue that 1950s socialization also ran against those programmed behaviors.

Social values like compassion, literacy, democracy, and free speech are not programmed into our genes by millions of years of evolution. But we have made them work, and they are now dominant forces over the globe. Even in the 1950s, we viewed bullying as a bad thing. Beating the weakling until he dies might be good for evolution, but even in the 1950s this was viewed as a horrible crime. It might be our programmed instincts to beat the weak into submission rather than allowing them to vote. But collectively, I think that our modern systems of democracy and human rights are very strong, and have proven themselves competitive and even dominant over dictatorships and monarchies.

You might argue that those 1950s values are good *despite* running against evolution -- but it's the exception, and modern feminism is bad because it runs against evolution. But in that case, you need different evidence that it's bad. We need to take into account what human instincts are, but that shouldn't mean we are limited to acting however we think that our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago acted.

It's interesting that both partisan liberals and partisan conservatives tend to say that everything has been going to hell in the past few decades. But by many objective measures, we're doing better. Within the U.S., over the past thirty years, we've seen the murder rate drop remarkably.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1106205It is not an accident that ALL mass shooters are omega males who are at the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy. They are driven by severe depression and overwhelming feelings of humiliation. Feminizing them makes them more dangerous, not less.

First of all, I think basing a view of overall human psychology based on a handful of very rare exceptions is flawed. The 0.0001% of people who are mass shooters aren't necessarily representative of the general social dynamics.

Moreover, your point is false. For example, Stephen Paddock was a successful businessman and gambler who was wealthy, had been married, and had a live-in girlfriend. He was not an omega male. There might be a trend towards what you say, but I don't think trends among mass shooters necessarily show anything about the majority of the population.

I'm pretty sure compassion has an evolutionary & genetic basis, probably arising from our need to take care of our young - and since we are group animals, the young of others in our group too. There's evidence of eg Pleistocene dire wolves caring for their own sick & injured who could no longer hunt. Pretty sure that did not require any dire wolf social engineering.

Quote from: S'mon;1106269I'm pretty sure compassion has an evolutionary & genetic basis, probably arising from our need to take care of our young - and since we are group animals, the young of others in our group too. There's evidence of eg Pleistocene dire wolves caring for their own sick & injured who could no longer hunt. Pretty sure that did not require any dire wolf social engineering.

OK, fair enough, I agree. But that seems like a nitpick given the other points in that list. Would you agree that literacy, democracy, and free speech are not evolved?

Put another way, it seems pretty clear to me that even an old-fashioned Christian 1950s American kid has a vastly different socialization from early hominid hunter-gatherers.

Quote from: S'mon;1106269I'm pretty sure compassion has an evolutionary & genetic basis, probably arising from our need to take care of our young - and since we are group animals, the young of others in our group too. There's evidence of eg Pleistocene dire wolves caring for their own sick & injured who could no longer hunt. Pretty sure that did not require any dire wolf social engineering.

Greetings!

Hey S'mon! I PM'd you, buddy!

Your point about Dire Wolves is interesting. It reminds me of how I have read of accounts of elephant bahviour. Evidently, if an elephant becomes injured or falls to the ground for whatever reason, the other elephants in the group gather around their fallen comrade in a circle, protecting them from any harm. Meanwhile, another elephant, or several, inside the circle, proceed to stand over the fallen elephant, and try to help them to their feet.

When an elephant dies, the other elephants have been recorded burying the fallen elephant in a mound of earth, leaves, grass, whatever, to cover them. The elephants have also been known to stand guard over the dead elephant for several days, making noises. Some zoologists have put forth that elephants have a form of religion, derived from primitive burial rituals and possessing a keen awareness and even mourning when a member of their herd has died.

All without any "social engineering" either! Amazing stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The evolutionary argument is a dead end. It's evolutionarily advantageous for a male to kill a new female partner's current children to make room for his own genetic offspring. I hope no one here thinks that's a good idea because it's natural.

Evolution can explain why things are, and how they got that way, but as a guide to morality, it's not necessarily productive.

Quote from: blackstone;1106208And 6 years in the Ohio ANG. Two TOTALLY different jobs: in the Navy I was an Avionics Tech, in the ANG I was a 19K Tank Crewman. Both were fun, but DAMN! Driving 67 tonnes of steel down the road is a big rush!

Greetings!

Hey Blackstone! A tank crewman as well? Oh damn! That's awesome, man! I had a few buddies that were in LAV's. One was a driver, and one was a gunner. Watching them go to work with that rapid-fire cannon was sweet! It was such fun watching the commander up topside on the turret swing into action with the automatic grenade launcher! OOH RAH!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think I've mentioned this on a similar thread. Abbreviated version - When I moved to LA in the early 70's we lived in an all-black neighborhood in Carson. The only other non-black family on the street was this Mexican family. Well my siblings and I would team up with the Blanco-kids, and we'd roll like a wolf-pack to and from school *everyday*. And *every* goddamn day we'd get attacked. I owned precisely zero clothes that weren't fucked up with rips and bloodstains for a good year (we were pretty poor... replacing clothes monthly was not going to happen). We were attacked by the other kids simply because we weren't black. Now it wasn't all the black kids that fucked with us - but just this big fucking pack of them.

My whole paternal side of my family are Marines. And my dad was out hustling trying to fit into civilian life post-Vietnam (which itself was basically impossible for a bunch of reasons). But he instilled in us this attitude of "the bottom line" - or what I call "the Inevitables". You won't change the circumstances of people that don't want to change. You can only change your approach to those circumstances. In this case - we're outnumbered and getting trounced daily too and from school, we had to work smarter.

So we developed strategies - different routes. Attacking and isolating the group's leader, and giving it to him until he lost interest. Neighbors would sometimes help us, but that was rare. The reality was - we were in this on our own. And it taught us all a lot of valuable lessons. Namely - don't expect help from anyone, if you get it, great. But it's not something to be relied on out of hand.

Sure I had nightmares and dread dealing with it day-after-day. But in the end - it WAS inevitable. They were going to come, and we were going to have to figure out a gameplan. And we did. We learned to be ruthless about it. And it really did shape our attitudes. My siblings and I have very strong personalities and we developed some bonds during these times (and bonds with the Blancos that over 4-decades later has lasted!)

The point is - as others have already said - hardship will build character. But you have to be honest with yourself above all else. And you have to be willing to take the punishment of building that character. I don't really care if someone says online or even to my face "well if I were in that situation I'd have done X,Y,Z". Because ultimately it doesn't matter until it does matter. And then you see what people really are like.

And this transcends gender - my sister went through all this with me and my brother. And while to outward appearances she's very girly-girl, she inherited my father's bony knuckles and put them to use with furious abandon. But she's been through that toughening-up process. Her character has been tested numerous times.

Most people don't get that opportunity today. I'm not suggesting you have to get your ass-kicked by bullies to develop this instinct. I'm saying that most people do not test themselves to build character today, generally. There is a distinct lack of self-awareness to reality. And while I *want* to say it can be taught... I don't think this is true. I think ultimately you have to have your Gom Jabbar moment on your own. You either seek it - or you will find yourself ill-prepared for when it finds you.

Case in point - when I was in highschool this girl tried out for the wrestling team at 120lbs weight class. She was a preppy, and literally doing it for the spotlight of "ooo a girl joined the wrestling team". My friend held that spot on the team at that weightclass, and when we were in practice, there was a very very tight pecking order. NO ONE wants to lose. Ever. Because it was highly competitive and no one wanted to lose their spot. But when she came on - she presumed that everyone was going to go easy on her (and she had this attitude that because she played softball and was athletic she could compete).

Sorry... it doesn't work that way. When she called out the varsity team wrestler in her weight-class in practice, Shon got on the mat with her, and it was *ruthless*. And he did to her what he'd have done to anyone trying to take his spot. Which she wasn't actually doing - she was just running her mouth. But she didn't understand that any loss even in practice becomes fodder for others to try and take your spot. She got tossed like a salad, cried about it, etc. But in the end - she stuck it out and we appreciated her for it. Better - she came to realize how competitive we all were, and she kept trying to rise to the occasion. She became a better person for it.

 But she had to go through that fire to discover it. People not willing to do that, or unwilling to learn from those experiences are doomed to their own weakness of character to rise above strife. And tend to lead miserable neurotic lives because of it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1106275The evolutionary argument is a dead end. It's evolutionarily advantageous for a male to kill a new female partner's current children to make room for his own genetic offspring. I hope no one here thinks that's a good idea because it's natural.

Evolution can explain why things are, and how they got that way, but as a guide to morality, it's not necessarily productive.

Greetings!

Good point, Ratman! Of course, human beings have an animal nature, instinct, reflexes, and a ruthless capacity for efficiency, but we also have a moral nature, which elevates us above the animals. Despite lots of evolutionary thinking, I am not convinced that necessarily all animals are without any moral capacity as well, as seen with the numerous actions and behaviour of elephants, for example. In recent times, the Tsunami that struck the southern Asian area, many human teenagers were lifted out of the waters and carried by elephants to the safety of higher ground. These people would have died if not for the actions and compassion of elephants for them. Elephants also communicated with humans and led them to higher ground to save the humans from the furious waters, mere hours before whole towns and such were swept away entirely.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1106273Greetings!

Hey S'mon! I PM'd you, buddy!

Hi SHARK - your Inbox is full! :D

Quote from: jhkim;1106272OK, fair enough, I agree. But that seems like a nitpick given the other points in that list. Would you agree that literacy, democracy, and free speech are not evolved?

Not wishing to get in trouble with my now-good-friend Mr BedrockBrendan, I shall plead the Fifth on that. :p

Quote from: S'mon;1106282Hi SHARK - your Inbox is full! :D

Greetings!

S'mon! Thank you! I didn't know. I have taken care of that problem now, though!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1106254I don't disagree that there are social behaviors that we are programmed for. However, we can and have changed human behavior compared to a million years ago.

Basically, you're arguing that we have instinctively programmed behaviors -- and that modern feminism runs counter to those instincts. However, I would argue that 1950s socialization also ran against those programmed behaviors.

Social values like compassion, literacy, democracy, and free speech are not programmed into our genes by millions of years of evolution. But we have made them work, and they are now dominant forces over the globe. Even in the 1950s, we viewed bullying as a bad thing. Beating the weakling until he dies might be good for evolution, but even in the 1950s this was viewed as a horrible crime. It might be our programmed instincts to beat the weak into submission rather than allowing them to vote. But collectively, I think that our modern systems of democracy and human rights are very strong, and have proven themselves competitive and even dominant over dictatorships and monarchies.

Science seems to disagree with you (https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/16/game-theory-and-the-evolution-of-compassion/) regarding compassion. And to go from there to democracy and human rights it's not that hard really. About literacy: The ability to read is taught to us, but the capacity to learn to create and read symbols that represent abstract concepts is evolved surely.

Quote from: jhkim;1106272OK, fair enough, I agree. But that seems like a nitpick given the other points in that list. Would you agree that literacy, democracy, and free speech are not evolved?

Put another way, it seems pretty clear to me that even an old-fashioned Christian 1950s American kid has a vastly different socialization from early hominid hunter-gatherers.

You are making a huge mistake here. Our societies don't spring fully formed from nowhere, they evolve. We change our environment and those changes in turn change us and the circle goes on and on. For humans, such environment includes our societies and our social norms. So, as we evolve so does our culture, society, government, etc. creating or eliminating evolutionary pressures and thus we (in a way) guide our evolution (not by design but by accident, like all evolution except our pets and such).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1106290You are making a huge mistake here. Our societies don't spring fully formed from nowhere, they evolve. We change our environment and those changes in turn change us and the circle goes on and on. For humans, such environment includes our societies and our social norms. So, as we evolve so does our culture, society, government, etc. creating or eliminating evolutionary pressures and thus we (in a way) guide our evolution (not by design but by accident, like all evolution except our pets and such).

I was using "evolution" to refer specifically to genetic evolution, as the term is typically used in biology.

But if you want to use it more broadly, that's fine. But the substantial point still applies, just with different phrasing. We have had a ton of evolved changes in socialization between early hominids and the 1950s. The changes in socialization between 1950 and today also evolved.

The fact that socialization has changed isn't evidence that it's wrong, since there are many other socially-evolved changes that are successful.

Quote from: jhkim;1106297I was using "evolution" to refer specifically to genetic evolution, as the term is typically used in biology.

But if you want to use it more broadly, that's fine. But the substantial point still applies, just with different phrasing. We have had a ton of evolved changes in socialization between early hominids and the 1950s. The changes in socialization between 1950 and today also evolved.

The fact that socialization has changed isn't evidence that it's wrong, since there are many other socially-evolved changes that are successful.

The fact that something changed isn't evidence that it's wrong or right, agreed. But evolution is blind, it does things without a guiding hand, so a change can be into something that's bad for the species.

Assuming these changes in socialization are natural, and I think we can provide evidence that at least some aren't. And those changes that aren't natural but pushed by people with an agenda, are good or bad? Do they even fucking understand the huge system they are messing with?

Again, I think we can provide evidence that no, the people pushing for certain changes for ideological reasons don't know what the fuck they are talking about, haven't thought what's the end result of their changes and don't even begin to grok the pure size of the system they pretend to change to fit their ideology.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1106160Why? Considering the rest of your post, I'd think you'd approve of kids weeding out the weaklings.

It's important to weed out the weaklings. Weaklings can't be trusted in times of trouble. It's exactly why YOU know which of your friends, family members or acquaintances you would call if shit hits the fan and who you would never call upon for help.

However, two kids killing another kid isn't weeding out the weak. Few people can take on two opponents. This is a tragic incident that leaves open the questions of why didn't any other kid intervene and why didn't any adults intervene? This was an unfair fight that got out of control and that wasn't instantaneous. Time passed during this beatdown and yet nobody took action. Why???

Quote from: Orphan81;1106173There is nothing about "toughening" up here. The point of having a society and civilization in the first place is to prevent this sort of thing from happening to the physically weak.

Except you described exactly how the pain, fear, powerlessness and hopelessness toughened you up. Your description of your past is textbook to how people learn strength, and as you stated, you used your learned strength to defend others. If you choose fear and hopelessness, you could never defended others nor stopped fights that got out of hand.

Quote from: Orphan81;1106173The point of having a society and civilization in the first place is to prevent this sort of thing from happening to the physically weak.

But society and civilization don't prevent this.

Even with all our libraries full of laws, the law breakers keep breaking laws. We hope punishment is a deterrent, but the law mostly exists to enact punishment after the law breaker has done their damage. Laws don't prevent crimes.

No law could have saved Diego. Just one kid getting into the middle of that fight and taking a few punches might have saved him.

Quote from: jhkim;1106254Social values like compassion, literacy, democracy, and free speech are not programmed into our genes by millions of years of evolution. But we have made them work, and they are now dominant forces over the globe.

I'd argue free speech exists in very few places, but many nations do have "free-ish" speech.

However, all these "civilized advances" exist as an extremely thin veneer that vanish in times of crisis. They are not natural to mankind and when anything disrupts that thin veneer, mankind reverts to its truest (and most vile) self. Of course, there are always exceptions, but history has shown us that civilized behavior doesn't have staying power during crisis.

Quote from: jhkim;1106254But collectively, I think that our modern systems of democracy and human rights are very strong, and have proven themselves competitive and even dominant over dictatorships and monarchies.

I absolutely disagree.

The only reason we can export democracy and human rights is because we are economically and militarily strong. Just look at how silent the USA has become over the decades against China's human rights issues! As China became richer and more powerful, they "exported" the demand for silence about China's domestic issues and the West mostly acquiesced. Same with criticizing Saudi Arabia. We need their oil, so we pretend all sorts of fictions, including willful blindness regarding Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11. And then there's the USA's history of undermining democracies we don't like.

I don't think democracy and human rights are very strong within the USA. They exist because we are fat and happy. Few of us go hungry and few of us suffer daily, thus its easy to banter about politics as an esoteric thing or talk about inclusiveness that costs us nothing. However, the moment things go bad and people's happy and fat days are threatened, our modern systems will be instantly traded for barbarism.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106317However, two kids killing another kid isn't weeding out the weak. Few people can take on two opponents. This is a tragic incident that leaves open the questions of why didn't any other kid intervene and why didn't any adults intervene? This was an unfair fight that got out of control and that wasn't instantaneous. Time passed during this beatdown and yet nobody took action. Why???

As the saying goes, if you get in a fair fight, you fucked up somewhere.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1106423As the saying goes, if you get in a fair fight, you fucked up somewhere.

And that is why intelligence as an adaptation takes this into account. Discipline breeds confidence rendering the necessity of bullying much less prevalent, since lack of self-esteem is common in bullies.

"Weak people" *tend* to have lack of self-esteem - whether it's physical or mental weakness (these days it's both hand-in-hand with lack of discipline).

Society doesn't prevent bullying or predation upon the weak - in fact, one of the only defining things about the human condition, specifically, that allows us to deal with the most horrific behaviors that we have afflicted upon one another is the examined act of 'forgiveness'.

Generally speaking, successful cultures at varying times in history have all ensconced the act of forgiveness *somewhere* in their culture (whether it's legalistic/religious or tradition) And the further that concept gets removed... the more likelihood we get on the path to mimetic acts of cruelty.

You're witnessing this in Western culture right now. Where the new Woke Religion has zero notions of forgiveness in their doctrine. Quite the opposite really.

Quote from: tenbones;1107397And that is why intelligence as an adaptation takes this into account. Discipline breeds confidence rendering the necessity of bullying much less prevalent, since lack of self-esteem is common in bullies.

"Weak people" *tend* to have lack of self-esteem - whether it's physical or mental weakness (these days it's both hand-in-hand with lack of discipline).

Society doesn't prevent bullying or predation upon the weak - in fact, one of the only defining things about the human condition, specifically, that allows us to deal with the most horrific behaviors that we have afflicted upon one another is the examined act of 'forgiveness'.

Generally speaking, successful cultures at varying times in history have all ensconced the act of forgiveness *somewhere* in their culture (whether it's legalistic/religious or tradition) And the further that concept gets removed... the more likelihood we get on the path to mimetic acts of cruelty.

You're witnessing this in Western culture right now. Where the new Woke Religion has zero notions of forgiveness in their doctrine. Quite the opposite really.

When I was a practicing Christian, one of the hardest lessons to learn is that there are times when "turning the other cheek" just means you get that one slapped as well.

Quote from: Trond;1106026Since when was bullying NOT a part of women's way of socializing and forming cliques?

Except, as far as I know, women/girls don't roast each other in a good-natured way as a social device. If they're making fun of someone, its for the purpose of social bullying, purely. Which is why they don't understand how men/boys do things differently.\

Young boys bullying other young boys is usually pretty clear and obvious. It involves physical intimidation or extremely cruel mockery with no subtlety. But young girls bullying each other is a whole other level of unspeakable viciousness.

Another important difference: in women/girls' social circles, the person doing the bullying is the very top of the social circle, and who is at the top is the most important thing (as in, being the best bully is the most important thing). In boys' social circles, the very bottom of the social circle is the boy who can't take the joke, and who is at the bottom is what matters (as in, being the kid making the joke does not make that kid the top).

This thread has way too much bullshit in it.

Bullies are always wrong bordering on evil.

...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1107470This thread has way too much bullshit in it.

Bullies are always wrong bordering on evil.

...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

- Ed C.

....

Quote from: typical SJWBut that is only two genders! Why are you being a bully about gender!? Are you a against people who identify as attack helocopters?! Bigot!!!! Reeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Quote from: jeff37923;1107462When I was a practicing Christian, one of the hardest lessons to learn is that there are times when "turning the other cheek" just means you get that one slapped as well.

Which is why defending yourself on principle isn't inherently un-Christian. It doesn't mean you disintegrate your enemy, and his parents and children... then their pets over the proverbial slap to the cheek. There are always principles at play which depend on the mutual agreement of behaviors of the society. Circumstances demand appropriate reactions. Period. This is precisely why "multiculturism" free of context, (or if you're a pathological post-modernist) doesn't really work. The erosion of the values that allow us to engage with one another in the West because we've forgotten or rejected those values consciously, is proof of that.

There are degrees to *everything*.

Quote from: Koltar;1107470This thread has way too much bullshit in it.

Bullies are always wrong bordering on evil.

...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

- Ed C.

Thought experiment...

If I very much disagree with this, does that constitute as you bullying me and being borderline evil?

Quote from: jeff37923;1107462When I was a practicing Christian, one of the hardest lessons to learn is that there are times when "turning the other cheek" just means you get that one slapped as well.

It's also an important lesson for strippers!

Quote from: Koltar;1107470...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

Why?

What's wrong with having all female or all male players?

Why do genitals even matter when deciding whose playing?

Quote from: Koltar;1107470This thread has way too much bullshit in it.

Where is the bullshit? Please elaborate.

Quote from: Koltar;1107470Bullies are always wrong bordering on evil.

It sounds like you don't see the difference between bullying and ball-busting, and that's too bad. There is a difference, and it was well-elaborated in the thread. But if you think it's all bullying, then that's on you. Hell, I know if someone is cool if they can take a little teasing and ball-busting AND can dish it out in return. I consider them a friend. You know why? Because they have character. I know they've been through some shit. I know they'll have my back when the shit hits the fan. In other words, they're not a coward, and there's nothing more insufferable to me than a coward.

Quote from: Koltar;1107470...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

- Ed C.

OK, what the fuck does that have to do with anything said here? So, my home group is the same way. Big fucking deal. Your group isn't special. This is virtue signalling at it's lowest...Also, what if my group were all men? Does that make it "Wrong"? Am I suppose to meet some quota? "Oh shit! I don't have enough women, vegans, minorities, and (Fill in blank of some bullshit marginalized group here) in our gaming group! Well, I better shut it down...All those years of planning the Most Epic Campaign Ever are all for naught...If I just knew a Asian vegan lesbian I'd be set.... What are the odds?"

For the record, I identify as a tank

Quote from: blackstone;1107533Where is the bullshit? Please elaborate.



It sounds like you don't see the difference between bullying and ball-busting, and that's too bad. There is a difference, and it was well-elaborated in the thread. But if you think it's all bullying, then that's on you. Hell, I know if someone is cool if they can take a little teasing and ball-busting AND can dish it out in return. I consider them a friend. You know why? Because they have character. I know they've been through some shit. I know they'll have my back when the shit hits the fan. In other words, they're not a coward, and there's nothing more insufferable to me than a coward.



OK, what the fuck does that have to do with anything said here? So, my home group is the same way. Big fucking deal. Your group isn't special. This is virtue signalling at it's lowest...Also, what if my group were all men? Does that make it "Wrong"? Am I suppose to meet some quota? "Oh shit! I don't have enough women, vegans, minorities, and (Fill in blank of some bullshit marginalized group here) in our gaming group! Well, I better shut it down...All those years of planning the Most Epic Campaign Ever are all for naught...If I just knew a Asian vegan lesbian I'd be set.... What are the odds?"

For the record, I identify as a tank

When we don't have any women in the RPG group, I go out and club some chick in the head and drag her to the table.

Quote from: Koltar...and I'll never run an RPG group that has only gender of players.
My groups are always a mix of male and female players.

Quote from: blackstone;1107533OK, what the fuck does that have to do with anything said here? So, my home group is the same way. Big fucking deal. Your group isn't special. This is virtue signalling at it's lowest...

It's a response to Cloyer Bulse's comment that started this topic. As quoted in the OP:

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1105712So-called safety rules and conflating rpgs with bdsm are all about our culture trying out this experiment where we blend the gender hierarchies. Men gaming with men, or men working together on oil rigs for that matter, don't need special safety rules or safe words. Men bully and harass each other as a natural way of weeding out useless, dependent males. It's only natural that women would find such behavior threatening. Feminists demand that men socialize according to female rules.

I've watched girls role-playing with each other and it's not something I want to be a part of any more than I want to watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-GsRpiezk). Let them have their fun. Let us men have our own fun.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1107574When we don't have any women in the RPG group, I go out and club some chick in the head and drag her to the table.

Gotta LARP the sacrifice-on-the-altar scene, after all. ;)

I admit it I find it equally bizarre to proclaim ones table *must* have both genders represented as much as I find it bizarre for anyone to demand only one.

It's *weird*.

I just take whomever I think fits the chemistry of the group. I don't care about their plumbing and what they wanna do with it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1107574When we don't have any women in the RPG group, I go out and club some chick in the head and drag her to the table.

That's how I met my wife!

Quote from: tenbones;1107583I admit it I find it equally bizarre to proclaim ones table *must* have both genders represented as much as I find it bizarre for anyone to demand only one.

It's *weird*.

I just take whomever I think fits the chemistry of the group. I don't care about their plumbing and what they wanna do with it.

Exactly. Well said.

Quote from: tenbones;1107583I admit it I find it equally bizarre to proclaim ones table *must* have both genders represented as much as I find it bizarre for anyone to demand only one.

It's *weird*.

I just take whomever I think fits the chemistry of the group. I don't care about their plumbing and what they wanna do with it.

You give all tabletop White Male Terrorists (TM) a bad name.

Once we learn to break tofu with our enemies we will learn to love sharing our carob rations. :p So mote it be! :D

Quote from: Antiquation!;1107585That's how I met my wife!

Lucky geek, my wife tolerates my hobbies but doesn't like a single one, she only saw Thor because Shirtless Chris Hemsworth!

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107613Shirtless Chris Hemsworth!

LOL. I have no doubt that was the main reason mine went as well, she's a much bigger fan of DC. As evidenced by her 6 foot glass display case crammed full of numerous assorted Batman and Robin models, not to mention the framed posters and original art by Bruce Timm hanging all over the place... :eek: If I'm being honest, she's probably the bigger geek of the two of us!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1107633LOL. I have no doubt that was the main reason mine went as well, she's a much bigger fan of DC. As evidenced by her 6 foot glass display case crammed full of numerous assorted Batman and Robin models, not to mention the framed posters and original art by Bruce Timm hanging all over the place... :eek: If I'm being honest, she's probably the bigger geek of the two of us!

Lucky geek, my wife is a normie.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107639Lucky geek, my wife is a normie.

Lucky I am! It does have its own catches, though. There are only so many hours I can listen to someone lavishly detail the subtle differences in the dozens of Robin portrayals and continuities...

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1106036But in my experience real assholes don't stop being assholes just because a bullying victim strikes back once in a while.

Sorry, late to the party here, but I have to disagree.  Sometimes assholes will be assholes, but sometimes when someone stands up to their shit, they stop.  I was bullied for awhile as a kid by other kids on the football team.  I was a short, chubby and somewhat shy 13 year old.  After some time taking their shit I finally had enough and called out the main troublemaker, who happened to be the best athlete on the team.  Once I knuckled up life changed.  I got respect just for standing up and holding my ground.  Then I had a growth spurt, hit the weights, & had a few fights that put folks on notice I wasn't to be fucked with.  Oh, I also would not and do not allow that bullshit in my presence.  I eventually had more success on the football field than all the kids who messed with me.  The one guy and I ended up becoming friends and I occasionally see him when visiting home, 40 some years later.

Quote from: The Spaniard;1107798Sorry, late to the party here, but I have to disagree.  Sometimes assholes will be assholes, but sometimes when someone stands up to their shit, they stop.  

They definitely stop re that particular person. My dad advised me to stand up to school bullies & it's always worked well for me. I'd only not advise it when it's cross-cultural - if the bullies are a pack who will attack you together, even bring relatives and weapons, then you can't win. But if it's a lone bully, or a bully with tagalongs who will just watch a fight, definitely worth standing up to them.

Quote from: S'mon;1107846They definitely stop re that particular person. My dad advised me to stand up to school bullies & it's always worked well for me. I'd only not advise it when it's cross-cultural - if the bullies are a pack who will attack you together, even bring relatives and weapons, then you can't win. But if it's a lone bully, or a bully with tagalongs who will just watch a fight, definitely worth standing up to them.

Agreed 100%.  You always need to be aware of who's around.  Although my son has never been a target, I've had that discussion with him.

Can't help but think of Grand Torino, and that scene between the kid, the barber and Clint where they're trying to teach him how to socialize. There's a line where good natured teasing can turn into bullying and I guess that line is when it's been clearly communicated that the teasing is unwanted and it persists. At the same time, if you want to join a group of people, you need to adapt to their norms or just not join at all.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1108036......... There's a line where good natured teasing can turn into bullying and I guess that line is when it's been clearly communicated that the teasing is unwanted and it persists.........

I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured' afterwards.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1108172I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured'
afterwards.

- Ed C.

I have. Lots. From banter during wargames, to good natured ribbing in my family. I've seen couples do it all the time.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1108177I have. Lots. From banter during wargames, to good natured ribbing in my family. I've seen couples do it all the time.

Well I find myself having to agree with you, from friends, family and between my wife and me, hell even my son busts my chops now and then. Only requisite is to be good natured and able to give as good as you get.

Teasing (other than family and friends keeping your head from swelling) is like a vaccination for men.  It isn't "nice", but it's also not done by people who truly despise you.  They're thickening your skin so you can laugh when people who do despise you say shit they assume will hurt your feelings; most probably because it would (and has) hurt theirs.  A big part of getting a leg up on life is finding out where your buttons are when other people push them, and then getting rid of that insecurity whatever it takes.  That doesn't happen through soft and gentle care and validation.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106027My friend's son runs a secret fight club...in his 8th grade.

As you can imagine, California public schools are feminized safe space shitholes, and recess is no exception from the PC indoctrination. However, the teachers can't be everywhere at once and kids know the places where to gather out of sight.

Dodgeball is - of course - not allowed on the schoolyard, but its the sport of choice behind that one wall at the far corner of the field where my friend's son and his friends gather. Not only do these tween boys of all colors play the forbidden sport of throwing balls at each other to knock each other out of the game, they have instituted their own rule....physical punishment for the loser by the winner.

If you lose the round, the winner gets to peg you in the head with the ball. Whammo to your fucking noggin!!

The end result? My friend's son is worried they are going to get caught because they have nearly 40 kids hiding behind the wall for the chance to get smacked in the head!

PS: If you don't take your hit in the head, the winner can punch you in the shoulder really hard. They're fucking animals!

Here's where things take a funnier turn. My friend's son now exercises at home and takes PE much more seriously to increase his chance of being the winner vs. the loser. AKA, to avoid pain, he makes the effort to improve his skills.

I'm seriously considering adding "Did you ever belong to a secret fight club?" to my list of hiring questions!

There is hope for us after all. I hope boys like that are a lot more common than we think. Dodgeball brings back a lot of good  memories!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106042You will never end bullying. The world will never be without bullies. Never. And you're right that many of the bullied will become bullies by seeking out those even weaker. They will mistake bullying for strength.

That's why kids (boys and girls) need real men in their lives. It should be their dad, but if not their dad, then an uncle or an older cousin or a grandfather, or someone else that can fill that void. Kids need to be taught by example what real strength is and then you raise young men and women that you can be proud that they carry your name.

Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain (and a whole slew of other books) should be required reading in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grade instead of the stuff schools are cramming down their throats right now. Then in the 5th and 6th grade start them on Robert E Howard and other pulp writers. Nothing wrong IMO with having separate reading classes with different books for boys and girls either.

Quote from: SHARK;1106125Greetings!

Excellent, Joey2K! I agree, there is some truth in it, but the solution of a heavy handed, OMFG school policies and all the psycho monitoring and coddling is just fucking wrong, you know? Three main approaches stand out in my mind, only one of which has anything to do with school administrations or official "policies."

(1) The main solution here goes back to all the shitty fucking parents in our society that have no fucking clue about how to raise their kids, and in particular, all the single mommies that are celebrated--they are usually entirely ill-equipped to raise children properly, and especially boys, and training them to go from boys into men. But our feminized, weak society likes to applaud weak fucking parents being "friends" with their kids, scorns whipping their kids asses, and generally pushes spoiling kids and coddling them constantly. All of these elements don't help kids at all, and toss in shitty parental drama, divorce, drugs and other dysfunctions, on a mass scale, and you have the present ongoing mess. Kids are angry, depressed, drugged up, neglected, and bitter. They take their frustrations out by abusing themselves and everyone around them, because they have been raised to be selfish fucking animals.

(2) Stand up to bullies, be strong, and FIGHT BACK! Our pussy fucking society likes to discourage violence and strength. That is why our society is insane and fucking rotten to the core, because so many people in our society have embraced being weak fucking sheep, in every aspect of their lives. People defending themselves should be encouraged and applauded! They should be prepared and taught the virtues of being strong, proud, and courageous, and being quick to fight back, and to defend others. These values and the process relates to point (1) above.

(3) Weak, pussy schools and administrations need to get rid of the toxic feminized ideology, and celebrate strength, courage, and self-defense, not discourage, harass, and embarass or punish students, parents, or people in general for embracing such virtues, and living them.

There have always been outliers, and vicious bullies, but isn't it strange why we seem to have a mushroom explosion of this kind of behaviour everywhere in our society nowadays? They have always been around, though in the past there seem to have been far fewer of them, and people dealt with bullies swiftly and harshly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree with this. If the teachers or the school does not know who the aggressor is then they are too stupid to be in charge.  Any teacher that has been in a classroom for 3 or more years ought to be really good at spotting who the bullies are.

When I was a boy, two guys would get in a fight, one on one. The rest saw to it that neither one got any help. When one was clearly whipped the fight was over.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106155I'd argue our feminized society is why Diego died. Why the hell didn't anyone intervene on Diego's behalf? When I was a teen, if a fight started getting out of hand, we always broke it up even if one of them deserved the whooping.

The absolute best we "might" be able do is promote the development of strength and toughness with a sense of community and guardianship...so when the other kids see that lonely dork alone on the school bench getting bullied, they have the strength to intervene and support him.

Agree, all good points. In fact, because none of these things are present in so many places today, is why the dork comes to school with a gun. This feminized society is responsible for the all of it, including the dork with the gun.

Without having read the whole thread, one element I'd like to add is the idea of a rite of passage. I would argue that the lack of real rites of passage for males is a huge problem in our society. In traditional (pre-modern) societies, young adolescent males would be tested in some way: maybe thrown out into the wilderness to survive, a sweat ceremony, psychotropic plants, fasting, etc. All ways to find and face one's boundaries and fears. We've lost this in our society, although interestingly enough, young males unconsciously create their own rites of passage, although usually in a stupid and often counter-production way (e.g. typical adolescent dumbassery).

Anyhow, obviously there's a spectrum from "toxic bullying" that ostracizes and breaks someone to "benign teasing" that builds character and fosters mutual respect and bonding. The lack of differentiating the two contributes to the overall weakening of males, who generally need some degree of ribbing to strengthen themselves. Males have been doing this for as long as people have been around--hundreds of thousands of years.

But it isn't either/or. Either we're macho men who can give and take shit, or we're sensitive emasculated boys. It is possible to be strong and sensitive, a masculine male but also have a developed feminine side....or however you want to frame it. But all-too often people want to go one way or the other--either the traditional macho crap or the newer emasculated male. Both extremes are, well, deficient, imo. It may be that we all tend to veer one way or the other. If you think any degree of sensitivity is "feminized wussiness," you're probably in the former camp and could use some sensitization; if you think any kind of teasing is tantamount to bullying, youre in the latter camp and could use some strengthening. My challenge to either such guys would be to try to integrate both. That is, try being strong and sensitive, and see how it impacts your relationships and sense of self.

Quote from: Mercurius;1108224Without having read the whole thread, one element I'd like to add is the idea of a rite of passage. I would argue that the lack of real rites of passage for males is a huge problem in our society. In traditional (pre-modern) societies, young adolescent males would be tested in some way: maybe thrown out into the wilderness to survive, a sweat ceremony, psychotropic plants, fasting, etc. All ways to find and face one's boundaries and fears. We've lost this in our society, although interestingly enough, young males unconsciously create their own rites of passage, although usually in a stupid and often counter-production way (e.g. typical adolescent dumbassery).

Anyhow, obviously there's a spectrum from "toxic bullying" that ostracizes and breaks someone to "benign teasing" that builds character and fosters mutual respect and bonding. The lack of differentiating the two contributes to the overall weakening of males, who generally need some degree of ribbing to strengthen themselves. Males have been doing this for as long as people have been around--hundreds of thousands of years.

But it isn't either/or. Either we're macho men who can give and take shit, or we're sensitive emasculated boys. It is possible to be strong and sensitive, a masculine male but also have a developed feminine side....or however you want to frame it. But all-too often people want to go one way or the other--either the traditional macho crap or the newer emasculated male. Both extremes are, well, deficient, imo. It may be that we all tend to veer one way or the other. If you think any degree of sensitivity is "feminized wussiness," you're probably in the former camp and could use some sensitization; if you think any kind of teasing is tantamount to bullying, youre in the latter camp and could use some strengthening. My challenge to either such guys would be to try to integrate both. That is, try being strong and sensitive, and see how it impacts your relationships and sense of self.

Agreed. And if you read any classical literature, particularly Marcus Aurelius, this is exactly how Stoicism was implemented. It was an appreciation of both sides of the tough/sensitive coin, so that neither crippled you in fully engaging in your life, in your loves and in your society. We need this insight back.

Quote from: Koltar;1108172I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured'
afterwards.

- Ed C.

No, you have. You just fail to see the difference.

Quote from: Koltar;1108172I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured'
afterwards.

- Ed C.

YOu may have never experienced it, but I have. I know the difference between kidding around and mean spirited crap.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108180Well I find myself having to agree with you, from friends, family and between my wife and me, hell even my son busts my chops now and then. Only requisite is to be good natured and able to give as good as you get.

Yup, happens all the time, with no issues whatsoever.  And while some try to get by with mean spirited comments disguised as friendly ball busting, I find it pretty easy to distinguish considering the source.

Quote from: Mercurius;1108224Without having read the whole thread, one element I'd like to add is the idea of a rite of passage. I would argue that the lack of real rites of passage for males is a huge problem in our society. In traditional (pre-modern) societies, young adolescent males would be tested in some way: maybe thrown out into the wilderness to survive, a sweat ceremony, psychotropic plants, fasting, etc. All ways to find and face one's boundaries and fears. We've lost this in our society, although interestingly enough, young males unconsciously create their own rites of passage, although usually in a stupid and often counter-production way (e.g. typical adolescent dumbassery).

Anyhow, obviously there's a spectrum from "toxic bullying" that ostracizes and breaks someone to "benign teasing" that builds character and fosters mutual respect and bonding. The lack of differentiating the two contributes to the overall weakening of males, who generally need some degree of ribbing to strengthen themselves. Males have been doing this for as long as people have been around--hundreds of thousands of years.

But it isn't either/or. Either we're macho men who can give and take shit, or we're sensitive emasculated boys. It is possible to be strong and sensitive, a masculine male but also have a developed feminine side....or however you want to frame it. But all-too often people want to go one way or the other--either the traditional macho crap or the newer emasculated male. Both extremes are, well, deficient, imo. It may be that we all tend to veer one way or the other. If you think any degree of sensitivity is "feminized wussiness," you're probably in the former camp and could use some sensitization; if you think any kind of teasing is tantamount to bullying, youre in the latter camp and could use some strengthening. My challenge to either such guys would be to try to integrate both. That is, try being strong and sensitive, and see how it impacts your relationships and sense of self.

I have thought about this quite a bit. I have a 7 year old nephew who is fatherless. (And unfortunatley, better off so. His biological father is a violent, manipulative asshole.)
I'd like him to grow up without being crippled by feminism or unguided masculinity both.

The answer is "lack of adequate coping mechanisms".

And that often comes from lack of male socialization (but not always). Males that are overly sensitive to ribbing and teasing - and conflate it to bullying typically have bad coping mechanisms and their reactions to such phenomenon are more externalized than females. It's harder to overcome as one gets older. I have a particularly close friend that is a male, ultra-introvert that he freely admits he **hated** met when we first met (he thought I was too obnoxious and loud). But he realized that he was projecting his own issues on me - got to know me, and now he's family (he's done a lot of CT work too which has helped tremendously).

Taken to the next level, male-feminists are a practical billboard for people for people to not take too seriously, for reasons that today are manifold in their representation.

Quote from: tenbones;1108313I have a particularly close friend that is a male, ultra-introvert that he freely admits he **hated** met when we first met (he thought I was too obnoxious and loud). But he realized that he was projecting his own issues on me -

Man, I can totally relate. I had very low self-esteem and projected that onto other people, especially other men. It warped my interactions with people pretty severely.

Quote from: Mercurius;1108224Without having read the whole thread, one element I'd like to add is the idea of a rite of passage. I would argue that the lack of real rites of passage for males is a huge problem in our society. In traditional (pre-modern) societies, young adolescent males would be tested in some way: maybe thrown out into the wilderness to survive, a sweat ceremony, psychotropic plants, fasting, etc. All ways to find and face one's boundaries and fears. We've lost this in our society, although interestingly enough, young males unconsciously create their own rites of passage, although usually in a stupid and often counter-production way (e.g. typical adolescent dumbassery).

To be fair, there are rites like church confirmation and school graduation, but they're kind of pale substitutes for the traditional rites of passage. I think part of this is a general lack of wider society in modern times, especially since the 1950s -- when the self-sufficient nuclear family became the norm, compared to having a more involved extended family and community. I think with a more deeply involved community, then rites become at least a little closer to traditions. I don't think I'd advocate a full return to taking drugs and being thrown in the wilderness -- but we might have something closer.

Quote from: Mercurius;1108224If you think any degree of sensitivity is "feminized wussiness," you're probably in the former camp and could use some sensitization; if you think any kind of teasing is tantamount to bullying, youre in the latter camp and could use some strengthening. My challenge to either such guys would be to try to integrate both. That is, try being strong and sensitive, and see how it impacts your relationships and sense of self.

So, I would say that I tease with my son all the time - though of course opinions may differ on definitions of what's teasing. I'll jokingly say something like "Oh, these millennial teenagers are the worst. Do you want a Tide pod?" and he'll say something about stuffy old people and ask if I need a walker. I don't see that as being strong or toughening him up, though. I see it as just being silly with each other. I see teasing like that between parent and child in Gilmore Girls, say, which suggests to me that it isn't really partly of manly strength. I think my son is strong in many ways - and he definitely got his back up in standing up to bullies. But he's still a nerdy bookworm, and his physical fitness is mostly from doing hip-hop dance.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1108305I have thought about this quite a bit. I have a 7 year old nephew who is fatherless. (And unfortunatley, better off so. His biological father is a violent, manipulative asshole.)
I'd like him to grow up without being crippled by feminism or unguided masculinity both.

Then you'll have to become a father figure to him. Be the manly role model he needs.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108348Then you'll have to become a father figure to him. Be the manly role model he needs.

I've honestly been trying. But I have my own life and only get to visit with him about twice a month on the weekends. I do what I can.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1108349I've honestly been trying. But I have my own life and only get to visit with him about twice a month on the weekends. I do what I can.

phone, video calls, or some family/friend closer to share the burden

On the subject of rites of passage for males, these used to be fairly prevalent in rural areas. One of those was hunting, but hunting according to the number of licenses sold are down to 4%-5% of adults. Although there was (and still is) a lot of hunting that goes on in rural areas without licenses, particularly among land owners. As a boy it was a big thing getting your first rifle and your first shotgun. Killing your first small game, such as squirrels up to later on getting your first deer.

Of course concurrent with the decrease in hunting has been the importation by government of coyotes, coywolves, black bears, rattlesnakes and other animals back into areas where they never were before in the case of coyotes and coywolves or have not been around for a few generations such as black bears and rattlesnakes and others. Bobcats have been brought back to areas where they were extinct for nearly 100 years. When I was a boy there were no predators around bigger than foxes, as a 6 year old I went out in the woods for hours with my dog and no one worried about me. Now if you go out into the woods you need a couple of good dogs and a gun for when you run into that pack of 6 or 7 coyotes. Most people I know favor a rifle with a hand gun backup in case they get too close. While it is legal most places to kill coyotes 24/7/365, defending yourself from a black bear attack could send you to jail. I suppose fending a bear off at arms length with pepper spray could be a rite of passage, theoretically speaking of course.

Luckily no black bears in London yet...
When my son turns 18 I plan to take him to the pub, buy him a beer. A nice warm treacle stout I reckon. He'll be a man when he finishes it. :D

Quote from: ElBorak;1108354On the subject of rites of passage for males, these used to be fairly prevalent in rural areas. One of those was hunting, but hunting according to the number of licenses sold are down to 4%-5% of adults. Although there was (and still is) a lot of hunting that goes on in rural areas without licenses, particularly among land owners. As a boy it was a big thing getting your first rifle and your first shotgun. Killing your first small game, such as squirrels up to later on getting your first deer.

Of course concurrent with the decrease in hunting has been the importation by government of coyotes, coywolves, black bears, rattlesnakes and other animals back into areas where they never were before in the case of coyotes and coywolves or have not been around for a few generations such as black bears and rattlesnakes and others. Bobcats have been brought back to areas where they were extinct for nearly 100 years. When I was a boy there were no predators around bigger than foxes, as a 6 year old I went out in the woods for hours with my dog and no one worried about me. Now if you go out into the woods you need a couple of good dogs and a gun for when you run into that pack of 6 or 7 coyotes. Most people I know favor a rifle with a hand gun backup in case they get too close. While it is legal most places to kill coyotes 24/7/365, defending yourself from a black bear attack could send you to jail. I suppose fending a bear off at arms length with pepper spray could be a rite of passage, theoretically speaking of course.

Quote from: ElBorak;1108354On the subject of rites of passage for males, these used to be fairly prevalent in rural areas. One of those was hunting, but hunting according to the number of licenses sold are down to 4%-5% of adults. Although there was (and still is) a lot of hunting that goes on in rural areas without licenses, particularly among land owners. As a boy it was a big thing getting your first rifle and your first shotgun. Killing your first small game, such as squirrels up to later on getting your first deer.

Of course concurrent with the decrease in hunting has been the importation by government of coyotes, coywolves, black bears, rattlesnakes and other animals back into areas where they never were before in the case of coyotes and coywolves or have not been around for a few generations such as black bears and rattlesnakes and others. Bobcats have been brought back to areas where they were extinct for nearly 100 years. When I was a boy there were no predators around bigger than foxes, as a 6 year old I went out in the woods for hours with my dog and no one worried about me. Now if you go out into the woods you need a couple of good dogs and a gun for when you run into that pack of 6 or 7 coyotes. Most people I know favor a rifle with a hand gun backup in case they get too close. While it is legal most places to kill coyotes 24/7/365, defending yourself from a black bear attack could send you to jail. I suppose fending a bear off at arms length with pepper spray could be a rite of passage, theoretically speaking of course.

Hunting (and trapping) was and still is prevalent in my part of the world. Is it a rite of passage for the young? Ehhhh...Sort of. If learning to drive or doing your first tax return are also rites of passage. They are certainly milestones in adulting, but "rite of passage" seems like a rather overblown term.

WRT the government "importing" coyotes, I don't know where you live but they certainly haven't done that here. Coyotes are expanding their range, for sure, but I don't know of any government that has encouraged that, they are quite unwelcome round here. Bounties were offered initially,  when they first arrived about 30 years ago, although no longer once it became clear that couldn't stop the spread. Black bears and bobcats have always been around, certainly not introduced.

WRT defending against black bears, I have had plenty of bear encounters, a couple of them in dense woods at arms length, though most of them at 5-60' range. Although I don't like the spray (I'd rather not be blinded in the woods, thanks), you can drive them off without it, and certainly without a firearm, so no worries about jail. I'll agree coyotes are different, potentially more dangerous. Virtually all the coyotes here are wolf hybrids, so although they are typically solitary, they will sometimes operate in packs, which can be intimidating.

Quote from: Zirunel;1108442Hunting (and trapping) was and still is prevalent in my part of the world. Is it a rite of passage for the young? Ehhhh...Sort of. If learning to drive or doing your first tax return are also rites of passage. They are certainly milestones in adulting, but "rite of passage" seems like a rather overblown term.

WRT the government "importing" coyotes, I don't know where you live but they certainly haven't done that here. Coyotes are expanding their range, for sure, but I don't know of any government that has encouraged that, they are quite unwelcome round here. Bounties were offered initially,  when they first arrived about 30 years ago, although no longer once it became clear that couldn't stop the spread. Black bears and bobcats have always been around, certainly not introduced.

WRT defending against black bears, I have had plenty of bear encounters, a couple of them in dense woods at arms length, most of them at 5-60' range. Although I don't like the spray (I'd rather not be blinded in the woods, thanks), you can drive them off without it, and certainly without a firearm, so no worries about jail. I'll agree coyotes are different, potentially more dangerous. Virtually all the coyotes here are wolf hybrids, so although they are typically solitary, they will sometimes operate in packs, which can be intimidating.

Actually, it occurs to me that handling black bears without recourse to  firearms kinda converges with the bullying theme of this thread. Don't be intimidated, make yourself big, loud and threatening, yell at the bear, tell it to fuck off. It'll back down and turn tail. At least, it's always worked for me.

I've been staked by packs of coyotes when desert hiking especially at night, but California desert coyotes are scrawny and skittish as they're hunting scrawnier rats and rabbits. But its unnerving to see those eyes in a semi-circle in the moonlight and they let you know you're outnumbered.

But then I let them know that rocks hurt and we're good.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1108478I've been staked by packs of coyotes when desert hiking especially at night, but California desert coyotes are scrawny and skittish as they're hunting scrawnier rats and rabbits. But its unnerving to see those eyes in a semi-circle in the moonlight and they let you know you're outnumbered.

But then I let them know that rocks hurt and we're good.

That's hardcore! If you had some young men with you - that would be been a Rite of Passage for sure!

Quote from: tenbones;1108514That's hardcore! If you had some young men with you - that would be been a Rite of Passage for sure!

Or, at least, someone you can outrun when the coyotes eventually get hungry enough... :p

Quote from: S'mon;1108383Luckily no black bears in London yet...
When my son turns 18 I plan to take him to the pub, buy him a beer. A nice warm treacle stout I reckon. He'll be a man when he finishes it. :D

Yeah, it takes a real man to drink warm beer. It takes some intestinal fortitude to drink something that tastes that bad.:eek::D

Quote from: tenbones;1108514That's hardcore!

It was unnerving, but not hardcore. Desert coyotes look like malnourished dogs and I doubt they would made a rush at an adult male they sensed could hurt them. That's why I pegged a couple of them with rocks to make sure everybody knew we all stood. I got the sense they were intrigued we were walking in their turf and figured we might leave them something to scavenge.

Wolves, however, are an entirely different story. I would not want to be out in wolf turf without weaponry. I've been around mountain lions, but like coyotes, they are mostly scrawny rat hunters and mountain lions are almost always solitary and avoid people.

Quote from: ElBorak;1108819Yeah, it takes a real man to drink warm beer. It takes some intestinal fortitude to drink something that tastes that bad.:eek::D

Well that was the joke, yes. Well spotted.

Quote from: S'mon;1108850Well that was the joke, yes. Well spotted.

:cool: Even when it is really chilled, I am only good for a half bottle, once it warms up even a little it gets nasty. Now I have found some microbrewery ales here and there that keep their good flavor even as they warm.

Quote from: ElBorak;1108853:cool: Even when it is really chilled, I am only good for a half bottle, once it warms up even a little it gets nasty. Now I have found some microbrewery ales here and there that keep their good flavor even as they warm.

I like a cask ale at 12 degrees Celsius, pub cellar temperarture, but I tend to just have mine straight from the fridge at home. Reference to treacle stout was due to a very heavy treacle stout my local serves warm, my friends tend to choke on it and even I struggle a bit.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3903[/ATTACH]

Sucking down a barrel of cocksure.  I can't imagine anything more manly.

You need to try Buttcombe gold, then, or perhaps Bell End bitter - advertised by a poster of a moustachioed barman holding 2 foaming pints, with the phrase "Get your lips around my Bell End" :-)

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1106017I work with a 23 year old kid who still lives with his mom. Very sheltered. He was shocked by the way us Vets treated each other on breaks or at lunch.

Light-hearted wise cracks, jokes, and such as that don't hurt a real man's feelings; as long as they are occasionally interrupted by decent, normal behavior.  Just don't be a jerk 100% of the time.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1106017I work with a 23 year old kid who still lives with his mom. Very sheltered. He was shocked by the way us Vets treated each other on breaks or at lunch.

This makes me laugh.

A co-worker greets me every day by her giving me the bird at shift start. Another Filipino guy is trying to grow a goatee and we keep telling him that he needs to wash his face. I keep getting told that I'm Santa Claus of the Witness Protection Program because of my grey hair and girth. These are the folks I've worked with for ten years, it doesn't matter if you are male or female when it comes to giving each other shit.

Quote from: jeff37923;1109101I keep getting told that I'm Santa Claus of the Witness Protection Program because of my wisdom mane and alpha bump.

Fixed it for you Mr. Kringle.

:)

Quote from: Koltar;1108172I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured' afterwards.

Damn it must suck to be you.

Quote from: Koltar;1108172I have never seen any teasing that is 'good natured'. People often want to say something mean spirited and get away with it - so they claim it was 'good natured' afterwards.

- Ed C.

Ever seen teenagers in love?

Quote from: Alathon;1110132Damn it must suck to be you.

Sometimes - especially when the pain in my legs is so bad that I have trouble walking....

Oh you mean about male bullying crap?
Yeah its sadly true that it is difficult for me to trust over 80% of males out there.
What I define as 'Men' or anyone who is a 'Man' - don't really meet too many of them. Mostly run into boys in adult bodies.
Also, beer drinking has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real man'. Its just another drink that causes addiction and problems along the way.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1110236Sometimes - especially when the pain in my legs is so bad that I have trouble walking....

Oh you mean about male bullying crap?
Yeah its sadly true that it is difficult for me to trust over 80% of males out there.
What I define as 'Men' or anyone who is a 'Man' - don't really meet too many of them. Mostly run into boys in adult bodies.
Also, beer drinking has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real man'. Its just another drink that causes addiction and problems along the way.

>Sometimes - especially when the pain in my legs is so bad that I have trouble walking...

You aren't a girl, making a pity play will always make you look effeminate and pathetic.  Like the sort of guy who can be counted upon to create problems and complaints, not solutions.  Men of any quality try to surround themselves with similar men, and the consequence is that low quality males who try to use female strategies and ignore male socialization, end up shuffled together.  If it seems to your eyes that the males around you ain't much, well, as like as not it's because they're keeping your company.

Don't like it?  Change yourself.  It won't be easy but the alternative is more of the same.

Quote from: Alathon;1110237>
You aren't a girl, making a pity play will always make you look effeminate and pathetic.

Thanks for showing us that teasing can be good-natured and wouldn't count as bullying.  

Oh wait...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110254Thanks for showing us that teasing can be good-natured and wouldn't count as bullying.  

Oh wait...

Oh wait... that was neither teasing, nor bullying.  That was education.

Quote from: Alathon;1110256Oh wait... that was neither teasing, nor bullying.  That was education.

It doesn't matter whether or not Koltar is or isn't a girl.

Because at the end of the day, you're still a faggot desperately clinging to an ideology that's been rotting in the landfill of history since May 1945.

You're not any different from those SJW's and Antifa punks. The only difference is that their ideology of choice was a little more recently discredited, having been thrown into the trash bin of history since December 1991.

Now suck my dick and kiss my ass, you whiny pathetic Nazi Nordcuck bitch.

I do find it ironic that an avowed self-identified White Nationalist such as yourself also identifies as a Christian, even though the God of the Bible is a Jewish deity and that Jesus of Nazareth was a swarthy brown Middle Eastern Jew.

If you're really all about white identity, then why aren't you praying to Jupiter or Thor?

Checkmate, White Nationalists.

Quote from: Alathon;1110256Oh wait... that was neither teasing, nor bullying.  That was education.

No, I gave a serious answer and you responded with snarkiness

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1110300No, I gave a serious answer and you responded with snarkiness

Pretending that your feelings of chronic leg pain are relevant to the topic of "gendered behavior, bullying, and feminism" is another example of effeminate behavior.  Men let women get away with that sort of pity-seeking conversational artifice; other males get no such pass.

If you tell me you genuinely believe you were not seeking pity, and that your answer was entirely serious, I'll believe you.  There is a lot of social pressure to conform to female norms right now, and males can become confused and copy their behaviors if they don't have a masculine role model teaching them otherwise.  Given your alienation from most males and lack of understanding of male socialization, I dare say that such a lack is a given.

Quote from: Alathon;1110392Pretending that your feelings of chronic leg pain are relevant to the topic of "gendered behavior, bullying, and feminism" is another example of effeminate behavior.  Men let women get away with that sort of pity-seeking conversational artifice; other males get no such pass.

If you tell me you genuinely believe you were not seeking pity, and that your answer was entirely serious, I'll believe you.  There is a lot of social pressure to conform to female norms right now, and males can become confused and copy their behaviors if they don't have a masculine role model teaching them otherwise.  Given your alienation from most males and lack of understanding of male socialization, I dare say that such a lack is a given.

You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

I love that documentary, "Idiocracy." :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;1110419I love that documentary, "Idiocracy." :D

As do I, it is a grim warning of things to come, similar to the the documentary "Demolition Man"

Quote from: Koltar;1110236Sometimes - especially when the pain in my legs is so bad that I have trouble walking....

I hope you're doing something proactive about that because those issues don't get better by ignoring them. And I haven't heard about pain issues getting magically better by getting older either.

Quote from: Koltar;1110236Yeah its sadly true that it is difficult for me to trust over 80% of males out there.
What I define as 'Men' or anyone who is a 'Man' - don't really meet too many of them. Mostly run into boys in adult bodies.

One of the best quotes I've ever heard was "High School Never Ends" and its proven so true. The majority of the populace doesn't truly move on from either the stupidity or suffering of adolescence.

And that's especially why you need to be able to discern the differences between bullying and teasing.

Quote from: Koltar;1110236Also, beer drinking has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real man'. Its just another drink that causes addiction and problems along the way.

Overdrinking =/= masculinity, but beer doesn't cause addiction or problems if its not abused.

Quote from: Koltar;1110236ebullying crap?
Yeah its sadly true that it is difficult for me to trust over 80% of males out there.

Can you unpack this? Seems like the reverse version of the girl who hangs out with mostly guys because she can't get along with other girls.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110480One of the best quotes I've ever heard was "High School Never Ends" and its proven so true. The majority of the populace doesn't truly move on from either the stupidity or suffering of adolescence.

This is so, so fucking true. And the petty social dynamics in many ways seem to carry on as well, particularly in office space-type environments.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1110279It doesn't matter whether or not Koltar is or isn't a girl.

Because at the end of the day, you're still a faggot desperately clinging to an ideology that's been rotting in the landfill of history since May 1945.

You're not any different from those SJW's and Antifa punks. The only difference is that their ideology of choice was a little more recently discredited, having been thrown into the trash bin of history since December 1991.

Now suck my dick and kiss my ass, you whiny pathetic Nazi Nordcuck bitch.

I do find it ironic that an avowed self-identified White Nationalist such as yourself also identifies as a Christian, even though the God of the Bible is a Jewish deity and that Jesus of Nazareth was a swarthy brown Middle Eastern Jew.

If you're really all about white identity, then why aren't you praying to Jupiter or Thor?

Checkmate, White Nationalists.

I'm curious. Where did he proclaim this (bolded)? I'm genuinely interested if this is true.

Quote from: blackstone;1110565I'm curious. Where did he proclaim this (bolded)? I'm genuinely interested if this is true.

I remember he openly proclaimed this in a different thread on this sub-forum a few months back. Let me see if I can find it.

EDIT- And here it is. Alathon starts his racist spiel on the previous page but this is when I retort and the real insanity begins (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40260-There-might-be-hope-for-Millennials-after-all!/page8)

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1110614I remember he openly proclaimed this in a different thread on this sub-forum a few months back. Let me see if I can find it.

EDIT- And here it is. Alathon starts his racist spiel on the previous page but this is when I retort and the real insanity begins (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40260-There-might-be-hope-for-Millennials-after-all!/page8)

Fuck me! He's a proper 1488 asshole, "our nations! our descendants! blah, blah, blah" If he's so worried about the future of the "white race" then he needs to stop playing RPGs or posting in the internet and get on making inbreed babies.

As the descendant of Mayan and Spanish ancestors (my grandparents) I hate identitarians, I hate the SJWs and the Alt-Righters. I'm too white for the former and not enough for the latter. And they are both too stupid, hateful and destructive so I guess the sentiment is mutual.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110623Fuck me! He's a proper 1488 asshole, "our nations! our descendants! blah, blah, blah" If he's so worried about the future of the "white race" then he needs to stop playing RPGs or posting in the internet and get on making inbreed babies.

As the descendant of Mayan and Spanish ancestors (my grandparents) I hate identitarians, I hate the SJWs and the Alt-Righters. I'm too white for the former and not enough for the latter. And they are both too stupid, hateful and destructive so I guess the sentiment is mutual.

Agreed.

I even laid waste to his rhetoric by pointing out the Jewish roots of his religion and the abject failure of the Scots-Irish in America, despite their status as "white Northern Europeans"

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110623Fuck me! He's a proper 1488 asshole,

Eh.  I'm all about the fourteen, but eighty-eight is too scary.

Quote from: Alathon;1110656Eh.  I'm all about the fourteen, but eighty-eight is too scary.

So, if you are a White European, then what part of Europe did your forefathers come from? Legit question here.

Quote from: Koltar;1110236Also, beer drinking has nothing to do with who is or is not a 'real man'. Its just another drink that causes addiction and problems along the way.

Woah there.  Beer never broke my heart.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1110660So, if you are a White European, then what part of Europe did your forefathers come from? Legit question here.

His mom came mounted in a black bull.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1110660So, if you are a White European, then what part of Europe did your forefathers come from? Legit question here.

Mostly Germany on my fathers side, and mostly Ireland on my mothers.

Quote from: Alathon;1110656Eh.  I'm all about the fourteen, but eighty-eight is too scary.

Sounds like something R. Kelly would say.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110683Sounds like something R. Kelly would say.

Geez, not even an Ursula Haverbeck joke?

Quote from: Alathon;1110674Mostly Germany on my fathers side, and mostly Ireland on my mothers.

Ah, so you're only half-white. Celtic Europeans are NOT white. :D

I once read some political pamphlets from the 1850's that told me that Africa ends at the Sahara and starts all over again at the British Isles. :p

I also know this because I saw Gangs of New York and Daniel Day-Lewis would never lie to me! :D

I wonder if everyone insulting Alathon would do the same to an Israeli advocating for their Jewish state, a black African advocating for black rule in South Africa or a Kurd advocating for a Kurdish homeland?

I do not share Alathon's viewpoint because the USA was supposed to be a melting pot where people left behind their previous identity and became Americans. Of course, that concept is dead in the Age of Identity Politics. However, it's rather telling that while we MUST celebrate pride (aka arrogance and tribalism) regarding our accident birth in the case of black pride, brown pride, gay pride, Asian pride, women pride, etc, there is always that ONE glaring exception from the pride parade.

BTW, the solution isn't to have "white pride" marches because all this "pride" bullshit is just more division. The solution is to ferociously return to the melting pot concept, celebrate assimilation and honor each other for being Americans first and foremost.

Yeah, I laughed when I wrote that. We're totally gonna succumb to divide and conquer!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110795I wonder if everyone insulting Alathon would do the same to an Israeli advocating for their Jewish state, a black African advocating for black rule in South Africa or a Kurd advocating for a Kurdish homeland?

I do not share Alathon's viewpoint because the USA was supposed to be a melting pot where people left behind their previous identity and became Americans. Of course, that concept is dead in the Age of Identity Politics. However, it's rather telling that while we MUST celebrate pride (aka arrogance and tribalism) regarding our accident birth in the case of black pride, brown pride, gay pride, Asian pride, women pride, etc, there is always that ONE glaring exception from the pride parade.

BTW, the solution isn't to have "white pride" marches because all this "pride" bullshit is just more division. The solution is to ferociously return to the melting pot concept, celebrate assimilation and honor each other for being Americans first and foremost.

Yeah, I laughed when I wrote that. We're totally gonna succumb to divide and conquer!!

As someone with South African friends I have spoken against what the current government is encouraging and permitting there, on the other hand in a country where most are blacks it stands to reason that most elected officials would be black, but this is fine and dandy as long as it's not because non blacks are forbidden from running/voting.

It saddens me to see you succumb to despair, the Alt-Right is at most 10% and the Ctrl-Left is at most 8%  of the USA population. Why shouldn't sane voices prevail?

Denounce the unfair treatment and discrimination wherever you find it, be it against whoever. The hateful ones will end up exposed as such.

OMG, "Ctrl-Left" is absolutely brilliant. I've never heard that before. Anyone know the origin of it?

Quote from: Mercurius;1110803OMG, "Ctrl-Left" is absolutely brilliant. I've never heard that before. Anyone know the origin of it?

Some youtuber if I remember correctly, but for the love of Crom I can't remember who or where.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110797As someone with South African friends I have spoken against what the current government is encouraging and permitting there, on the other hand in a country where most are blacks it stands to reason that most elected officials would be black, but this is fine and dandy as long as it's not because non blacks are forbidden from running/voting.

It saddens me to see you succumb to despair, the Alt-Right is at most 10% and the Ctrl-Left is at most 8%  of the USA population. Why shouldn't sane voices prevail?

Denounce the unfair treatment and discrimination wherever you find it, be it against whoever. The hateful ones will end up exposed as such.

Greetings!

I can never forget an experience I had while in the Marine Corps. One day, we had an early morning formation, like we usually did, but this time, instead of getting our shit together with the Platoon Sergeant, or our Company Gunny, the 1st Sergeant was to address us. He is the top enlisted man of the whole company, some 200 Marines. 1st Sergeant Johnsson was black, and tall, like 6'8". The man was huge, but beyond that, he was a veteran of serving like 25 years in the Marine Corps. He was like a god. *laughs*

He stood in front of us, and started talking about how he had heard that Marines in our company were getting isolated into little racial groups--all black, all Mexican, all white. He said that all was bullshit, and he had better see us mixing together--even in our off duty time. He said he didn't care what fucking colour we were. There is no white, black, or brown, or yellow in the Marine Corps. We are all mother-fucking GREEN. We bleed for each other, and had best be ready to die for each other. He said remember, your very life is in the hands of the Marine next to you. We are united, and stand always ready to defend our country, and protect our interests abroad, at home, and anywhere on the globe. He said let me hear any of you mouthing off with racist bullshit. He didn't give a fuck who it was, he would put his boot in their ass, and hard. If we didn't straighten up, and get with HIS program, the MARINE PROGRAM, and fast, we would have to deal with him, face to face, and that wsn't gonna be pretty. He promised us. He said I will be hard on you, and relentless, but I love my fellow Marines, and I will lead you, protect you, and fight with you anywhere. Do not let me down, and I expect ya'll to get this shit fixed. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?

We were then dismissed. In the weeks and months afterwards, whatever had come to the 1st Sergeant's attention was gone. We exerted ourselves conscientiously to befriend each other, and get with the program. Because we were Marines, and that's the way we fucking roll! To my knowledge, racism was never popular or acceptable in my unit, or anywhere I went in the Marines. We Marines then, for sure, always took a dim view of it. Whenever some would seek to embrace it, we were generally quick to stomp on it. It is not aceptable, and cannot be acceptable.

Many of these countries are culturally and socially behind us in development. They hate other people because they are not a different race, or even culture, but because they are from a different tribe for fuck's sake. *laughs* Lots of these nations haven't gotten the memo yet that being united is stronger, and better, than being isolated and alone, and somehow "exclusive."

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110797It saddens me to see you succumb to despair, the Alt-Right is at most 10% and the Ctrl-Left is at most 8%  of the USA population. Why shouldn't sane voices prevail?

The Alt-Right as defined by "alt-white" is probably 2% or less. I doubt they have 5 million members who identify as white nationalists, especially based on their anemic rallies, but perhaps they exist as the "silently angry" who are much larger. The "Alt-Right" as defined by "staunch Trump supporters" is much larger, probably 20%, based on the enthusiasm at Trump's rallies.

But whether the Ctrl-Left is 8% or 80%, the issue is WHO controls the media, academia and social media and the answer is the Ctrl-Left, thus they control the flow of culture and education and the technology tools for the dissemination of information. The mythical "sane voices", even if they exist, don't have a platform.

This isn't about the 2020 election. It's about the long game of controlling the next generation while the previous generations age into irrelevance. Kids only know what they are taught and the vast majority will behave accordingly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110831The Alt-Right as defined by "alt-white" is probably 2% or less. I doubt they have 5 million members who identify as white nationalists, especially based on their anemic rallies, but perhaps they exist as the "silently angry" who are much larger. The "Alt-Right" as defined by "staunch Trump supporters" is much larger, probably 20%, based on the enthusiasm at Trump's rallies.

But whether the Ctrl-Left is 8% or 80%, the issue is WHO controls the media, academia and social media and the answer is the Ctrl-Left, thus they control the flow of culture and education and the technology tools for the dissemination of information. The mythical "sane voices", even if they exist, don't have a platform.

This isn't about the 2020 election. It's about the long game of controlling the next generation while the previous generations age into irrelevance. Kids only know what they are taught and the vast majority will behave accordingly.

And the long game will be won by those who act sane, by exposing the crazies, and the Alt-Right stopped being anything but the Alt-White long ago, only the Ctrl-Left defines it like anybody that opposes them.

Generation Z is more conservative than millennials but less than Gen X, it's the nature of the youth to reject the authority and rebel against the status quo.

This too will pass.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110837And the long game will be won by those who act sane, by exposing the crazies, and the Alt-Right stopped being anything but the Alt-White long ago, only the Ctrl-Left defines it like anybody that opposes them.

Generation Z is more conservative than millennials but less than Gen X, it's the nature of the youth to reject the authority and rebel against the status quo.

This too will pass.

Just ask the people who lived and died in the Soviet Union.  It passed after a few generations of police state torture, tyranny, and politically convenient starvation.

Quote from: Alathon;1110858Just ask the people who lived and died in the Soviet Union.  It passed after a few generations of police state torture, tyranny, and politically convenient starvation.

The Soviet Union was terrible, and personally I think the Russian Revolution was a mistake.

Still, how do you justify the tyranny, torture, and government-sanctioned mass murder of Nazi Germany?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110837Generation Z is more conservative than millennials but less than Gen X, it's the nature of the youth to reject the authority and rebel against the status quo.

Unfortunately, the data shows much of GenZ is drunk on the SJW Kool-Aid.

GenZ voted heavily liberal in 2018, and they're expected to do so again in 2020 when about half GenZ will be eligible to vote, so unless there's a huge wave of conservative high schoolers about to become 18 next year, I am not seeing the rebellion.

This article claims GenZ is a "liberal tsunami"
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/generation-z-is-a-liberal-tsunami/

This article discusses various poll results of showing how GenZ is very aligned with Millenials.
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2019/09/30/is-generation-z-more-conservative-or-less-conservative-than-other-generations-n2553883

Quote from: Alathon;1110858Just ask the people who lived and died in the Soviet Union.  It passed after a few generations of police state torture, tyranny, and politically convenient starvation.

If Bernie or Warren win the DNC nomination, Trump's campaign needs to have commercials with interviews of the survivors of communism letting Americans know what their future looks like under "democratic socialism".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110951Unfortunately, the data shows much of GenZ is drunk on the SJW Kool-Aid.

GenZ voted heavily liberal in 2018, and they're expected to do so again in 2020 when about half GenZ will be eligible to vote, so unless there's a huge wave of conservative high schoolers about to become 18 next year, I am not seeing the rebellion.

That reminds me of the old quote:

"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"

Of course GenZ is going to be liberal.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1110614I remember he openly proclaimed this in a different thread on this sub-forum a few months back. Let me see if I can find it.

EDIT- And here it is. Alathon starts his racist spiel on the previous page but this is when I retort and the real insanity begins (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40260-There-might-be-hope-for-Millennials-after-all!/page8)

I can see that one can derive the conclusion by his statement. Though he doesn't out in out say it, one can read between the lines.

Gen Z liberal? Maybe on some things - socially related.

But on a lot they're reacting to their Millennial predecessors and elements of rebellion to those ideas are definitely there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#2ddb0c1c7878

there is a lot of evidence that they're cleaving conservative on a lot of issues - and ambivalent on some that Millennials are hot for.
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2019/09/30/is-generation-z-more-conservative-or-less-conservative-than-other-generations-n2553883

Personally - I think it's a pretty polarized demographic. Which is good and bad. I'm going to put my chip on "good" - because ultimately anything that counters the obvious the liberal preponderance of the Millennial generation will further relegate that as a blip. Social policies, civil-strife etc. not withstanding.

We'll see.

Quote from: blackstone;1111080I can see that one can derive the conclusion by his statement. Though he doesn't out in out say it, one can read between the lines.

As I recall he did explicitly say such, but I can't find the post. Damn the lack of search here. At least, here's a post where he responds to me about non-European immigrants where I explicitly bring up the label:

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40260-There-might-be-hope-for-Millennials-after-all!&p=1080298&viewfull=1#post1080298

I think that's fairly explicit. At the same time, he's still actively posting here, so I think if you want to know about his views, you should ask him.

To Alathon - Would you prefer we not refer to you as an ethno-nationalist? I used that term for you because my recollection is that you used it for yourself, but I don't want it to be name-calling.

Maybe we should get back on topic....
Just saying...

Failure to homeschool is child abuse, this is being pushed by intersectional "schollars". [video=youtube;s0I5sw3PtV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0I5sw3PtV8[/youtube]

What is the value of "transitioning" a child to another gender when the information about the "Transgender" condition is so minimal?

This is politics masquerading as healthcare.

Quote from: tenbones;1111203What is the value of "transitioning" a child to another gender when the information about the "Transgender" condition is so minimal?

This is politics masquerading as healthcare.

Well shitlord, you'd need a degree in gender studies, critical theory and race studies to understand, so go educate yourself shitlord! :D

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111212Well shitlord, you'd need a degree in gender studies, critical theory and race studies to understand, so go educate yourself shitlord! :D

Intersectional Haiku

Our Downward Spiral
White, glassy and round
Circles our lives, we wretch
The bowl floweth over

Quote from: tenbones;1111214Intersectional Haiku

Our Downward Spiral
White, glassy and round
Circles our lives, we wretch
The bowl floweth over

That makes more sense than 110% of anything from the grievance studies.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111200Failure to homeschool is child abuse, this is being pushed by intersectional "schollars". [video=youtube;s0I5sw3PtV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0I5sw3PtV8[/youtube]

That is just sickening.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1111223That is just sickening.

Yes it is, giving hormones to underage children is just criminal, it shouldn't be allowed and the government especially shouldn't favor it. If anything they should criminalize it.

Darwin works in mysterious ways...

Quote from: tenbones;1111229Darwin works in mysterious ways...

I see what you did there.

These kids have absolutely no mature conception of their own sexuality, the changes their bodies and minds are going through, or the effect that the "choice" they're making will have on their bodies and development long-term ("choice" put in quotations because I fully believe it's one or both of the parents that push this shit onto them in one way or another; kids go through transient developmental behavior all the time, it's only recently people have started deciding "wow Timmy put on a dress once out of curiosity, I'm so proud! Time to put him on HRT and save up to surgically alter his body later! It's clearly what she wants, we're just helping her be who she is!") not to mention the largely un-researched long-term psychological effects. They have neither the intellect nor the autonomy to make such choices for themselves at that age, and for a parent (or anyone else) to make such a choice for them is to my mind the equivalent of parents force-feeding Timmy vodka and making him chainsmoke at 7 because "he sipped a beer by accident and he didn't even vomit!". It's truly fucking horrific and it should absolutely be considered a crime.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111243These kids have absolutely no mature conception of their own sexuality, the changes their bodies and minds are going through, or the effect that the "choice" they're making will have on their bodies and development long-term ("choice" put in quotations because I fully believe it's one or both of the parents that push this shit onto them in one way or another; kids go through transient developmental behavior all the time, it's only recently people have started deciding "wow Timmy put on a dress once out of curiosity, I'm so proud! Time to put him on HRT and save up to surgically alter his body later! It's clearly what she wants, we're just helping her be who she is!") not to mention the largely un-researched long-term psychological effects. They have neither the intellect nor the autonomy to make such choices for themselves at that age, and for a parent to do so is in my mind the equivalent of parents force-feeding Timmy vodka and making him chainsmoke at 7 because "he sipped a beer by accident and he didn't even vomit!". It's truly fucking horrific and it should absolutely be considered a crime.

Not sure we need any more research into the long-term psychological effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111247Not sure we need any more research into the long-term psychological effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

Absolutely, the overall data on attempted transsexual suicide rates alone is unprecedented and ridiculously alarming. The trouble is, when talking to people who support such youths transitions, they'd ask you to believe the cause stems from purely environmental factors and the faults of their support systems alone. I would absolutely support further research in order to dispel the idea that these spikes in suicidal tendencies are entirely reliant on external factors and have nothing to do with the procedures themselves or the affects they have on mental and developmental health in the long-term. It seems insane to me to discount and dismiss such a possibility in absence of substantive research, particularly with regards to the mental and physical health and development of underage/undeveloped minors; and beyond that, that parents of these kids could in any way rationalize pushing, encouraging their kids into and facilitating these sorts of procedures when again, these kids really have no way of processing the consequences of (and on top of that, choices they simply cannot take back if they change their minds later).

The whole thing reeks of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111254Absolutely, the overall data on attempted transsexual suicide rates alone is unprecedented and ridiculously alarming. The trouble is, when talking to people who support such youths transitions, they'd ask you to believe the cause stems from purely environmental factors and the faults of their support systems alone. I would absolutely support further research in order to dispel the idea that these spikes in suicidal tendencies are entirely reliant on external factors and have nothing to do with the procedures themselves or the affects they have on mental and developmental health in the long-term. It seems insane to me to discount and dismiss such a possibility in absence of substantive research, particularly with regards to the mental and physical health and development of underage/undeveloped minors; and beyond that, that parents of these kids could in any way rationalize pushing, encouraging their kids into and facilitating these sorts of procedures when again, these kids really have no way of processing the consequences of (and on top of that, choices they simply cannot take back if they change their minds later).

The whole thing reeks of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

I agree, but find it sad we need to do research to figure out it's not okey to let minors to make life changing choices. It should be obvious to anyone. What's next? If you ask me (and since some have started to push the trans-age shit and the recent years pro pedo articles) they'll start pushing for allowing children (and I do mean children not teens) to "choose" to have sex with adults. Maybe then the public will finally raise hell and some serious push-back will begin.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111259I agree, but find it sad we need to do research to figure out it's not okey to let minors to make life changing choices. It should be obvious to anyone.

Well shit, you'd hope so, but apparently that's just too large a leap of logic for some to handle.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111259What's next? If you ask me (and since some have started to push the trans-age shit and the recent years pro pedo articles) they'll start pushing for allowing children (and I do mean children not teens) to "choose" to have sex with adults.

A few years ago I would call this theory insane; now? I worry it could become a real possible push in the not-so-distant future. Normalization of current trends is the first step on such a potential progression; I've seen an increase of those types of suggestive articles as well (and they seem to slowly be becoming not-so-suggestive...).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111259Maybe then the public will finally raise hell and some serious push-back will begin.

I certainly hope that begins sooner rather than later.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111265Well shit, you'd hope so, but apparently that's just too large a leap of logic for some to handle.

Yep, the same type of asshole who calls university students children and wants to wrap them in bubble wrap.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111265A few years ago I would call this theory insane; now? I worry it could become a real possible push in the not-so-distant future. Normalization of current trends is the first step on such a potential progression; I've seen an increase of those types of suggestive articles as well (and they seem to slowly be becoming not-so-suggestive...).

Me too, I was laughing at the Conservatives of all types about this and calling it a slippery slope fallacy, but now we have come to current year, where it's not "what happens between consenting adults in their bedroom is nobody else's business" to "Suck the schlong you bigot!"

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111265I certainly hope that begins sooner rather than later.

So do I, but I fear the vast majority isn't seeing this, mainly because the MSM doesn't talk about this or does it putting a negative spin on the people warning about the future: "Incel, Wacist, Istphobe, etc"

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111259I agree, but find it sad we need to do research to figure out it's not okey to let minors to make life changing choices. It should be obvious to anyone. What's next? If you ask me (and since some have started to push the trans-age shit and the recent years pro pedo articles) they'll start pushing for allowing children (and I do mean children not teens) to "choose" to have sex with adults. Maybe then the public will finally raise hell and some serious push-back will begin.

Greetings!

That's right, my friend! I referenced the growing popularity of Pedophilia in arguments here in the past. I think Warboss Squee checked on my references, and no lie. I have read a LIBERAL fucking psychologist professor released a "Paper" talking about how great child-adult sex is, and how children can "consent" and that we as a society should not demonize adult-child sexual relations, and we should explore it more with an "open mind." This was in a major college and peer-reviewed.

Ten years ago, these fuckers would have been strung the fuck up, and their careers ended. They would be so fucked.

Now, gradually, they are being taken seriously, and heard, and "considered." Always the degenerate fucking Liberals. It isn't just gay fucking men that can hardly wait to get their hands on our kids, either. Lots and lots of grown adult fucking women--married women with kids themselves--as teachers, love getting their hands on 12 year old boys and adolescents alike, and fucking them silly. More than a few have been researched by law enforcement as fucking these kids every day, every day for weeks, even months--and getting pregnant, naturally. Yeah, that's some good breeding there! What the fuck are *THOSE* kids going to grow up like?

Yeah, mommy used to have a great career, and a husband and children. Now she is divorced, single, with a prsion record, and is lucky to work at fucking Walmart. She had you at the age of 36, and your father was a 14 year old student she fucked every day for 6 months. Welcome, little girl, to your new fucking life!

More sickness and depravity, championed and pushed by the fucking Liberals. Anything that women want to do is good! All sex is good! No judgements! Just fuck like crazy and forget morals! Everything will be just fine in our new sexual utopia!

Yeah. Keep thinking that bullshit.

It's sad, my friend, and it is spreading, and growing in strength. All these young Liberal hippies, they love sex for everyone, drugs for everyone! Socialism is good! Everything can be free and fun! Down with the Patriarchy! I can fuck whoever I want, and there are no consequences! There's no responsibility! The government will pay for all of my shitty, fucked up choices in life!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So does this board have a comprehensive standard of what parents are allowed to decide versus what should be determined by the state?

Quote from: SHARK;1111272More sickness and depravity, championed and pushed by the fucking Liberals. Anything that women want to do is good! All sex is good! No judgements! Just fuck like crazy and forget morals! Everything will be just fine in our new sexual utopia!

Yeah. Keep thinking that bullshit.

I have trouble keeping this straight. I thought we liberals were all man-hating, moralizing prudes who were ugly and couldn't stand sex.

Now we're all-sex all-the-time?

I'll have to change my bumper stickers.

Quote from: jhkim;1111277I have trouble keeping this straight. I thought we liberals were all man-hating, moralizing prudes who were ugly and couldn't stand sex.

Now we're all-sex all-the-time?

I'll have to change my bumper stickers.

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, most Liberals seem to be of the free love, free drug, global socialist mindset. However, there is a faction within Liberal circles, especially man-hating Lesbians, but also a large number of ugly, often fat, anti-social misfit troglodytes that embrace what you mention. Such anti-sex puritans also fight with the degenerate faction.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111275So does this board have a comprehensive standard of what parents are allowed to decide versus what should be determined by the state?

I can't talk for "this board" but I think that in general not letting kids make life changing decisions is a good idea, no matter who is arguing the opposite, be it parents or the state.

Do you disagree? What life changing choices should be prohibited to minors if any in your opinion?

Drinking alcohol? Doing drugs? Smoking? Joining the military? Getting "married"? Pumping yourself full of hormones of the opposite sex?

There's lots of things we as a society have decided it's not okey for children to do, and we even put in jail those who facilitate children or induce them to do. For instance giving drugs/alcohol,tobacco to a child.

So I repeat my questions: Do you disagree? What life changing choices should be prohibited to minors if any in your opinion?

Quote from: jhkim;1111277I have trouble keeping this straight. I thought we liberals were all man-hating, moralizing prudes who were ugly and couldn't stand sex.

Now we're all-sex all-the-time?

I'll have to change my bumper stickers.

The problem arises from you gringos using liberal incorrectly. A liberal can't be an authoritarian, ergo even if he's pro staying virgin until marriage will never dream to try and impose this on others, if he's anti-sex or a prude won't try to legislate or push corporations his censorious BS.

That being said, "liberals" in the USA (and around the world sadly) do fall in both camps, and sometimes the same "liberal" has contradictory points of view regarding both camps:

"Women should be able to fuck 1,000 dudes if they want, women should be able to walk naked on the street"

Yet the same idiots say shit like:

"Adds using scantily clad women are sexism and objectification"

Or the one that baffles me the most:

"Gays are born like that they don't choose to be gay (I happen to agree with this)" and they also say "There's no such thing as a straight man" "Straight men can have sex with other men and not be gay (outside of prison or the like they mean)" "Suck the schlong you bigot!"

So, what camp are you on jhkim? and are your views consistent? or do you have some contradictions, doublethink and cognitive dissonance?

Quote from: jhkim;1111277I have trouble keeping this straight. I thought we liberals were all man-hating, moralizing prudes who were ugly and couldn't stand sex.

Now we're all-sex all-the-time?

I'll have to change my bumper stickers.

Why cant Liberals be all the bad things that we hate?  If I have to treat everyone as an individual then it really spoils the Narrative.

Quote from: jhkim;1111277I have trouble keeping this straight. I thought we liberals were all man-hating, moralizing prudes who were ugly and couldn't stand sex.

Now we're all-sex all-the-time?

I'll have to change my bumper stickers.

Quote from: Shasarak;1111288Why cant Liberals be all the bad things that we hate?  If I have to treat everyone as an individual then it really spoils the Narrative.

Yes, yessssss.... keep being flip about pederasty and the LGBTP child-sex agenda.  Nothing gives reactionaries the strength to overcome their apathy and fear like righteous fury.

(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/4/3/c51a2f43e7da1ca92c38baa0e4000869ee5f72541108620cbfc5e0f7e6c10e/Screen-Shot-2018-12-17-at-2.12.35-PM-e1545082896976.png?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F12%2FScreen-Shot-2018-12-17-at-2.12.35-PM-e1545082896976.png&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)


By all means, give people a nice clear choice between the above and the below.

(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/3/7/d668155ce79413b92905b86a827740c9c4745697794f4a83373fa6bfe8fa4b/80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpm1.narvii.com%2F6556%2F80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)

Greetings!

The Righteous Fury will come. Then there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!

It will be far too late for repentence, though. There will only be judgment and wrath.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1111295Greetings!

The Righteous Fury will come. Then there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!

It will be far too late for repentence, though. There will only be judgment and wrath.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just make sure you don't align with the other extreme because they happen to agree with you on some issues, the people who share Alathon's ideology aren't the good guys either.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111296Just make sure you don't align with the other extreme because they happen to agree with you on some issues, the people who share Alathon's ideology aren't the good guys either.

Greetings!

Indeed, my brother! I lament the direction our culture is going. However, I fear deep down that I could be wrong. Perhaps there will be no righteous fury, no fierce counterattack to save our culture. Perhaps the Globalist Liberals will win, everyone will gleefully embrace the rainbow socialist agenda, and people like us will be hunted down and killed for being "gun nuts" and evil warmongers full of "hate", clinging to our guns and Bibles, like President Obama declared of us. Beto seems intent on doing that, as well.

Some few of us will not quietly shut up and go into the darkness of night. I know the Liberals want everyone that disagrees with them to be silenced, and to disappear so they can get on with celebrating their rainbow socialist utopia.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1111297Greetings!

Indeed, my brother! I lament the direction our culture is going. However, I fear deep down that I could be wrong. Perhaps there will be no righteous fury, no fierce counterattack to save our culture. Perhaps the Globalist Liberals will win, everyone will gleefully embrace the rainbow socialist agenda, and people like us will be hunted down and killed for being "gun nuts" and evil warmongers full of "hate", clinging to our guns and Bibles, like President Obama declared of us. Beto seems intent on doing that, as well.

Some few of us will not quietly shut up and go into the darkness of night. I know the Liberals want everyone that disagrees with them to be silenced, and to disappear so they can get on with celebrating their rainbow socialist utopia.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Saludos hermano!

Man if you guys fall then there's no hope for the rest of the world, after all it's the USA the country known for their love of freedom.

I also hope we manage to turn around and we can be laughing about the idiots in some near future. But like you I also fear we won't, because most people are ignorant of the true goals of those claiming to be for equality and will keep on being blind until it's too late.

Quote from: Alathon;1111292Yes, yessssss.... keep being flip about pederasty and the LGBTP child-sex agenda.

That is all very well and good for a Nazi to say but what about the rest of us that are over here being flippant?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111275So does this board have a comprehensive standard of what parents are allowed to decide versus what should be determined by the state?

Well, considering these parents are pumping children full of life-altering hormone drugs just because they don't exactly conform to specific gender stereotypes or because they want to be "woke" and will put their children in grave danger to do so.

Kids are still figuring themselves out, and making prepubescent children transition is child abuse, no different from a parent who is knowingly and actively allowing their kid to smoke cigars and drink whiskey while they watch porn.

If your kid wants to cross dress and call themselves a girl, fine. But they should not go on hormone drugs or get sex reassignment surgery until they are adults.

Quote from: Alathon;1111292Yes, yessssss.... keep being flip about pederasty and the LGBTP child-sex agenda.  Nothing gives reactionaries the strength to overcome their apathy and fear like righteous fury.

(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/4/3/c51a2f43e7da1ca92c38baa0e4000869ee5f72541108620cbfc5e0f7e6c10e/Screen-Shot-2018-12-17-at-2.12.35-PM-e1545082896976.png?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F12%2FScreen-Shot-2018-12-17-at-2.12.35-PM-e1545082896976.png&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)


By all means, give people a nice clear choice between the above and the below.

(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/3/7/d668155ce79413b92905b86a827740c9c4745697794f4a83373fa6bfe8fa4b/80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpm1.narvii.com%2F6556%2F80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)

Hey, the P has no place in the LGBT community, asswipe.

(Personally, the T shouldn't have a place either. But not all gays are pedophiles, you sick Nazi Puritan fuck)

OK, I'm answering GeekyBugle seriously - but I find SHARK's hyperbole just silly.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111282I can't talk for "this board" but I think that in general not letting kids make life changing decisions is a good idea, no matter who is arguing the opposite, be it parents or the state.

Do you disagree? What life changing choices should be prohibited to minors if any in your opinion?

Drinking alcohol? Doing drugs? Smoking? Joining the military? Getting "married"? Pumping yourself full of hormones of the opposite sex?

As much as possible, minors should be prevented from doing anything that will permanently change their lives -- though ultimately, what they do as children will always affect the rest of your life. I'm fine with older teens drinking alcohol or smoking (weed or tobacco) with their parents permission, but I'm opposed to them joining the military, getting married, or any irreversible medical decisions. For transgender minors, everyone that I know is opposed to any surgery or opposite-sex hormones. They can wear whatever clothes they like and cut their hair how they like and take reversible steps, but they shouldn't make permanent medical decisions for themselves.

Quote from: SHARK;1111297Perhaps there will be no righteous fury, no fierce counterattack to save our culture. Perhaps the Globalist Liberals will win, everyone will gleefully embrace the rainbow socialist agenda, and people like us will be hunted down and killed for being "gun nuts" and evil warmongers full of "hate", clinging to our guns and Bibles, like President Obama declared of us.

How the heck are we going to hunt you down and kill you? We don't have guns, remember!!! Are you worried we're going to gay you to death?

Seriously, this is nonsense. We're not coming to kill you all, and we're not all pedophiles. All of my liberal friends are solidly anti-pedophile, probably as much as you are. (Pedophile advocates themselves seem to libertarian, though that's probably just a thin veneer - not a dig against libertarians.)

Quote from: jhkim;1111308OK, I'm answering GeekyBugle seriously - but I find SHARK's hyperbole just silly.

Thanks, will do the same.

Quote from: jhkim;1111308As much as possible, minors should be prevented from doing anything that will permanently change their lives -- though ultimately, what they do as children will always affect the rest of your life. I'm fine with older teens drinking alcohol or smoking (weed or tobacco) with their parents permission, but I'm opposed to them joining the military, getting married, or any irreversible medical decisions. For transgender minors, everyone that I know is opposed to any surgery or opposite-sex hormones. They can wear whatever clothes they like and cut their hair how they like and take reversible steps, but they shouldn't make permanent medical decisions for themselves.

Great, then we agree (except in the doing drugs/tobacco thing) A ver small glass of beer with the meal might be okey. As for "transgender" minors (if they exist), we agree again, my main issue is that this stuff is being pushed to them in schools, so an efeminate boy is being convinced that he's either gay or trans, which he may be, but the school has exactly zero business in doing this. And also that they are giving hormones to minors, seriously what the ever loving fuck?

Quote from: jhkim;1111308How the heck are we going to hunt you down and kill you? We don't have guns, remember!!! Are you worried we're going to gay you to death?

Seriously, this is nonsense. We're not coming to kill you all, and we're not all pedophiles. All of my liberal friends are solidly anti-pedophile, probably as much as you are. (Pedophile advocates themselves seem to libertarian, though that's probably just a thin veneer - not a dig against libertarians.)

You jest but, from my time in México's yet to be a party, Libertarian party I found two things, many, many are pro lowering the age of consent to 16 (not sure about younger) and many are anti-semites, me and others left the "party" when they decided to give back the leadership to one of the holocaust denier, protocols of zion, anti-semites.

How much of this is just my experience and not the rule? Beats me.

Quote from: Alathon;1111292By all means, give people a nice clear choice between the above and the below.

(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/3/7/d668155ce79413b92905b86a827740c9c4745697794f4a83373fa6bfe8fa4b/80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpm1.narvii.com%2F6556%2F80d8fe2fcfadc6e78ff2c934171827a0ee913351_hq.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)

Fucking space wizards.

Alathon just seems messed up

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1111332Alathon just seems messed up

- Ed C.

That's putting it mildly.

Quote from: jhkim;1111308OK, I'm answering GeekyBugle seriously - but I find SHARK's hyperbole just silly.


As much as possible, minors should be prevented from doing anything that will permanently change their lives -- though ultimately, what they do as children will always affect the rest of your life. I'm fine with older teens drinking alcohol or smoking (weed or tobacco) with their parents permission, but I'm opposed to them joining the military, getting married, or any irreversible medical decisions. For transgender minors, everyone that I know is opposed to any surgery or opposite-sex hormones. They can wear whatever clothes they like and cut their hair how they like and take reversible steps, but they shouldn't make permanent medical decisions for themselves.


How the heck are we going to hunt you down and kill you? We don't have guns, remember!!! Are you worried we're going to gay you to death?

Seriously, this is nonsense. We're not coming to kill you all, and we're not all pedophiles. All of my liberal friends are solidly anti-pedophile, probably as much as you are. (Pedophile advocates themselves seem to libertarian, though that's probably just a thin veneer - not a dig against libertarians.)

Greetings!

Hyperbole? Maybe. I don't think so. The fucking Liberals have rammed through "Red Flag" laws in New York, Florida, Oregon, and California. Recently, a Marine veteran was overheard by a waitress in a restaurant talking about guns and gun laws, and she brought this to the attention of the police in Portland, I think. Under "Red Flag" authority, the police came and kicked down his door, and confiscated his firearms.

Based on hearsay--on the word of a crazy, Liberal anti-gun bitch.

NOT based on him committing a felony crime, which is the ONLY reason a citizen of this nation can have their gun rights abridged.

That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a violation of that citizen's rights. But Liberals everywhere in government like to wipe their ass with the Constitution.

There have been several other cases, across the country, where citizen's gun rights have been trampled, based on HEARSAY. Not a crime proven in a court of Law.

I have read of Liberals saying that Veterans should be targeted by the state for being "dangerous"; as well as Christians, and Conservatives. They are all seen as being violent, and what's wrong with this country. If only the veterans, Christians, and Conservatives can be made to shut up, and go away, then the Socialist Globalist Rainbow Utopia can become a reality. These people are obstacles standing in the way of social progress.

How much more will it take before the Liberals claim that such people are "Mentally Ill" and must therefore be disarmed?

Hyperbole. Yeah. You keep thinking that.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings!

Oh, yes. Some 15 years ago, back in 2005 or so, when I was attending college, we discussed Homosexual rights and other things. Pedophilia. Liberals then claimed that it was "hyperbole" to suggest that Pedophilia was something that would ever be acceptable.

15 years later, here we are. More and more, Pedophilia and child sex is being "considered"; and spoken of as being acceptable, not wierd, and something we should be open-minded on, and "explore."

In less than 10 years, it will be legal and acceptable to fuck children.

And, yes, who is leading the new research, and new studies "exploring" Pedophilia?

Fucking LIBERAL Psychologists, LIBERAL Professors, LIBERAL Activists.

Marinate on that truth.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1111339Some 15 years ago, back in 2005 or so, when I was attending college, we discussed Homosexual rights and other things. Pedophilia. Liberals then claimed that it was "hyperbole" to suggest that Pedophilia was something that would ever be acceptable.

15 years later, here we are. More and more, Pedophilia and child sex is being "considered"; and spoken of as being acceptable, not wierd, and something we should be open-minded on, and "explore."

In less than 10 years, it will be legal and acceptable to fuck children.

This is counter-historical nonsense.  Age of consent used to be 10 or 12 in most of the U.S. In other words, child sex is a *traditional* value -- that was outlawed by *progressive* forces in the U.S. only after long struggle.

Age of consent has steadily risen over the 20th century, pushed on by primarily liberal and feminist forces. At this point, it is largely a common value between Democrats and Republicans -- but even so, the age of consent is slightly higher and laws against child marriage are more common in Democratically-controlled states compared to Republican.

Quote from: jhkim;1111344This is counter-historical nonsense.  Age of consent used to be 10 or 12 in most of the U.S. In other words, child sex is a *traditional* value -- that was outlawed by *progressive* forces in the U.S. only after long struggle.

Age of consent has steadily risen over the 20th century, pushed on by primarily liberal and feminist forces. At this point, it is largely a common value between Democrats and Republicans -- but even so, the age of consent is slightly higher and laws against child marriage are more common in Democratically-controlled states compared to Republican.

Linear time, do you know it?

Currently, in several MSM publications articles promoting the acceptance of Pedophilia have appeared, all in leftist publications, Tumblr and now Twatter have not banned a single person promoting it, both are left leaning. And do you wanna bet the paper Shark mentions does exist and is as he says?

Again #NotAll democrats are commies or pedo loving perverts, but it's comming from that side, sorry if this makes you feel icky by association, not your fault your party got overtaken by dirty commies, pro islamofascism pedo loving assholes.

Quote from: jhkim;1111344This is counter-historical nonsense.  Age of consent used to be 10 or 12 in most of the U.S. In other words, child sex is a *traditional* value -- that was outlawed by *progressive* forces in the U.S. only after long struggle.

Age of consent has steadily risen over the 20th century, pushed on by primarily liberal and feminist forces. At this point, it is largely a common value between Democrats and Republicans -- but even so, the age of consent is slightly higher and laws against child marriage are more common in Democratically-controlled states compared to Republican.

Greetings!

Counter Historical nonsense? What the fuck are you talking about, Jhkim? It isn't "Counter Historical Nonsense" at all. It is precisely what I told you. I heard Liberals in college whine then, circa 2005, that Pedophilia and laws changing to allow child sex was a slippery slope fallacy, and was not going to happen. Homosexuals were not interested in fucking kids! Women certainly aren't interested in fucking young boys. Right, right.

15 years later, NAMBLA has grown in influence. Their ideas have spread, championed and "considered" by Liberals. There have recently been peer-reviewed articles in east-coast colleges where such ideas have been embraced. More articles have been circulated where child sex is popular--again, pushed by LIBERALS, Jhkim. Meanwhile, more and more adult women teachers have been going crazy fucking young boys in school.

This stuff is increasing, and it seems to be gaining some levels of "legitimacy." Again, pushed by LIBERALS.

Nothing "Counter Historical" about it. Before 20 years ago, you may be accurate. No one gives a fuck about laws from 30, 50 or whatever years ago. That may have been common values shared by Liberals and Conservatives, in the past. Great. That isn't happening NOW though, in recent years, as I mentioned. Other members here have heard of these things as well, Nambla, child sex being more popular, and so on.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111345Linear time, do you know it?

Currently, in several MSM publications articles promoting the acceptance of Pedophilia have appeared, all in leftist publications, Tumblr and now Twatter have not banned a single person promoting it, both are left leaning. And do you wanna bet the paper Shark mentions does exist and is as he says?

Again #NotAll democrats are commies or pedo loving perverts, but it's comming from that side, sorry if this makes you feel icky by association, not your fault your party got overtaken by dirty commies, pro islamofascism pedo loving assholes.

Greetings!

Gracias, Mi Hermano! I'm not fucking crazy after all, right? Geesus, you know? I don't just make this shit up. Jhkim talks like I'm some kind of raving lunatic. It seems like he has somehow been sleeping through the last 20 years of cultural change and chaos. Our fucking society is accelerating in degeneracy, at a pace unknown in previous years. All this shit is developing at light speed, and gaining momentum across our society.

Jhkim acts like I fucking pull these ideas out of fucking thin air.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111345And do you wanna bet the paper Shark mentions does exist and is as he says?

Again #NotAll democrats are commies or pedo loving perverts, but it's comming from that side, sorry if this makes you feel icky by association, not your fault your party got overtaken by dirty commies, pro islamofascism pedo loving assholes.

Hell, Alathon is an ethno-nationalist who is arguing on your side. I think you've got more to make you feel icky than I do.

I absolutely believe that there are liberal pedophiles. But that's not evidence that it's "coming from that side" -- nor is it proof of SHARK's claim that "In less than 10 years, it will be legal and acceptable to fuck children."

As I stated, *at present*, the age of consent is higher on average and there are stronger laws against childhood marriage in Democratically-controlled states than Republican. And if I may add, guess which two U.S. states have the highest rates of childhood marriage? I'll give you a hint -- it's not New York or California.

Quote from: jhkim;1111354Hell, Alathon is an ethno-nationalist who is arguing on your side. I think you've got more to make you feel icky than I do.

I absolutely believe that there are liberal pedophiles. But that's not evidence that it's "coming from that side" -- nor is it proof of SHARK's claim that "In less than 10 years, it will be legal and acceptable to fuck children."

As I stated, *at present*, the age of consent is higher on average and there are stronger laws against childhood marriage in Democratically-controlled states than Republican. And if I may add, guess which two U.S. states have the highest rates of childhood marriage? I'll give you a hint -- it's not New York or California.

Notice how the leftist attempts to change the topic away from the examples given of perversion among leftist academics and media, to other things (age of consent laws) that were never part of the discussion.  They know this shit is a disaster waiting to happen when enough of them get caught, but it would be blasphemy to admit that there's a pedo-problem specific to leftists and their jet-set owners.  Punching left is not permitted, so all they can do is try to avoid talking about it at all, preferably by pointing at their enemies and complaining.

Remember those mother-daughter whores and the first forays into sex alteration in Weimar Germany?  This shit is how you get actual Nazis.  Not people who merely cherish their heritage and want to live among their own, but people so maddened by the degeneracy and perversion and cruelty around them that they will gladly bend the knee to whoever burns out the rot.

Quote from: jhkim;1111354As I stated, *at present*, the age of consent is higher on average and there are stronger laws against childhood marriage in Democratically-controlled states than Republican. And if I may add, guess which two U.S. states have the highest rates of childhood marriage? I'll give you a hint -- it's not New York or California.

Quote from: Alathon;1111359Notice how the leftist attempts to change the topic away from the examples given of perversion among leftist academics and media, to other things (age of consent laws) that were never part of the discussion.  They know this shit is a disaster waiting to happen when enough of them get caught, but it would be blasphemy to admit that there's a pedo-problem among the leftists and their jet-set owners.  Punching left is not permitted, so all they can do is try to avoid talking about it at all, preferably by pointing at their enemies and complaining.

So, when you point out liberal pedophiles and avoid talking about conservative pedophiles, you're just staying on the topic.

But when I point out conservative pedophiles, I'm being evasive?

Quote from: jhkim;1111362So, when you point out liberal pedophiles and avoid talking about conservative pedophiles, you're just staying on the topic.

But when I point out conservative pedophiles, I'm being evasive?

I left out the word 'specific'.  As in, this problem is specific to your lot.  There are outliers among all groups, but this is being normalized in yours.

Note, again, that the attempt to slide away from the issue of leftist media and academia moving to normalize adults fucking children.  The issue at hand is not "there are pedophiles", it is "leftists trying to normalize adults fucking children".

Quote from: jhkim;1111354Hell, Alathon is an ethno-nationalist who is arguing on your side. I think you've got more to make you feel icky than I do.

I absolutely believe that there are liberal pedophiles. But that's not evidence that it's "coming from that side" -- nor is it proof of SHARK's claim that "In less than 10 years, it will be legal and acceptable to fuck children."

As I stated, *at present*, the age of consent is higher on average and there are stronger laws against childhood marriage in Democratically-controlled states than Republican. And if I may add, guess which two U.S. states have the highest rates of childhood marriage? I'll give you a hint -- it's not New York or California.

Except I'm not an ethno-nationalist, while you are a liberal. :D

All jokes aside:

Premise 1
Leftist MSM publications advocating for the tolerance of pedophiles
Leftist platforms tolerating pedophiles advocating and promoting their sick degeneracy
Leftist professors publishing papers
Leftist activists defending pedophilia in islamic countries because cultural relativism.

Premise 2
Linear time, in the past lots of things were legal that today are illegal
In the present things are illegal that are becoming legal
The push to make illegal stuff legal can be noticed by people reading what the activists say.

Conclusion:
Is the prediction by SHARK correct? Who knows? Lots of things could happen to make it incorrect, but in Europe currently if a Muslim migrates there and he's "married" to a little girl, they are recognizing it and not penalizing it. This is today, in some European countries.

So could it become legal in the USA? Yes, will it? Who knows, when will it happen if it happens? Who knows.

So SHARK's prediction could be wrong, but as a call of warning for people to otice the push, from where it's coming and what they are pushing is totally correct.

Now please define childhood marriage, because we're talking of fucking adults "marrying" children. Not minors marrying each other.

Quote from: jhkim;1111362So, when you point out liberal pedophiles and avoid talking about conservative pedophiles, you're just staying on the topic.

But when I point out conservative pedophiles, I'm being evasive?

No, he and you are incurring in whataboutism. The conversations wasn't about pedophiles perse, but the push to normalize that shit. And that push is coming from one side.

Also fucking ignore list is useless if you guys insist in quoting the proto-Nazi.

Quote from: jhkim;1111354As I stated, *at present*, the age of consent is higher on average and there are stronger laws against childhood marriage in Democratically-controlled states than Republican. And if I may add, guess which two U.S. states have the highest rates of childhood marriage? I'll give you a hint -- it's not New York or California.

Man I hope it is the states with the highest percentage banjo ownership per population.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111275So does this board have a comprehensive standard of what parents are allowed to decide versus what should be determined by the state?

I take the long view. Darwin will win until we institute the Gom Jabbar, and establish a standard of who is Human vs. animal.

I find it funny "progressives" pretend they're about freedom etc. but do things externally that lead to directly to the extinguishing of life pre-maturely on every level.

Codified bad-decision making is not a good way to run the race. But Darwin already answers all of this. Sadly.

I honestly can't tell if jhkim is doing his "contrarian-thing" and actually arguing for the pro-pedophilia left for fun... or he actually supports it by ignoring the context you guys are continually feeding to him.

Either one is a little disturbing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111365Except I'm not an ethno-nationalist, while you are a liberal. :D

All jokes aside:

Premise 1
Leftist MSM publications advocating for the tolerance of pedophiles
Leftist platforms tolerating pedophiles advocating and promoting their sick degeneracy
Leftist professors publishing papers
Leftist activists defending pedophilia in islamic countries because cultural relativism.

Premise 2
Linear time, in the past lots of things were legal that today are illegal
In the present things are illegal that are becoming legal
The push to make illegal stuff legal can be noticed by people reading what the activists say.

Conclusion:
Is the prediction by SHARK correct? Who knows? Lots of things could happen to make it incorrect, but in Europe currently if a Muslim migrates there and he's "married" to a little girl, they are recognizing it and not penalizing it. This is today, in some European countries.

So could it become legal in the USA? Yes, will it? Who knows, when will it happen if it happens? Who knows.

So SHARK's prediction could be wrong, but as a call of warning for people to otice the push, from where it's coming and what they are pushing is totally correct.

Now please define childhood marriage, because we're talking of fucking adults "marrying" children. Not minors marrying each other.

Greetings!

Exactly, my brother! You understand exactly what I am talking about, as well as my motives. All of this sick fucking perversion is alarming. 20 years ago, even less, anyone breathing a word in favour of Pedophilia would have been blasted. Careers done with. It would literally be a swift end to their public and professional lives, you know? But in recent years, yeah, that has all changed. And as it changes, when you look at how social and sexual changes are embraced, the standard Leftist process is like boiling the frog slowly in a pot of water. Step by step, starting with the fringe experts, then gradually more experts and professors get on board, "exploring" the idea; it isn't as bad as we once thought; there are some real benefits to "X"; Hmmm..."X" is beautiful and wonderful! Everyone needs to try it! Oh yes, everyone does "X" now. If you don't fuck "X" your narrow minded and an old Dinosaur! Well, if you don't support fucking "X", you are full of hate and judgmental! and on and on. It is how the Leftists have pushed everything.

Isn't it interesting how when enough Leftists get on board with fucking "X", you then see more and more "research" by "Experts" that show that fucking "X" is natural, good, and wonderful? If you oppose this wonderful science and psychology of sex with "X" you are an evil, hateful Dinosaur!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkimSeriously, this is nonsense. We're not coming to kill you all, and we're not all pedophiles. All of my liberal friends are solidly anti-pedophile, probably as much as you are. (Pedophile advocates themselves seem to libertarian, though that's probably just a thin veneer - not a dig against libertarians.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111311You jest but, from my time in México's yet to be a party, Libertarian party I found two things, many, many are pro lowering the age of consent to 16 (not sure about younger) and many are anti-semites, me and others left the "party" when they decided to give back the leadership to one of the holocaust denier, protocols of zion, anti-semites.

How much of this is just my experience and not the rule? Beats me.

(...)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111366No, he and you are incurring in whataboutism. The conversations wasn't about pedophiles perse, but the push to normalize that shit. And that push is coming from one side.

GeekyBugle -- My personal experience with liberals is that I haven't seen any sign of accepting or normalizing pedophilia -- quite the opposite. It seems to me that the push against childhood marriage shows all the hallmarks of liberal / feminist causes. Take this article about the fight against the thousands of childhood marriages in the U.S.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/us-immigration-system-approved-thousands-child-marriages-past-decade-n960416

QuoteNew Jersey and Delaware are the only states that prohibit marriages to those under the age of 18. Both states passed the bans in 2018. Most states have laws that allow citizens under 18 to marry, but often with judicial or parental consent.

Between 2007 and 2017, USCIS approved more than 5,500 petitions by adults to bring minor spouses or fiancées to the U.S. and nearly 3,000 approvals for minors trying to bring in older spouses or fiancés, according to the Senate report.

I'm making a donation now to the referred organization, "Unchained at Last", which works to end forced childhood marriage, and has good reviews for the work that it's doing towards this.

http://www.unchainedatlast.org

https://www.goodpeoplefund.org/news/unchained-at-last-aims-to-end-child-and-forced-marriages/

Quote from: jhkim;1111436(...)

GeekyBugle -- My personal experience with liberals is that I haven't seen any sign of accepting or normalizing pedophilia -- quite the opposite. It seems to me that the push against childhood marriage shows all the hallmarks of liberal / feminist causes. Take this article about the fight against the thousands of childhood marriages in the U.S.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/us-immigration-system-approved-thousands-child-marriages-past-decade-n960416



I'm making a donation now to the referred organization, "Unchained at Last", which works to end forced childhood marriage, and has good reviews for the work that it's doing towards this.

http://www.unchainedatlast.org

https://www.goodpeoplefund.org/news/unchained-at-last-aims-to-end-child-and-forced-marriages/

So, I told you that "liberals" fall on both sides of this issue, I also told you there's a definitive trend towards normalizing it (https://hackerfall.com/story/im-a-pedophile-but-not-a-monster) and it comes from the left (https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/06/17/salon-deleted-its-articles-defending-pedophilia-but-the-bbc-is-picking-up-the-slack/) as we've seen (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html) again (https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07/tedx-speaker-argues-that-pedophilia-should-be-accepted-as-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation/) and again (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878) and again (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mgmzwn/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says).

Notice how I'm not talking about my anecdotal experiences here? I'm providing evidence of my claims, and it all comes from one side and one side only, the left, they have even approved it in some places in Europe (https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-no-excuse-for-child-brides-in-europe).

As I suspected you are conflating marriage between minors to pedophilia, yes, in many places minors are allowed to marry one another with the consent of the parents. If those laws in your country also allow for adults to "marry" minors is something I don't know, don't approve and should be corrected.

Now, when were those laws passed? Linear time remember? Once upon a time a boy became a man at 13, of course back then life expectancy was about 50 tops. Most died way younger, from an evolutive perspective it made sense back then to allow it to perpetuate the species and to allow for the children to have 2 parents. But this is not the case anymore, so those customs and laws have changed.

Once more, do you see the evidence I provided about normalizing pedophilia? Do you see the sources? All arguing in favor are leftwing, ALL.

That's why they're trying to have it both ways... I guess this is three-ways... where they want Mental Disorders to be considered "Identities" and Feminism is based on immutable characteristics of being FEMALE... but then they claim gender is FLUID... so being Trans is now in their retarded brains, "both biological AND mental" depending on who you talk to. But they insist it's not both...

but if it's either - it undermines the point of being a Feminist. But at least some of them put their money where their mouth is. Although watching a Trans-female MMA fighter kick the fucking shit out of a female fighter... looks an *awful* lot like a man beating the dogshit out of a woman. Who is winning that debate? Trans or Feminists? So I guess by the insane thinking of the Intersectionalist Church - Trans are winning. Literally. Their Oppression Stack Rating is much higher than being vaginally endowed.

But at least we can fold Pedophilia as an Identity under the same umbrella as Gender Dysphoria. Right? RIIIIIGHT?

... wait who is making these claims again? Oh yeah... same people.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111440As I suspected you are conflating marriage between minors to pedophilia, yes, in many places minors are allowed to marry one another with the consent of the parents. If those laws in your country also allow for adults to "marry" minors is something I don't know, don't approve and should be corrected.

I am not talking about marriage *between* minors. I am talking about marriage between a minor and an adult. I already gave links on this. Here are some more articles, with quotes.

QuoteWe learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children -- almost all of them girls, some as young 12 -- were married during that period, mostly to men 18 or older.

QuoteMany of the children married between 2000 and 2010 were wed to adults significantly older than they were, the data shows. At least 31 percent were married to a spouse age 21 or older. (The actual number is probably higher, as some states did not provide spousal ages.) Some children were married at an age, or with a spousal age difference, that constitutes statutory rape under their state's laws. In Idaho, for example, someone 18 or older who has sex with a child under 16 can be charged with a felony and imprisoned for up to 25 years. Yet data from Idaho -- which had the highest rate of child marriage of the states that provided data -- shows that some 55 girls under 16 were married to men 18 or older between 2000 and 2010.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/

QuoteBetween 2007 and 2017, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved over 5,500 petitions by adults to bring minor spouses or fiancés to the U.S. and close to 3,000 petitions from minors requesting to bring their adult spouses or intended marital partners. In 95% of these cases, a girl was the younger spouse or fiancée, and some were as young as 13 years old. The age gap between some marital partners was astonishing: In one petition, USCIS approved the request of a 71-year-old U.S. citizen to bring a 17-year-old spouse from Guatemala.

Source: https://fortune.com/2019/02/20/child-marriage-minimum-age-us/

QuoteA review of some 50,000 marriage licenses shows how Missouri's lax law has for years turned the state into a destination wedding spot for 15-year-old child brides, often rushing to get married," the Star reported. "Some traveled up to 1,800 miles to Missouri, from as far off as Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Florida and every other state in the region: Kansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/10/29/what-you-need-to-know-about-child-marriage-in-the-us-1/#708db4a65689

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111440So, I told you that "liberals" fall on both sides of this issue, I also told you there's a definitive trend towards normalizing it (https://hackerfall.com/story/im-a-pedophile-but-not-a-monster) and it comes from the left (https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/06/17/salon-deleted-its-articles-defending-pedophilia-but-the-bbc-is-picking-up-the-slack/) as we've seen (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html) again (https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07/tedx-speaker-argues-that-pedophilia-should-be-accepted-as-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation/) and again (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878) and again (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mgmzwn/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says).

Notice how I'm not talking about my anecdotal experiences here? I'm providing evidence of my claims, and it all comes from one side and one side only, the left, they have even approved it in some places in Europe (https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-no-excuse-for-child-brides-in-europe).

Thank you for the links. I'm going through them now. I hope I've already been clear that I'm opposed to adult sex with minors regardless of which side is advocating it. I already gave a link to the "Unchained At Last" organization to oppose forced child marriage. If you have other suggestions of organizations to help oppose pedophilic practice, I'd be happy to hear them.

Quote from: jhkim;1111464I am not talking about marriage *between* minors. I am talking about marriage between a minor and an adult. I already gave links on this. Here are some more articles, with quotes.



Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/


Source: https://fortune.com/2019/02/20/child-marriage-minimum-age-us/


Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/10/29/what-you-need-to-know-about-child-marriage-in-the-us-1/#708db4a65689



Thank you for the links. I'm going through them now. I hope I've already been clear that I'm opposed to adult sex with minors regardless of which side is advocating it. I already gave a link to the "Unchained At Last" organization to oppose forced child marriage. If you have other suggestions of organizations to help oppose pedophilic practice, I'd be happy to hear them.

Well fuck, those laws need to change asap! I don't care if the child "consents" to the "marriage", I don't care if the parents consent, this is sick and has to stop! Once the individdual reaches adulthood they can do whatever as long it is with consenting adults, but minors are fucking off limits!

And I'm sure anyone on the rightwing of the debate would agree with me on this (except sick fucks and fundamentalist Muslims).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111477Well fuck, those laws need to change asap! I don't care if the child "consents" to the "marriage", I don't care if the parents consent, this is sick and has to stop! Once the individdual reaches adulthood they can do whatever as long it is with consenting adults, but minors are fucking off limits!

And I'm sure anyone on the rightwing of the debate would agree with me on this (except sick fucks and fundamentalist Muslims).

Agreed. It seems like there's momentum now to outlaw it. The laws are facing opposition in some states, but I think more and more states will pass such and it will eventually be an accepted norm.

To be fair, I wouldn't call an 16-year-old married to an 18-year-old a "sick fuck", but I still think it's a mistake, and I don't see any good reason to allow it. There needs to be a hard line, not dependent on parents or judges.

Can we get back to ' bullying is evil' and all Bullies are jerks ? - that was much more interesting and relevant....
= Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1111504Can we get back to ' bullying is evil' and all Bullies are jerks ? - that was much more interesting and relevant....
= Ed C.

Sure.

Not all bullying is evil and not all bullies are jerks, for instance I'm 100% okey with bullying anyone who proposes to make pedophilia normal or legal.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111552I'm 100% okey

I'm curious, is "okey" the Spanish spelling of "okay" or does it mean something else?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111555I'm curious, is "okey" the Spanish spelling of "okay" or does it mean something else?

Yeah, that's the spanglish version.

Quote from: Koltar;1111504Can we get back to ' bullying is evil' and all Bullies are jerks ? - that was much more interesting and relevant....
= Ed C.

Define "bullying" for you. And then define "evil" so I can get a grasp of the depth of reality we're talking about here, and see where your views and mine might overlap.

And do you think whatever your definitions apply universally to the detriment of society at large? Or only to a specified group of people? And who are they?

I mean... my father was a drill-instructor. Are DI's "evil jerk bullys", for instance? Do you think they are exempt because it serves a purpose? Or do you dismiss that?

Quote from: Antiquation!;1111254The whole thing reeks of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

My final teaching gig involved in a case of Munchausens and the teachers were deposed by the opposing counsels. There is a spectrum of Munchausen behavior and more common than people realize. As a special education teacher, I encountered a half dozen single mothers who showed some level of Munchausens.  It was creepy as fuck and I wonder how the kids victimized by their parent did in the long term.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111275So does this board have a comprehensive standard of what parents are allowed to decide versus what should be determined by the state?

Once the State is involved, the State determines everything. That's the joy of Family Law!

In the USA, your child is owned by the State. That's the basis of Family Law's power to make "parenting" decisions.

Parents, especially fathers, are meaningless before the dictates of the State via the Family Law courts.

Quote from: SHARK;1111297I lament the direction our culture is going. However, I fear deep down that I could be wrong. Perhaps there will be no righteous fury, no fierce counterattack to save our culture. Perhaps the Globalist Liberals will win, everyone will gleefully embrace the rainbow socialist agenda, and people like us will be hunted down and killed for being "gun nuts" and evil warmongers full of "hate", clinging to our guns and Bibles, like President Obama declared of us.

They don't need to hunt us down. They only need to wait and let us get old. Time is their best weapon. The future grandkids will happily turn over grandpa's gun collection to their local Goodthink Center in exchange for a new iPhone.

I don't see any righteous fury happening. Life in the West is too comfortable, and post-9/11 Americans have decisively proven they will happily trade freedom for the illusion of safety.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1111305If your kid wants to cross dress and call themselves a girl, fine. But they should not go on hormone drugs or get sex reassignment surgery until they are adults.

Exactly. It's why we don't let kids get tattoos, even if they really want one. Kids, especially teens, chase fads and that's okay when its music, haircuts or clothes, but not when their lives are permanently damaged.

Quote from: Shasarak;1111370Man I hope it is the states with the highest percentage banjo ownership per population.

I wonder if the banjo the only musical instrument with a major stigma attached.

Quote from: tenbones;1111451Although watching a Trans-female MMA fighter kick the fucking shit out of a female fighter... looks an *awful* lot like a man beating the dogshit out of a woman.

There's a reason for that!!

Quote from: jhkim;1111464Here are some more articles, with quotes.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/10/29/what-you-need-to-know-about-child-marriage-in-the-us-1/#708db4a65689

Thank you for the link!

Making the national marriage age 18 with no exceptions seems like a very easy bipartisan bill.

Quote from: Koltar;1111504Can we get back to ' bullying is evil' and all Bullies are jerks ? - that was much more interesting and relevant....
= Ed C.

Men push their friends so they know who will and won't bitch out on them. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aME0dI2n7XE)

Quote from: Alathon;1111972Men push their friends so they know who will and won't bitch out on them. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aME0dI2n7XE)

Gimli the Dwarf has a YouTube channel! That dude knows his way around the Misty Mountains.

His video about raising boys to men (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtVw3Z_4v3s) was worth a listen.

Quote from: Alathon;1111972Men push their friends so they know who will and won't bitch out on them. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aME0dI2n7XE)

Yep, you have some serious issues.

-Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1111981Yep, you have some serious issues.

What's your critique of the video? Other than beard jealousy or siding with those Elves demanding Smaug's gold.

Quote from: Koltar;1111504Can we get back to ' bullying is evil' and all Bullies are jerks ? - that was much more interesting and relevant....
= Ed C.

Sure!

When you threatened Skotos with a lawsuit back in 2008, do you think that they were bullying you when they kicked you off of RPG.net?

Quote from: jeff37923;1111999When you threatened Skotos with a lawsuit back in 2008,

Storytime!!!!  Spill the beans!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112007Storytime!!!!  Spill the beans!

Isn't much of a 'story' - my first online dust up with the Climate Change cult. I had a differing opinion - and they did a dogpile on me in a thread...that went over the line.

So, yeah I did not mesh well with the 'group think' at the Big Purple.

Jeff is referring to something over 10 years ago - at this point the 'Big Purple' is mostly irrelevant to the majority of gamers out there.

-Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1112115Isn't much of a 'story' - my first online dust up with the Climate Change cult. I had a differing opinion - and they did a dogpile on me in a thread...that went over the line.

So, yeah I did not mesh well with the 'group think' at the Big Purple.

Jeff is referring to something over 10 years ago - at this point the 'Big Purple' is mostly irrelevant to the majority of gamers out there.

-Ed C.

You aren't answering the question. Do you feel that you were being bullied during that incident?

Quote from: jeff37923;1112141You aren't answering the question. Do you feel that you were being bullied during that incident?

I don't understand the question.  

If yes - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad.

If no - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad (this just wasn't it).  

A better question would be if he felt HE was bullying anyone - that'd at least move the conversation forward.

My 12-year-old daughter has an interest in horror - she wants to see some scary movies, and I've been trying to oblige her this past month.  One movie we watched recently was Flatliners.  A major plot-point in the movie is that some people bullied other kids and now that they've grown up they need to make amends.  The bullying scenes were difficult for her - she couldn't believe that behavior like that was EVER tolerated, and didn't think it should be.  Awareness and anti-bullying campaigns are part of her education.  I honestly expect her generation to be better than mine ever was.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112150I don't understand the question.  

If yes - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad.

If no - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad (this just wasn't it).  

A better question would be if he felt HE was bullying anyone - that'd at least move the conversation forward.

My 12-year-old daughter has an interest in horror - she wants to see some scary movies, and I've been trying to oblige her this past month.  One movie we watched recently was Flatliners.  A major plot-point in the movie is that some people bullied other kids and now that they've grown up they need to make amends.  The bullying scenes were difficult for her - she couldn't believe that behavior like that was EVER tolerated, and didn't think it should be.  Awareness and anti-bullying campaigns are part of her education.  I honestly expect her generation to be better than mine ever was.

What dressing goes well with this word salad of yours?

Quote from: jeff37923;1112141You aren't answering the question. Do you feel that you were being bullied during that incident?

Probably because you are not a 'lawyer', and this is not a courtroom.

-Ed C.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112150I don't understand the question.  

If yes - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad.

If no - bullying is bad, and being bullied is bad (this just wasn't it).  

A better question would be if he felt HE was bullying anyone - that'd at least move the conversation forward.

Thank You DM walking - you made perfect sense to me.

As for "Flatliners" - if you mean the version from the 80s - I had problems with the bullying flashbacks and I was an adult when I first watched it.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1112202Probably because you are not a 'lawyer', and this is not a courtroom.

-Ed C.

I'm just asking you a question. You are the one tap-dancing away from answering.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111282I can't talk for "this board" but I think that in general not letting kids make life changing decisions is a good idea, no matter who is arguing the opposite, be it parents or the state.

Do you disagree? What life changing choices should be prohibited to minors if any in your opinion?

Drinking alcohol? Doing drugs? Smoking? Joining the military? Getting "married"? Pumping yourself full of hormones of the opposite sex?

There's lots of things we as a society have decided it's not okey for children to do, and we even put in jail those who facilitate children or induce them to do. For instance giving drugs/alcohol,tobacco to a child.

So I repeat my questions: Do you disagree? What life changing choices should be prohibited to minors if any in your opinion?

One of the problems is that we are so vague and wishy washy about who is child and who is an adult.

In regard drinking you are not an adult until you are 21 years old.

In regard to smoking you are not an adult until you are various ages depending on the state. Purchase of tobacco varies from 18-21 depending on the state or even the store.  Smoking tobacco depends on the state and public or private and varies from no minimum age to 21.

In regard to voting you are not an adult until you are 18 years old.

In regard to serving in the military you are not an adult until you are 18 years old.

In regard to driving you are a quasi-adult at 16 years old and  a full adult at 18 years old, unless you want to rent a car and then you are an adult at 25 years old.

In regard to consenting to have sex it is all over the place with no hard and fast rule for when you are an adult. It even matters if the age difference is (depending on the location) 2 or 3 or 4 years.

As I see it we need to decide when you are an adult. At X age you become a full adult and below that age you are a minor.

If I were going to do this the age of consent and the age to buy and drink alcohol would be the same age. If you are old enough to consent to sex, then you are old enough to drink, if you are not old enough to drink, then you are not old enough to consent to sex. If you are old enough to have the necessary maturity and judgement to consent to sex, then you are old enough to have all other rights that are the province of being an adult. Anything else is just hypocrisy. This would also establish a solid line on what is and is not pedophilia.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112150I honestly expect her generation to be better than mine ever was.

Her safe space generation of coddled weaklings is gonna meet the uncaring buzzsaw of real life.

But unlike your generation and those previous, her generation will lack the strength to deal with reality, or the wolves who will prey upon them.

I'm sure that will turn out peachy keen.

The joke is the coddled GenZ kids and the broken Millennials will probably backlash against the current wimpdom doctrine and try to raise their kids as Spartans because of what they suffered as soft adults and become determined not to raise weaklings. The backlash should be interesting.

Quote from: ElBorak;1112284One of the problems is that we are so vague and wishy washy about who is child and who is an adult.

Very true. 18 should be the age of adulthood. Make it a hard line for everything. Sex / Car / Booze / Marriage / Drugs / etc

Its bizarre how you can vote on new alcohol laws before you can legally drink alcohol.

Quote from: ElBorak;1112284One of the problems is that we are so vague and wishy washy about who is child and who is an adult.

In regard drinking you are not an adult until you are 21 years old.

In regard to smoking you are not an adult until you are various ages depending on the state. Purchase of tobacco varies from 18-21 depending on the state or even the store.  Smoking tobacco depends on the state and public or private and varies from no minimum age to 21.

In regard to voting you are not an adult until you are 18 years old.

In regard to serving in the military you are not an adult until you are 18 years old.

In regard to driving you are a quasi-adult at 16 years old and  a full adult at 18 years old, unless you want to rent a car and then you are an adult at 25 years old.

In regard to consenting to have sex it is all over the place with no hard and fast rule for when you are an adult. It even matters if the age difference is (depending on the location) 2 or 3 or 4 years.

As I see it we need to decide when you are an adult. At X age you become a full adult and below that age you are a minor.

If I were going to do this the age of consent and the age to buy and drink alcohol would be the same age. If you are old enough to consent to sex, then you are old enough to drink, if you are not old enough to drink, then you are not old enough to consent to sex. If you are old enough to have the necessary maturity and judgement to consent to sex, then you are old enough to have all other rights that are the province of being an adult. Anything else is just hypocrisy. This would also establish a solid line on what is and is not pedophilia.

Agreed, here in México is one age for everything, once you hit 18 you're an adult.

As for Pedophilia that is settled right now, any adult (or teenager) who feels sexual attraction to children. Once they are teens its called ephebophilia (if I'm not mistaken).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112150My 12-year-old daughter has an interest in horror - she wants to see some scary movies, and I've been trying to oblige her this past month.  One movie we watched recently was Flatliners.  A major plot-point in the movie is that some people bullied other kids and now that they've grown up they need to make amends.  The bullying scenes were difficult for her - she couldn't believe that behavior like that was EVER tolerated, and didn't think it should be. Awareness and anti-bullying campaigns are part of her education.  I honestly expect her generation to be better than mine ever was.

"Education" or is it "Indoctrination"? Personally, I think it's the latter. It's a real slippery slope to go down when the education system is taking on tasks from what parents and families used to .

When the morals and ethics of the state comes into conflict with the family, a shit storm generally results...and usually ends in blood and tears.

IT doesn't matter if it comes from the left or right, it's just the left is much more honest about it. Having the state take on all the duties and responsibilities of the family is the cornerstone of Communism. When the traditional family structure of "parents" is replaced with "the Party", they've won.

I don't understand anyone who feels that bullying should be tolerated in our schools.  

The environment is intended to provide an education in the established curriculum.  Bullying detracts from the focus at the very least.  There's no place for it when the focus should be on an academic education.  If you want your children to bully others, have them do it outside of the schools.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112330I don't understand anyone who feels that bullying should be tolerated in our schools.  

The environment is intended to provide an education in the established curriculum.  Bullying detracts from the focus at the very least.  There's no place for it when the focus should be on an academic education.  If you want your children to bully others, have them do it outside of the schools.

 it shouldn't be tolerated. What I'm saying is that it's not up to the state to teach tolerance.

Quote from: blackstone;1112323"Education" or is it "Indoctrination"? Personally, I think it's the latter. It's a real slippery slope to go down when the education system is taking on tasks from what parents and families used to .

When the morals and ethics of the state comes into conflict with the family, a shit storm generally results...and usually ends in blood and tears.

The education system has *always* taken on tasks that parents and families used to. Making better citizens was one of the core reasons for public education. The classical old-fashioned schoolmaster wasn't just there to lead the Pledge of Allegiance and academics - he was a disciplinarian and role model. It has been and remains true that many conservatives object to teachers who are poor role models for students. The idea is that children of gangsters, drug addicts, and cultists should have at least some exposure to other values. And yeah, sometimes it is "blood and tears" when a child of gangsters is told that drug dealing is wrong.

But school - just like parenting - isn't mind control. Parents will always have more opportunity for influence than school does. I know I raised my son with a healthy distrust of school.

Quote from: blackstone;1112323IT doesn't matter if it comes from the left or right, it's just the left is much more honest about it. Having the state take on all the duties and responsibilities of the family is the cornerstone of Communism. When the traditional family structure of "parents" is replaced with "the Party", they've won.

So you don't think that American schoolkids in the 1950s were taught that Communism is bad? The Right has always been quite vocal about how it wants moral values in schools. It's never been about letting kids decide for themselves about Communism or learn from their parents. Saying that school shouldn't have moral values is a sudden new idea after years and years of Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, and good old-fashioned discipline.

The ideal is that it doesn't have to be either one or the other. Kids can learn about civics and ethics in school, and still be taught differently by their parents. But they should learn about the civics and ethics of wider society, and not just whatever their parents believe. This is an important balance.

Quote from: jhkim;1112334The education system has *always* taken on tasks that parents and families used to. Making better citizens was one of the core reasons for public education. The classical old-fashioned schoolmaster wasn't just there to lead the Pledge of Allegiance and academics - he was a disciplinarian and role model. It has been and remains true that many conservatives object to teachers who are poor role models for students. The idea is that children of gangsters, drug addicts, and cultists should have at least some exposure to other values. And yeah, sometimes it is "blood and tears" when a child of gangsters is told that drug dealing is wrong.

But school - just like parenting - isn't mind control. Parents will always have more opportunity for influence than school does. I know I raised my son with a healthy distrust of school.


So you don't think that American schoolkids in the 1950s were taught that Communism is bad? The Right has always been quite vocal about how it wants moral values in schools. It's never been about letting kids decide for themselves about Communism or learn from their parents. Saying that school shouldn't have moral values is a sudden new idea after years and years of Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, and good old-fashioned discipline.

The ideal is that it doesn't have to be either one or the other. Kids can learn about civics and ethics in school, and still be taught differently by their parents. But they should learn about the civics and ethics of wider society, and not just whatever their parents believe. This is an important balance.

There was a time where both the education system and families would work hand in hand to a common goal. Now? I don't know.

I'm very wary of putting any trust in a system that at any time my not have the best interests of families in consideration.

Like teaching the kids that there are more than two genders, which is complete and utter bullshit. Ask any biologist.

When was the last time the Pledge of Allegiance was said in a public school? You probably can't say it anymore because too many illegals would be triggered.

We can have classes teaching about Islam, but for fuck sake! don't have a prayer circle outside of class!

Teaching children that if you think you're gay, it's OK to consider hormone therapy.

I agree both institutions should work towards COMMON moral and ethical goals. But who determines what those common goals are? The state? The families?

It's a very delicate balance indeed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112330I don't understand anyone who feels that bullying should be tolerated in our schools.

Generally, it's not to be tolerated... by the individuals. Schools will *never* stop bullying. Individuals stop bullying. Individuals have to learn how to deal with bullying, develop strategies to defend themselves, to avoid it, to understand and cope and not personalize it. And if that means part of those strategies requires outside help the agency should, ideally, come from that individual.

Exceptions always exist, but if you're pretending that bullying doesn't teach us something then I'm going to have to disagree a lot. Coddling people and protecting them from things that won't kill them, weakens them. This isn't a tacit endorsement of bullying. This is a tacit endorsement of learning an important innoculation technique from self-victimization, which becomes a habit.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112330The environment is intended to provide an education in the established curriculum.  Bullying detracts from the focus at the very least.  There's no place for it when the focus should be on an academic education.  If you want your children to bully others, have them do it outside of the schools.

The topic is about bullying. Not the location where bullying occurs - which is *EVERYWHERE*, including in the virtual world of your mind. Not learning how to cope with it early massively impacts individuals later on. Not being bullied in school doesn't mean they won't be bullied elsewhere. Not learning how to deal with bullying can make people turn INTO bullies - see The Internet.

Fetishizing "bullying" only happens by people that have not learned how to deal with it... which apparently is a lot of people, who now seem to need to focus on it in lieue of anything else going on in their lives because the "difficulties" of life in the West seem to be that trivial.

The outcomes of such fetishes seem to be kind of negative.

Quote from: blackstone;1112341There was a time where both the education system and families would work hand in hand to a common goal. Now? I don't know.

I'm very wary of putting any trust in a system that at any time my not have the best interests of families in consideration.

Quote from: blackstone;1112341I agree both institutions should work towards COMMON moral and ethical goals. But who determines what those common goals are? The state? The families?

It's a very delicate balance indeed.

Families and schools *can't* all work towards common moral and ethical goals, because different families have different morals and ethics. A Catholic family may have different values from a Mormon family who may have different values than a Muslim family or an atheist family or even the drug-dealing family. And all of those families may send their kids to the same school. There's plenty that they have in common, but also points on which they'll differ. In a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we will have differing points of view. The State should be answerable to the families, and represent a rough average of their different values, and that in turn will affect public education and educators.

Schools convey some values - partly from state-determined curriculum, partly from local school culture, and partly from individual teachers. And that has *always* been true - from the 1930s to the 1960s to now. School has never aligned with every family, because it's impossible to do so. Parents who weren't in the center of mainstream culture have always had to teach their kids about how their values differ from what is taught in school. That might be right-wing Creationists or left-wing radicals or orthodox Jews or plenty of others.

I definitely taught my son to think critically about what he was taught in school, which is a good thing to teach in general. But I'm glad that he is exposed to differing ideas - even if I disagree with some, because it's part of engaging with society in general.

You go on about several points, but one stood out for me:

Quote from: blackstone;1112341Teaching children that if you think you're gay, it's OK to consider hormone therapy.

I'd hope that children learn that regardless of approving or not -- it is factually true that the vast majority gay people are not transgender, and don't take any sort of hormone therapy.

Quote from: jhkim;1112367Families and schools *can't* all work towards common moral and ethical goals, because different families have different morals and ethics. A Catholic family may have different values from a Mormon family who may have different values than a Muslim family or an atheist family or even the drug-dealing family. And all of those families may send their kids to the same school. There's plenty that they have in common, but also points on which they'll differ. In a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we will have differing points of view. The State should be answerable to the families, and represent a rough average of their different values, and that in turn will affect public education and educators.

Schools convey some values - partly from state-determined curriculum, partly from local school culture, and partly from individual teachers. And that has *always* been true - from the 1930s to the 1960s to now. School has never aligned with every family, because it's impossible to do so. Parents who weren't in the center of mainstream culture have always had to teach their kids about how their values differ from what is taught in school. That might be right-wing Creationists or left-wing radicals or orthodox Jews or plenty of others.

I definitely taught my son to think critically about what he was taught in school, which is a good thing to teach in general. But I'm glad that he is exposed to differing ideas - even if I disagree with some, because it's part of engaging with society in general.

You go on about several points, but one stood out for me:



I'd hope that children learn that regardless of approving or not -- it is factually true that the vast majority gay people are not transgender, and don't take any sort of hormone therapy.

The state and therefore the schools have no business teaching any moral values beyond thou shalt not steal, kill, give false testimony, lie, cheat and thou shalt tolerate those who are different/think different than you. Anything beyond that should be only the realm of the parents. And those values can be taught at school because will keep you out of jail and help you in your life. Notice I said tolerate, not accept, very different things.

Edited to add:

To give the state the power to impose moral values is very dangerous, tomorrow the government could be mainly people who wish for a theocracy. Or true honest to gosh ethno-nationalists.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112377The state and therefore the schools have no business teaching any moral values beyond thou shalt not steal, kill, give false testimony, lie, cheat and thou shalt tolerate those who are different/think different than you. Anything beyond that should be only the realm of the parents. And those values can be taught at school because will keep you out of jail and help you in your life. Notice I said tolerate, not accept, very different things.

Edited to add:

To give the state the power to impose moral values is very dangerous, tomorrow the government could be mainly people who wish for a theocracy. Or true honest to gosh ethno-nationalists.

You're talking as if moral values in school is some sort of dangerous new idea -- but as I said, that's been how school has worked since the creation of public schooling. And in particular, conservatives have especially called for greater moral values for many years.

I think any long-term close work with children is inevitably going to impart moral and ethical ideas. That doesn't mean that we should impose it forcefully, though. For example, I think the Pledge of Allegiance should at most be optional. cf. This teacher who took a plea deal and had to retired from teaching after grabbing a student by force to stand for the pledge.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/31/karen-smith-teacher-pledge-allegiance/

Quote from: jhkim;1112382You're talking as if moral values in school is some sort of dangerous new idea -- but as I said, that's been how school has worked since the creation of public schooling. And in particular, conservatives have especially called for greater moral values for many years.

I think any long-term close work with children is inevitably going to impart moral and ethical ideas. That doesn't mean that we should impose it forcefully, though. For example, I think the Pledge of Allegiance should at most be optional. cf. This teacher who took a plea deal and had to retired from teaching after grabbing a student by force to stand for the pledge.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/31/karen-smith-teacher-pledge-allegiance/

Appeal to Tradition (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition), because something has always(for a long time) been like it is doesn't mean it's a good thing. Morals are one thing Ethics is a very different beast (https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/) and it's taught to older students not children.

I disagree, children should be taught to love their country and to honor it's flag, and other symbols.

Edited to add:

I repeat myself, the danger is to in the future to have a government whose moral values you disagree with impose them in schools.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112392I disagree, children should be taught to love their country and to honor it's flag, and other symbols.

When I recited the pledge in school, I was far too immature to understand what it meant or why I was doing it. Mostly, I goofed off and said the words wrong as a joke.

As an ex-teacher, I can confirm many parents left parenting to the school, and by all reports, its become far more common in the past two decades. You hear the crazy stories from pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and the "teacher as parent" paradigm is a common reason for teachers to leave the profession.

It was always a bad idea to leave the parenting of your children to the State. However, today in the age of schools as SJW indoctrination centers, it's absolutely child abuse.
 
BTW, the reason schools today are SJW indoctrination centers is because parents abandoned involvement with their local schools and school boards, leaving them open to easy infiltration by the SJWs freakshow. Thus, the exodus by involved parents to charter schools and home schooling...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112330I don't understand anyone who feels that bullying should be tolerated in our schools.

The problem is "bullying" has been redefined into utter nonsense.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112401When I recited the pledge in school, I was far too immature to understand what it meant or why I was doing it. Mostly, I goofed off and said the words wrong as a joke.

Most schools do not teach the WHY behind the Pledge of Allegiance and WHY we stand and honor the flag and WHAT it means for our past and our future. Like prayers or chants, anything done rote becomes meaningless and open to parody.

I was greatly blessed to have several teachers who were Vietnam vets. None of them supported the war, all were drafted, and all taught the difference between love of country and obedience to politicians. The flag doesn't represent who's in office. It's the symbol of our very fragile and precious freedoms and those who died for us. That's why we are lucky to be able to honor our flag.

When you explain what that all means to kids, they stand for the flag and take it seriously. Before they understand what it all means, how could they know it wasn't just an empty ritual?

And if my disabled 2nd graders could sit up tall in their wheelchairs and salute the flag with hands that barely worked right, every other US citizen can get off their ass for two minutes and remember how insanely lucky we are.

No offense to teachers but I learnt more about life from my friends at school then I did from teachers.

And there was always TV to fall back on too.

Quote from: Shasarak;1112412No offense to teachers but I learnt more about life from my friends at school then I did from teachers.

Teachers aren't supposed to be teaching about life. They are supposed to help you develop the skills you will use in life. If teachers do their job right, students develop the skills necessary to teach themselves what they want to learn in the future.

But I'm well aware most don't achieve that either.

I recently heard a great quote regarding teachers. "If you know which candidate or party your teacher voted for, they've failed to do their job properly." Students might be able to guess, but they should end their year feeling the teacher did not lean Right or Left, but focused solely on them and their development.

Quote from: Shasarak;1112412And there was always TV to fall back on too.

We learn everything of value from the historical documents!

[video=youtube;5wXDnJt3cUI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wXDnJt3cUI[/youtube]

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112416We learn everything of value from the historical documents!

[video=youtube;5wXDnJt3cUI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wXDnJt3cUI[/youtube]

Indeed!

As an aside isn't it sad that a fucking parody is a better Star Trek than STD?

What's more sad is we never got a Galaxy Quest sequel!

But we got just a documentary! (hopefully a good one)
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/never-surrender

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112424What's more sad is we never got a Galaxy Quest sequel!

But we got just a documentary! (hopefully a good one)
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/never-surrender

Yeah, I still want a sequel but it's better if they don't given the current trend of shitting on the IP and it's fans.

Also you should hunt down the comics, closest thing you'll ever get to a sequel.

Hopefully it'll hit theaters here in shithole country too.

Quote from: jhkim;1112367Families and schools *can't* all work towards common moral and ethical goals, because different families have different morals and ethics. A Catholic family may have different values from a Mormon family who may have different values than a Muslim family or an atheist family or even the drug-dealing family. And all of those families may send their kids to the same school. There's plenty that they have in common, but also points on which they'll differ. In a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we will have differing points of view. The State should be answerable to the families, and represent a rough average of their different values, and that in turn will affect public education and educators.

Schools convey some values - partly from state-determined curriculum, partly from local school culture, and partly from individual teachers. And that has *always* been true - from the 1930s to the 1960s to now. School has never aligned with every family, because it's impossible to do so. Parents who weren't in the center of mainstream culture have always had to teach their kids about how their values differ from what is taught in school. That might be right-wing Creationists or left-wing radicals or orthodox Jews or plenty of others.

I definitely taught my son to think critically about what he was taught in school, which is a good thing to teach in general. But I'm glad that he is exposed to differing ideas - even if I disagree with some, because it's part of engaging with society in general.

People react differently to not-same morals and ethics taught in schools depending upon whether the school was teaching what was normal to the area, or whether it is trying to change what is normal to the area.

Elite families in British India sent some few of the children to school in Europe.  They did so knowing they'd be taught Christianity, and morals/ethics such as polygamy being unacceptable, even though this was incompatible with their own cultural beliefs, ethics and morals.  But that didn't mean they would be as acquiescent of the same being taught en masse to Indian children within the borders of India, and that they were down with a British goal to change the morals and ethics of Indian culture into a more Christian one, however much many British wanted to do that.

What people object to is the US education system becoming a latter type of system, with progressivism being the change element education is now seeking to instill in the youth with little regard to the parents.  The same people who complain about it in the home districts wouldn't complain about it if choosing to send their child to "blatantly and publicly progressive school X" for perceived social advantages that had little to do with the culture they themselves didn't adhere to - they'd counter-program it, just as you say; catholics and jews developed their own school systems to do this, because in most places they were the decided minority and didn't expect their distinct views to be taught to everyone around them in the places they'd chosen to migrate.  In a somewhat different example, I grew up with most of my education in religious schools because my parents wanted to counter-program the culturally-dominant secularism; not that things were progressive at that point in time, but they didn't care for even the short cultural truce of patriotic secularism.  They did however recognize their preference was an overwhelming minority preference in their own locality.

But it is going to be resented if a still-dominant culture of any sort is forced into a defensive crouch by the public education system in their own locality. This has been tried many times throughout history, and no culture has been swayed by the types of arguments you're presenting for why people should accept it quietly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112416Teachers aren't supposed to be teaching about life. They are supposed to help you develop the skills you will use in life. If teachers do their job right, students develop the skills necessary to teach themselves what they want to learn in the future.

But I'm well aware most don't achieve that either.

Well if you are talking about useful skills for life then you cant beat the Boy Scouts then.

Quote from: Shasarak;1112442Well if you are talking about useful skills for life then you cant beat the Boy Scouts then.

You can definitely beat them 'cuz they're little kids. Just don't let them gang up on you as a pack. :eek:

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112449You can definitely beat them 'cuz they're little kids. Just don't let them gang up on you as a pack. :eek:

....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent o
r look the other way. So,....some Boy Scout groups might be good at teaching morals and ethics - not 'all' of them...

- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;1112367Families and schools *can't* all work towards common moral and ethical goals, because different families have different morals and ethics. A Catholic family may have different values from a Mormon family who may have different values than a Muslim family or an atheist family or even the drug-dealing family. And all of those families may send their kids to the same school. There's plenty that they have in common, but also points on which they'll differ. In a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we will have differing points of view. The State should be answerable to the families, and represent a rough average of their different values, and that in turn will affect public education and educators.

I don't know if it's intentional, but I think it's interesting to observe that all of the examples you chose are:

1. Historical points of bloody division and war

2. Protected in the United States by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, with a lot of legal and cultural battle that ultimately affirmed the rights of the Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, and atheist families to maintain their religion at home independent of the influence of the (former) Protestant majority at school

3. Fundamentally agreed on significant important moral principles, especially since those examples are all Abrahamaic, save 1 (possibly 2 -- drug dealing is orthogonal)

Some of the points under discussion here are about public, state-funded schools teaching as indisputable facts a version of reality (including definitions of bullying) that has no resemblance to majority beliefs held 5, 10, 15 years ago, and is even more alien to the beliefs of any of those groups you named.

Quote from: Koltar;1112459....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent o
r look the other way. So,....some Boy Scout groups might be good at teaching morals and ethics - not 'all' of them...

- Ed C.

Boy scouts? so you didn't whoop their asses and take their cookies?

I thought it was the Girl Scouts that had the cookies. :confused:

There are a lot of things that can't be presented without some people feeling it is 'political'.

My wife teaches modern history, including the Communist Revolution.  She has had students criticize her for not strongly taking a stand against Communism and some for not highlighting the idealism enough.  Maybe she didn't bring politics into it, but students do.

You can't talk about environmental science and climate change without some people accusing you of having an agenda that is driving your teaching.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112485I thought it was the Girl Scouts that had the cookies. :confused:

That's what makes it fun taking cookies from Boy Scout Bullies.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112488There are a lot of things that can't be presented without some people feeling it is 'political'.

It's the recognition of the cultural precipice we're at. Largely driven by academia which has finally infected all of our institutions from politics, to corporations, to entertainment.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112488My wife teaches modern history, including the Communist Revolution.  She has had students criticize her for not strongly taking a stand against Communism and some for not highlighting the idealism enough.  Maybe she didn't bring politics into it, but students do.

Students are looking for meaning in the West. Our education system has done a piss-poor job of teaching civics to the last three generations of Americans. And I don't blame all the teachers - I blame the system that has allowed bad teachers and bad teachings to proliferate at the expense of a LOT of good teachers and at the expense of the public itself.

We're only the victims of our success in the West, because we've allowed the bad ideas to propagate that despite the horrors outside of the Western sphere of thought, the Western world should feel guilty for what we've achieved. And we've created a pogrom of coddling children with these ideas that the very foundations of Western thought which brought us all here is to be dismantled because it's "evil". Sounds exactly like what any adventuresome youth looking for "meaning" would want to sink their teeth into. They have no skin in the game. Sure why not?

This isn't an old idea. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche predicted this over a century and a half ago. Except Schopenhauer would have sided with the SJW's nihilism in some respects, and Nietzsche would have been wearing a MAGA hat. But the loss of meaning in the West was definitely the problem Nietzsche recommended stridently about individualistically protecting. Or this would happen... and right on time, here we are.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112488You can't talk about environmental science and climate change without some people accusing you of having an agenda that is driving your teaching.

When politicians politicize it. When politicians turn it into a religion. When politicians make hundreds of millions lining their own pockets on it... one can't help but wonder why people wouldn't think these things?

Quote from: Koltar;1112459....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent o
r look the other way. So,....some Boy Scout groups might be good at teaching morals and ethics - not 'all' of them...

- Ed C.

Oh, you poor pitiful victim..... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112404As an ex-teacher, I can confirm many parents left parenting to the school, and by all reports, its become far more common in the past two decades. You hear the crazy stories from pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and the "teacher as parent" paradigm is a common reason for teachers to leave the profession.

It was always a bad idea to leave the parenting of your children to the State. However, today in the age of schools as SJW indoctrination centers, it's absolutely child abuse.
 
BTW, the reason schools today are SJW indoctrination centers is because parents abandoned involvement with their local schools and school boards, leaving them open to easy infiltration by the SJWs freakshow. Thus, the exodus by involved parents to charter schools and home schooling...

That's interesting. I taught high school for a time, and there complaints were often about over-involved, "helicopter" parents - which is often referred to as a trend in recent decades. In the long term, I feel like the rise of two-income households has been an issue - but apparently the rate of having a stay-at-home parent has been stable since the 1990s.(ref) (https://www.zillow.com/research/stay-at-home-dads-20190/)  So I question how much "teacher as parent" is really a recent trend. In the 1980s and earlier, parents were often less closely involved - letting kids roam around on their own more. I suspect it's more that expectations have changed, and 1980s style distant parents who lets their kid roam on their own more is likely to be accused of child abuse and/or "teacher as parent".

I tend to agree that parents - especially conservative parents - have become less involved in local public schools. Charter schools and home schooling are a thing - but that's less than 10% of kids, so they don't move the needle much. Having abandoned the field, I think such parents have themselves to blame when schools don't turn out how they like. Also, it seems to me that far fewer conservatives are going into the field of education.

I think that's a real problem. Education really should be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, having abandoned the field, it seems like many conservatives now react to education purely negatively -- rather than sincerely trying to make it better. I think they really should look at recruiting a new generation of conservative teachers, and making systemic changes to ease new and qualified people to move into the profession.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112407I was greatly blessed to have several teachers who were Vietnam vets. None of them supported the war, all were drafted, and all taught the difference between love of country and obedience to politicians. The flag doesn't represent who's in office. It's the symbol of our very fragile and precious freedoms and those who died for us. That's why we are lucky to be able to honor our flag.

When you explain what that all means to kids, they stand for the flag and take it seriously. Before they understand what it all means, how could they know it wasn't just an empty ritual?

That sounds great, and a good counter-example to the idea that "schools shouldn't teach values". Motivating kids is vastly better than forcing them to participate in a ritual they don't believe in. I'm not opposed to patriotism -- I'm opposed of forcing kids to go through the motions of patriotism regardless of whether they believe it or not. I absolutely support teaching them such values by involvement like you describe.

Abandon the field

As if conservatives who aren't intersectionalist categories (and hiding their political beliefs) are treated neutrally by the teaching unions and administrations in getting work and a share of desired assignments in the education field...sorry, I know too many conservative teachers who work in the private system to be swayed by that poor rhetoric

Quote from: jhkim;1112505That's interesting. I taught high school for a time, and there complaints were often about over-involved, "helicopter" parents - which is often referred to as a trend in recent decades. In the long term, I feel like the rise of two-income households has been an issue - but apparently the rate of having a stay-at-home parent has been stable since the 1990s

Better be careful. Third-Wave Feminists might turn on you for such suggestions. Their inferences will run deeper than you want, and will take words like these to *crazytown*. I've seen it happen for less.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505So I question how much "teacher as parent" is really a recent trend. In the 1980s and earlier, parents were often less closely involved - letting kids roam around on their own more. I suspect it's more that expectations have changed, and 1980s style distant parents who lets their kid roam on their own more is likely to be accused of child abuse and/or "teacher as parent".

It's not the teachers. It's the curriculum combined with the few enthusiastic teachers that believe the drivel largely being served as "education"

Quote from: jhkim;1112505I tend to agree that parents - especially conservative parents - have become less involved in local public schools. Charter schools and home schooling are a thing - but that's less than 10% of kids, so they don't move the needle much. Having abandoned the field, I think such parents have themselves to blame when schools don't turn out how they like. Also, it seems to me that far fewer conservatives are going into the field of education.

My daughter given poor scores on a paper about "slavery" in the south, where the implication in the textbook was that America invented the slave-trade. This is supposedly one of the best public high-schools in the country ranked 91.93/100, and I had to routinely go in there and "have it out" with their so-called instructors.

Now this is totally anecdotal - but this is not exactly in the bastion of Progressive Country. This is Dallas TX. My friends in LA say it's insanely worse, they've pulled their kids out of public school entirely. The reality is, based on my own experience here - the teachers are not well versed in actual humanities, sciences seem fine, but history, government, English, social studies... are almost completely propagandized. Worse, the cliques in school are politically activated. But I do my part - my family is always discussing the nuances of the humanities writ-large. I've been teaching my kids philosophy since before they could read. They were well armed. Most kids don't have parents like that.

My daughter's best friends are trading Thomas Sowell books, her gay pal Griffin, proudly "came out" as a non-Democrat homosexual. He told me "It's like getting to come out twice!" and he says he got more hate for coming out non-Democrat than coming out as gay... in TX... let that sink in.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505I think that's a real problem. Education really should be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, having abandoned the field, it seems like many conservatives now react to education purely negatively -- rather than sincerely trying to make it better. I think they really should look at recruiting a new generation of conservative teachers, and making systemic changes to ease new and qualified people to move into the profession.


More likely conservative teachers keep their mouths shut or else. I know a few of them personally. The damage is *done*. *Public* Education is already well-ensconced with leftist ideology. C'mon there is ZERO chance of removing ideologues from their positions in school. You know that. There is no will in the Dept. of Education to change things. And it's becoming too hostile of an atmosphere for conservative teachers to deal with all the extraneous drama on top of their jobs... yes, it's a real problem. But it's also time for parents to step the fuck up and take charge of their kids education. Which smart parents are doing. The rest... well... chute the ball and spin the wheel. Let's see where this shitshow lands us.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505That sounds great, and a good counter-example to the idea that "schools shouldn't teach values". Motivating kids is vastly better than forcing them to participate in a ritual they don't believe in. I'm not opposed to patriotism -- I'm opposed of forcing kids to go through the motions of patriotism regardless of whether they believe it or not. I absolutely support teaching them such values by involvement like you describe.

You don't teach them values by saying DO this. You exemplify them. You teach them the reasons why our culture is founded on those values. You teach them WHY. You engage them. Parents get to do the forcing. Teachers get to teach. Patriotism like all "isms" requires cultivation. But the "soil" has to be right. We've lost that.

I cite the desire of young people wanting to dabble in Socialism or Communism while perceiving the Republic and Democracy and Capitalism as being evil as a good indicator that 1) they want to be part of something larger 2) the soil has been so poisoned by asshats, that they found their meaning... it's just the wrong one, and we collectively let it happen.

I did my part. My kids are fine. :)

Quote from: tenbones;1112516Better be careful. Third-Wave Feminists might turn on you for such suggestions. Their inferences will run deeper than you want, and will take words like these to *crazytown*. I've seen it happen for less.



It's not the teachers. It's the curriculum combined with the few enthusiastic teachers that believe the drivel largely being served as "education"



My daughter given poor scores on a paper about "slavery" in the south, where the implication in the textbook was that America invented the slave-trade. This is supposedly one of the best public high-schools in the country ranked 91.93/100, and I had to routinely go in there and "have it out" with their so-called instructors.

Now this is totally anecdotal - but this is not exactly in the bastion of Progressive Country. This is Dallas TX. My friends in LA say it's insanely worse, they've pulled their kids out of public school entirely. The reality is, based on my own experience here - the teachers are not well versed in actual humanities, sciences seem fine, but history, government, English, social studies... are almost completely propagandized. Worse, the cliques in school are politically activated. But I do my part - my family is always discussing the nuances of the humanities writ-large. I've been teaching my kids philosophy since before they could read. They were well armed. Most kids don't have parents like that.

My daughter's best friends are trading Thomas Sowell books, her gay pal Griffin, proudly "came out" as a non-Democrat homosexual. He told me "It's like getting to come out twice!" and he says he got more hate for coming out non-Democrat than coming out as gay... in TX... let that sink in.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505I think that's a real problem. Education really should be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, having abandoned the field, it seems like many conservatives now react to education purely negatively -- rather than sincerely trying to make it better. I think they really should look at recruiting a new generation of conservative teachers, and making systemic changes to ease new and qualified people to move into the profession.


More likely conservative teachers keep their mouths shut or else. I know a few of them personally. The damage is *done*. *Public* Education is already well-ensconced with leftist ideology. C'mon there is ZERO chance of removing ideologues from their positions in school. You know that. There is no will in the Dept. of Education to change things. And it's becoming too hostile of an atmosphere for conservative teachers to deal with all the extraneous drama on top of their jobs... yes, it's a real problem. But it's also time for parents to step the fuck up and take charge of their kids education. Which smart parents are doing. The rest... well... chute the ball and spin the wheel. Let's see where this shitshow lands us.



You don't teach them values by saying DO this. You exemplify them. You teach them the reasons why our culture is founded on those values. You teach them WHY. You engage them. Parents get to do the forcing. Teachers get to teach. Patriotism like all "isms" requires cultivation. But the "soil" has to be right. We've lost that.

I cite the desire of young people wanting to dabble in Socialism or Communism while perceiving the Republic and Democracy and Capitalism as being evil as a good indicator that 1) they want to be part of something larger 2) the soil has been so poisoned by asshats, that they found their meaning... it's just the wrong one, and we collectively let it happen.

I did my part. My kids are fine. :)

At this point failure to homeschool is child abuse.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505I think that's a real problem. Education really should be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, having abandoned the field, it seems like many conservatives now react to education purely negatively -- rather than sincerely trying to make it better. I think they really should look at recruiting a new generation of conservative teachers, and making systemic changes to ease new and qualified people to move into the profession.

Here is an anecdote from the last college course I took. It was American History, almost 2 decades ago, and the textbook we were using had one paragraph on the Space Race during the Cold War. That paragraph had one sentence on Russia's early achievements with Sputnik and Vostok, one sentence on the USA lagging behind, and one sentence on the Apollo moon landings. Nothing about how the space program drove technological advancement or how the space program affected national prestige or how it was also an indicator and tool of military superiority, essentially nothing about how it changed history. That alone would not have caused me to give up on higher education, but that same textbook included two entire pages on the cultural importance of Mtv.

Mtv was more important to history than the Space Race during the Cold War according to the writers of that textbook. And they were using it to teach.

I decided that if I wanted to learn, then my money was better spent elsewhere.

Quote from: Koltar;1112459....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent o
r look the other way. So,....some Boy Scout groups might be good at teaching morals and ethics - not 'all' of them...

- Ed C.

Gawd man, is their anyone who did not bully you?

Quote from: EOTB;1112513Abandon the field

As if conservatives who aren't intersectionalist categories (and hiding their political beliefs) are treated neutrally by the teaching unions and administrations in getting work and a share of desired assignments in the education field...sorry, I know too many conservative teachers who work in the private system to be swayed by that poor rhetoric

I'm not saying that there aren't conservative *individuals* going into education -- but conservatives as a whole aren't supporting them. There are plenty of conservatives in the country, and they have legislative and executive power -- but they aren't prioritizing involvement in education to support conservative teachers. I had a classmate at my teaching degree program at Stanford who was a former Marine and quite conservative, and yeah, he faced bias. But if you want the field to change, you need to support teachers like him - or the field is just going to get even further from what you want.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516More likely conservative teachers keep their mouths shut or else. I know a few of them personally. The damage is *done*. *Public* Education is already well-ensconced with leftist ideology. C'mon there is ZERO chance of removing ideologues from their positions in school. You know that. There is no will in the Dept. of Education to change things. And it's becoming too hostile of an atmosphere for conservative teachers to deal with all the extraneous drama on top of their jobs... yes, it's a real problem. But it's also time for parents to step the fuck up and take charge of their kids education. Which smart parents are doing. The rest... well... chute the ball and spin the wheel. Let's see where this shitshow lands us.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516I did my part. My kids are fine. :)

As an *individual*, I think it's fine to go with home-schooling. My sister mostly home-schooled her two kids, and I thought that was fine.

But as a *society*, I think it is bug-nuts insane to write off our education systems forever. That's guaranteed to cripple our own future, and is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Yes, the education field is left-leaning at present -- but the Department of Education is headed by a Trump appointee. Conservatives have the capacity to work at making things better. At least Bush made an effort with No Child Left Behind. Have a plan and work towards it, and lay the groundwork for further change later.

Quote from: jhkim;1112529I'm not saying that there aren't conservative *individuals* going into education -- but conservatives as a whole aren't supporting them. There are plenty of conservatives in the country, and they have legislative and executive power -- but they aren't prioritizing involvement in education to support conservative teachers. I had a classmate at my teaching degree program at Stanford who was a former Marine and quite conservative, and yeah, he faced bias. But if you want the field to change, you need to support teachers like him - or the field is just going to get even further from what you want.



As an *individual*, I think it's fine to go with home-schooling. My sister mostly home-schooled her two kids, and I thought that was fine.

But as a *society*, I think it is bug-nuts insane to write off our education systems forever. That's guaranteed to cripple our own future, and is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Yes, the education field is left-leaning at present -- but the Department of Education is headed by a Trump appointee. Conservatives have the capacity to work at making things better. At least Bush made an effort with No Child Left Behind. Have a plan and work towards it, and lay the groundwork for further change later.

Not all of the education system, only those universities co-opted by the intersectional cult, and those fields that have been co-opted too. This leaves only a handful of colleges maybe and only the hard sciences and maybe, just maybe medicine and evolutionary psychology.

As for The Futuretm as long as your country is a capitalist one the market will provide options, but only if The Statetm isn't forcing "private" schools to teach the same bullcrap as the "public" ones.

And this another reason why "Free Education"tm isn't a good idea, imagine you don't have anything but state owned schools? Imagine they start teaching children how to be a good muslim? How the fuck would you change the system? You'd need to cut it at the bud and withstand the backlash from those already indoctrinated, the ideologues and the interests backing them. Then scrap it all and go full "private" schools with education vouchers.

Speaking of abandoning the field. Conservatives have pretty much lost the "battleground" as far as education goes, at least partially by doing stupid things like trying to promote "intelligent design" in years past, and sometimes coming off as "anti environment" "anti women" etc. I have spoken to many professors who felt that voting Republican simply was not an option. But more recently, liberals have been shooting themselves in the foot quite a lot as well, and have  more-or-less abandoned free speech issues to the Republicans, and sometimes scoff at things like "family values" which has hurt them a great deal.

I am not convinced about abandoning the field.  Humanities have always been a shit show, anything that has to add "Science" on the end of its name is automatically suspect and the more I learn about History the more I am surprised that we remember as much as we think we do.

Even the science that gets taught is dated.

Nah, it is most likely looking back with rose tinted nostalgic glasses at a system that thought smoking was good for you and spraying lead into the air from exhaust fumes was ok for the environment.

Extra LOLz in Canuckistan! Apparently it's "hate speech" if feminists defend women's rights! Feminist activist Meghan Murphy who is concerned about men in dresses with sex offender/rapist records being given access to women's prisons and women's shelters due to a new law in Canada is being protested and threatened by trans activists.

Everyone to your popcorn stations!!! Get that butter melted pronto!

[video=youtube;E7--fI2rOhM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7--fI2rOhM[/youtube]

Quote from: Trond;1112538Speaking of abandoning the field. Conservatives have pretty much lost the "battleground" as far as education goes, at least partially by doing stupid things like trying to promote "intelligent design" in years past, and sometimes coming off as "anti environment" "anti women" etc. I have spoken to many professors who felt that voting Republican simply was not an option. But more recently, liberals have been shooting themselves in the foot quite a lot as well, and have  more-or-less abandoned free speech issues to the Republicans, and sometimes scoff at things like "family values" which has hurt them a great deal.

I agree that liberals have as a whole abandoned free speech -- but I think that's wrong. I don't say "Well, free speech is now a conservative thing, so that's over and done with." I argue with my liberal friends for free speech, and I continue to give support to organizations that fight for free speech. Free speech and nuclear power are my most frequent clashes with other liberals. (I don't find that family values is a significant source of friction, personally.)

I don't get giving up on things that are important - and I feel that education is vitally important.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112532And this another reason why "Free Education"tm isn't a good idea, imagine you don't have anything but state owned schools? Imagine they start teaching children how to be a good muslim? How the fuck would you change the system?

If there were a majority of people who objected to the teaching, then they could easily vote in new people to the education department and school boards -- as well as passing new state laws regulating curriculum and making other systemic changes. i.e. They use the democratic process. If the democratic process doesn't work, then there are got bigger problems than schools. Historically, it's a lot easier for countries to change their public schools than to change the police or the military - who are more likely to violently resist a changeover.

Among liberals, there are plenty who have problems with the police, for example. And based on this, I see various action to pass reform laws and vote in new sheriffs and district attorneys to change law enforcement policy.

Quote from: Koltar;1112459....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent or look the other way.

Koltar, you need help and that's okay. Sounds like you had a crappy youth where you were picked on, but instead of either healing or toughening, its an open wound ever since. From your GenCon pics, you look like a big guy (not just chunky, but tall and broad shouldered), but I wonder how you view yourself, especially how your unconscious sees yourself. We have one Earthly life. There's no mulligan, but you don't have to be a victim to your memories. There are many resources out there and alternate paths to take (many free or low cost). For your sake, invest the time to discover them.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505In the long term, I feel like the rise of two-income households has been an issue - but apparently the rate of having a stay-at-home parent has been stable since the 1990s.

Having a stay-home parent gives both parents more time to parent. Even more destructive for kids than two-working parents is the single-working parent. I'm not saying "single moms are bad", but a human being only has 24 hours in a day and when they are stretched extremely thin, the kids often suffer.

The "helicopter parent" is a weird phenomenon because its often about hovering and control, not parenting. I thought helicopters would be the most school involved parents, but often, the helicopters were just there to insist nothing was wrong with Little Timmy's obvious academic or behavior problems. Personally, I often smell narcissism with helicopter parents, where its not about the kid's needs, but "child as ego extension".  

 

Quote from: jhkim;1112505Having abandoned the field, I think such parents have themselves to blame when schools don't turn out how they like. Also, it seems to me that far fewer conservatives are going into the field of education.

Conservative teachers mostly go to private religious schools and charters. Those in public schools smartly keep their heads down to protect their juicy retirement.

Concerned parents feel the problems in public education are insurmountable now. It's why charter schools get attention. It's more realistic parents could affect one small school than battle a district with its entrenched bureaucracy. Of course, many charter schools are shitty scams run by grifters (especially the online ones).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112488You can't talk about environmental science and climate change without some people accusing you of having an agenda that is driving your teaching.

I know a UCLA professor who teaches "evolutionary ecology" and her answer is to teach the controversy and lay down the pro/con of each major argument and provide resources for the students to see/hear/read the arguments from each side. When asked about "her side", she reminds them she thinks on planetary scales, so she's all about "climate change" over millions of years, not centuries and humans are a blip on her radar. She's pretty sure there's enough solar life time for another sentient species to come after us.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516My friends in LA say it's insanely worse, they've pulled their kids out of public school entirely.

LA schools are fucked on so many levels.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516He told me "It's like getting to come out twice!" and he says he got more hate for coming out non-Democrat than coming out as gay... in TX... let that sink in.

A) I am not surprised.

B) We are totally fucked.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112519At this point failure to homeschool is child abuse.

I'm still called occasionally for special education consulting, usually by parents considering disability lawsuits, either for kids who are gifted, learning disabled, or both (the so-called "double gifted").

Even 10 years ago, I would have counseled against home schooling, except under specific circumstances.

I am stunned today because I openly advocate home schooling. We have reached the point in Los Angeles (and probably most of the nation) that doing home schooling poorly might be better than leaving your kid in the system. No question doing an okay homeschooling is superior to the vast majority of public schools.

Quote from: jhkim;1112529As an *individual*, I think it's fine to go with home-schooling. My sister mostly home-schooled her two kids, and I thought that was fine. But as a *society*, I think it is bug-nuts insane to write off our education systems forever. That's guaranteed to cripple our own future, and is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

You are 100% right...except that requires concerned parents keeping their kids inside the system while the parents fight the system. Education is an entrenched bureaucracy and kids grow up quickly. That's a bad combo. AKA, if it takes 15 years to right the system, your kids will never gain the benefit of your fight.

Quote from: Koltar;1112459....and when I was a young teen many of the bullies from the High School and Junior High were also in the local Boy Scout troop....just waiting for the adult leaders to be absent or look the other way.

Koltar, you need help and that's okay. Sounds like you had a crappy youth where you were picked on, but instead of either healing or toughening, its an open wound ever since. From your GenCon pics, you look like a big guy (not just chunky, but tall and broad shouldered), but I wonder how you view yourself, especially how your unconscious sees yourself. We have one Earthly life. There's no mulligan, but you don't have to be a victim to your memories. There are many resources out there and alternate paths to take (many free or low cost). For your sake, invest the time to discover them.

Quote from: jhkim;1112505In the long term, I feel like the rise of two-income households has been an issue - but apparently the rate of having a stay-at-home parent has been stable since the 1990s.

Having a stay-home parent gives both parents more time to parent. Even more destructive for kids than two-working parents is the single-working parent. I'm not saying "single moms are bad", but a human being only has 24 hours in a day and when they are stretched extremely thin, the kids often suffer.

The "helicopter parent" is a weird phenomenon because its often about hovering and control, not parenting. I thought helicopters would be the most school involved parents, but often, the helicopters were just there to insist nothing was wrong with Little Timmy's obvious academic or behavior problems. Personally, I often smell narcissism with helicopter parents, where its not about the kid's needs, but "child as ego extension".  

 

Quote from: jhkim;1112505Having abandoned the field, I think such parents have themselves to blame when schools don't turn out how they like. Also, it seems to me that far fewer conservatives are going into the field of education.

Conservative teachers mostly go to private religious schools and charters. Those in public schools smartly keep their heads down to protect their juicy retirement.

Concerned parents feel the problems in public education are insurmountable now. It's why charter schools get attention. It's more realistic parents could affect one small school than battle a district with its entrenched bureaucracy. Of course, many charter schools are shitty scams run by grifters (especially the online ones).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1112488You can't talk about environmental science and climate change without some people accusing you of having an agenda that is driving your teaching.

I know a UCLA professor who teaches "evolutionary ecology" and her answer is to teach the controversy and lay down the pro/con of each major argument and provide resources for the students to see/hear/read the arguments from each side. When asked about "her side", she reminds them she thinks on planetary scales, so she's all about "climate change" over millions of years, not centuries and humans are a blip on her radar. She's pretty sure there's enough solar life time for another sentient species to come after us.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516My friends in LA say it's insanely worse, they've pulled their kids out of public school entirely.

LA schools are fucked on so many levels.

Quote from: tenbones;1112516He told me "It's like getting to come out twice!" and he says he got more hate for coming out non-Democrat than coming out as gay... in TX... let that sink in.

A) I am not surprised.

B) OMG, we are totally fucked.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112519At this point failure to homeschool is child abuse.

I'm still called occasionally for special education consulting, usually by parents considering disability lawsuits, either for kids who are gifted, learning disabled, or both (the so-called "double gifted").

Even 10 years ago, I would have counseled against home schooling, except under specific circumstances.

I am stunned today because I openly advocate home schooling. We have reached the point in Los Angeles (and probably most of the nation) that doing home schooling poorly might be better than leaving your kid in the system. No question doing an okay homeschooling is superior to the vast majority of public schools.

Quote from: jhkim;1112529As an *individual*, I think it's fine to go with home-schooling. My sister mostly home-schooled her two kids, and I thought that was fine. But as a *society*, I think it is bug-nuts insane to write off our education systems forever. That's guaranteed to cripple our own future, and is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

You are 100% right...except that requires concerned parents keeping their kids inside the system while the parents fight the system. Education is an entrenched bureaucracy and kids grow up quickly. That's a bad combo. AKA, if it takes 15 years to right the system, your kids will never gain the benefit of your fight.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112543Extra LOLz in Canuckistan! Apparently it's "hate speech" if feminists defend women's rights! Feminist activist Meghan Murphy who is concerned about men in dresses with sex offender/rapist records being given access to women's prisons and women's shelters due to a new law in Canada is being protested and threatened by trans activists.

Everyone to your popcorn stations!!! Get that butter melted pronto!

[video=youtube;E7--fI2rOhM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7--fI2rOhM[/youtube]

This would be funny if it were not for all of the innocent women and children that will be harmed. Sex offenders, rapists and child molesters, putting on dresses and pretending to be women to gain access to more victims and idiots defending this practice.

You're transgender? OK, you go straight to expedited surgery. No, no it is OK we wouldn't think of delaying this for any reason. We want you to get what is coming to you as quickly as  possible. Yes, that's right, if you say you are transgender, then it is illegal for us to delay your surgery.  What is that you say? No don't worry you are just having jitters, but we will make sure that we get rid of those nasty male sex organs for you. Here let me give you a shot of this and it will calm you down. OK, take it away and when it wakes up, it won't be a danger to others anymore. That's right we give a free frontal lobotomy with every sex change.

So, Koltar, I'm with you, bullying doesn't making men stronger.  Condoning it makes assholes think they're entitled to be assholes.

I do think there is a division between bullying and roughhousing but what is roughhousing for some is bullying for others.

I do think adults mostly need to stay out of it.  They generally make the situation worse and there's a hell of a lot of teachers who are plain out bullies themselves.  That's why kids don't squeal.  My son told me he didn't want to go to school because he was getting punched in the stomach day after day after day.  The vice principal swore my son was a liar.  A couple years later my son finally told me who it was.  As it happens we gave that kid a ride home from Smash Club and he sat behind my son and kept jabbing him in the back of the neck the whole way home.  To him its funny and will always be funny that's just how he's wired.

I think the worst assumption we make is that teachers are mature, functional adults.

Quote from: David Johansen;1112567So, Koltar, I'm with you, bullying doesn't making men stronger.  Condoning it makes assholes think they're entitled to be assholes.

I do think there is a division between bullying and roughhousing but what is roughhousing for some is bullying for others.

I do think adults mostly need to stay out of it.  They generally make the situation worse and there's a hell of a lot of teachers who are plain out bullies themselves.  That's why kids don't squeal.  My son told me he didn't want to go to school because he was getting punched in the stomach day after day after day.  The vice principal swore my son was a liar.  A couple years later my son finally told me who it was.  As it happens we gave that kid a ride home from Smash Club and he sat behind my son and kept jabbing him in the back of the neck the whole way home.  To him its funny and will always be funny that's just how he's wired.

I think the worst assumption we make is that teachers are mature, functional adults.

My experience is that 5% of teachers are excellent, 30% are average and the other 65% shouldn't be allowed around children.

If there were a majority of people who objected to the teaching, then they could easily vote in new people to the education department and school boards -- as well as passing new state laws regulating curriculum and making other systemic changes. i.e. They use the democratic process.

You're a bit naive if you REALLY think that just voting will help. It's a lot more than that. There is so much political BS going on in the background even at the local level, it's EXTREMELY hard to change things.

Basically, keeping the status quo and "playing ball".

I'll give you a real world example from my youth about what happened to my father.

I grew up in Omaha, NE. Back in the 70s, the county (Douglas) was firmly Democrat, and my father worked for the county (Microfilm records dept). The 1980 election came up, and time was coming to vote. In the days prior to the election, my dad's boss had a closed door conversation about the election and it went something like this:

Boss: "Tom, who are you voting for?"

Dad: "Well, I'm thinking of voting for Reagan"

Boss: "No you're not. You're voting for Carter."

Dad: "But..."

Boss: "If you want to keep your job, you're voting for Carter. We all are in this department. you understand you need to play ball?"

Dad: "Yes, I guess so."

Boss: "Good"

And so after that, my dad just didn't vote and NEVER voted in an election ever again. He was TOLD with no uncertain terms that he had to vote one way or he'd be fired, and they'd KNOW. He figured the safest thing to do was not to vote. I'm not kidding. This happened to him and he stays true to his word even today.

A few years later (in 83 or 84 I think) his boss died of a heart attack and my dad became head of the dept. Karma is a bitch.

The point I'm trying to make is there is corruption at all levels in the election process. Punch cards, computers, etc. It doesn't matter. If the powers that be want to know, they'll know. If they have to strong arm people to vote a certain way (I'm looking at you labor unions), they'll do it.

So to simply think that you can "vote people out and in" to change the system is pure folly. It rarely happens that way.

"Maintain the status quo. Play ball..." is the mantra.

Quote from: ElBorak;1112569My experience is that 5% of teachers are excellent, 30% are average and the other 65% shouldn't be allowed around children.

I would extend that to generally *everyone*.

Quote from: tenbones;1112600I would extend that to generally *everyone*.

True!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112485I thought it was the Girl Scouts that had the cookies. :confused:

They're transitioning...

Quote from: blackstone;1112586The point I'm trying to make is there is corruption at all levels in the election process. Punch cards, computers, etc. It doesn't matter. If the powers that be want to know, they'll know. If they have to strong arm people to vote a certain way (I'm looking at you labor unions), they'll do it.

Your anecdote is a good demonstration of how people try to socially bully others into supporting (or at least not publicly opposing) certain political beliefs, and how they make grandiose claims of secret power in an attempt to coerce others. There's zero evidence they actually have that power, and know who voted for.

Quote from: Pat;1112696Your anecdote is a good demonstration of how people try to socially bully others into supporting (or at least not publicly opposing) certain political beliefs, and how they make grandiose claims of secret power in an attempt to coerce others. There's zero evidence they actually have that power, and know who voted for.

Sure, buddy..Sure...

Quote from: blackstone;1112716Sure, buddy..Sure...

That's a nice tinfoil hat.

Political parties can pull your voting history at any time.  This is how they can micro-target people who haven't voted in two elections, or people who've voted for one side most of their lives and switched to the other party the last two elections, etc.

Pretty sure your voting history is recorded.  If I'm wrong on this, I'd be happy to learn that.

Quote from: EOTB;1112757Political parties can pull your voting history at any time.  This is how they can micro-target people who haven't voted in two elections, or people who've voted for one side most of their lives and switched to the other party the last two elections, etc.

Pretty sure your voting history is recorded.  If I'm wrong on this, I'd be happy to learn that.

That is incorrect. They can pull *whether* you voted - including whether you registered as a Republican or Democrat, but not *who you voted for*.

How you are registered doesn't restrict how you vote, save that in many states, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primaries (and likewise for Democrats).

Quote from: jhkim;1112770That is incorrect. They can pull *whether* you voted - including whether you registered as a Republican or Democrat, but not *who you voted for*.

How you are registered doesn't restrict how you vote, save that in many states, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primaries (and likewise for Democrats).

So, like I thought the political intimidation anecdote posted earlier in this thread was a ton of BS and the guy's father should have stood up to his boss and said what he was hinting at was illegal and local newspapers might be interested in the story.

Back on topic to to Bullies and bullying - that father's boss was definitely a bully in a supposedly adult world.
-Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;1112770That is incorrect. They can pull *whether* you voted - including whether you registered as a Republican or Democrat, but not *who you voted for*.

How you are registered doesn't restrict how you vote, save that in many states, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primaries (and likewise for Democrats).

Good to know!

New SJW jihad?  White people should get sterilised. Pity about the spelling.
 [ATTACH=CONFIG]3968[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gagarth;1113018New SJW jihad?  White people should get sterilised. Pity about the spelling.
 [ATTACH=CONFIG]3968[/ATTACH]

Because you know, the parts of the world with lower than replacement birth rates should do their part to prevent a catastrophe that's not coming. Meanwhile China and India are having a birth boom, but you won't see any SJW talk about that.

It's this kind of stupidity that gives the Alt-Right it's talking points. And if they point to it you can't say it's not true.

There's some truth behind at least some of their complaints (not the ones about IQ and Culture=Race but still).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113022Because you know, the parts of the world with lower than replacement birth rates should do their part to prevent a catastrophe that's not coming. Meanwhile China and India are having a birth boom, but you won't see any SJW talk about that.

The supposed China/India birth boom is simply false. China in particular is quite the opposite. They have a critical birth shortage - with a lower fertility rate than the U.S. even after relaxing their one-child policy. India does have a higher birth rate than the U.S., but it has been dropping rapidly for decades. Here's a graph of fertility rate (births per woman) from World Bank data:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3969[/ATTACH]

Source (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CHN:USA:IND:GBR&ifdim=region&tstart=657792000000&tend=1478329200000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false)

And some 2019 articles:

"China's birth rate falls again, with 2018 producing the fewest babies since 1961, official data shows" (https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2182963/chinas-birth-rate-falls-again-2018-producing-fewest-babies)

"Indian women are choosing to have fewer children -- the total fertility rate (TFR) declined to an all-time low of 2.2 in 2017" (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/literacy-leaves-its-mark-as-fertility-rate-goes-south/articleshow/70220785.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113022It's this kind of stupidity that gives the Alt-Right it's talking points. And if they point to it you can't say it's not true.

There's some truth behind at least some of their complaints (not the ones about IQ and Culture=Race but still).

As shown above, I think it's the opposite. You're the one who is passing along Alt-Right propaganda points, claiming that they're true when they're factually false. I know you don't intend to, but it feeds into support for them when they really should be soundly rejected on all fronts.

Quote from: jhkim;1112367Families and schools *can't* all work towards common moral and ethical goals, because different families have different morals and ethics. A Catholic family may have different values from a Mormon family who may have different values than a Muslim family or an atheist family or even the drug-dealing family. And all of those families may send their kids to the same school. There's plenty that they have in common, but also points on which they'll differ. In a democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, we will have differing points of view. The State should be answerable to the families, and represent a rough average of their different values, and that in turn will affect public education and educators.

Schools convey some values - partly from state-determined curriculum, partly from local school culture, and partly from individual teachers. And that has *always* been true - from the 1930s to the 1960s to now. School has never aligned with every family, because it's impossible to do so. Parents who weren't in the center of mainstream culture have always had to teach their kids about how their values differ from what is taught in school. That might be right-wing Creationists or left-wing radicals or orthodox Jews or plenty of others.

I definitely taught my son to think critically about what he was taught in school, which is a good thing to teach in general. But I'm glad that he is exposed to differing ideas - even if I disagree with some, because it's part of engaging with society in general.

You go on about several points, but one stood out for me:



I'd hope that children learn that regardless of approving or not -- it is factually true that the vast majority gay people are not transgender, and don't take any sort of hormone therapy.

Why should children be dealing with that topic at all?

Quote from: jhkim;1113030The supposed China/India birth boom is simply false. China in particular is quite the opposite. They have a critical birth shortage - with a lower fertility rate than the U.S. even after relaxing their one-child policy. India does have a higher birth rate than the U.S., but it has been dropping rapidly for decades. Here's a graph of fertility rate (births per woman) from World Bank data:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3969[/ATTACH]

Source (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CHN:USA:IND:GBR&ifdim=region&tstart=657792000000&tend=1478329200000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false)

And some 2019 articles:

"China's birth rate falls again, with 2018 producing the fewest babies since 1961, official data shows" (https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2182963/chinas-birth-rate-falls-again-2018-producing-fewest-babies)

"Indian women are choosing to have fewer children -- the total fertility rate (TFR) declined to an all-time low of 2.2 in 2017" (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/literacy-leaves-its-mark-as-fertility-rate-goes-south/articleshow/70220785.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst)


As shown above, I think it's the opposite. You're the one who is passing along Alt-Right propaganda points, claiming that they're true when they're factually false. I know you don't intend to, but it feeds into support for them when they really should be soundly rejected on all fronts.

Propagandizing in "huwhite" countries about sterilizing yourself, using only huwhite models/drawings.

And yes, the birth rate in general has been dropping for a long time. Yet China And India have more people than all of Europe an America (the continent) combined.

And the doom isn't coming because we already produce food for 10 billion.

Quote from: blackstoneTeaching children that if you think you're gay, it's OK to consider hormone therapy.

Quote from: jhkimI'd hope that children learn that regardless of approving or not -- it is factually true that the vast majority gay people are not transgender, and don't take any sort of hormone therapy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1113031Why should children be dealing with that topic at all?

Because it's an issue that they will be voting on as adults. I believe that 18-year-old graduates of our public education system should be informed about basic facts of issues that they'll be voting on. They should know the Constitution and our political system. Ideally, they should come out able to point out Syria and Yemen on a map, for example, and even be able to say something about the conflicts there. And gay rights is also something that is frequently considered in political debates and legislatures - from outlawing conversion therapy to varying statutes on discrimination based on orientation.

If they come out of public school thinking that gays are people who take hormones to change their bodies, that's ignorance that will affect their voting -- which will be to the detriment of the the whole country.

Quote from: jhkim;1113040Because it's an issue that they will be voting on as adults. I believe that 18-year-old graduates of our public education system should be informed about basic facts of issues that they'll be voting on. They should know the Constitution and our political system. Ideally, they should come out able to point out Syria and Yemen on a map, for example, and even be able to say something about the conflicts there. And gay rights is also something that is frequently considered in political debates and legislatures - from outlawing conversion therapy to varying statutes on discrimination based on orientation.

If they come out of public school thinking that gays are people who take hormones to change their bodies, that's ignorance that will affect their voting -- which will be to the detriment of the the whole country.

Between CHILDREN and ADULTS is another stage in human development, which is?

Quote from: jhkim;1113040Because it's an issue that they will be voting on as adults. I believe that 18-year-old graduates of our public education system should be informed about basic facts of issues that they'll be voting on.

18-year old's are not children. These topics are being discussed much earlier than this for the exact reasons you're citing: to propagandize them for the purposes of voting (for all the good that does which only seems to count when it goes the way of the Left's establishment: see Trump). This has been part of the leftist agenda before people in the West ever realized how insipid it is.

Quote from: jhkim;1113040They should know the Constitution and our political system.

Agreed. Too bad it's not really taught well in public institutions any longer. At here at UT it's even a sketchy topic based on the infection of Leftism. I know it's far worse abroad.

Quote from: jhkim;1113040Ideally, they should come out able to point out Syria and Yemen on a map, for example, and even be able to say something about the conflicts there. And gay rights is also something that is frequently considered in political debates and legislatures - from outlawing conversion therapy to varying statutes on discrimination based on orientation.

Why stop there? When all science is in question now as the domain of "White Supremacy" - where things like Space itself its conjectured to not even exist but in the minds of White-people? Taught at a collegiate level no less. The problem is worse than you're requiring. It's FAR worse.

Quote from: jhkim;1113040If they come out of public school thinking that gays are people who take hormones to change their bodies, that's ignorance that will affect their voting -- which will be to the detriment of the the whole country.

People come out of school without the ability to do reading, writing and basic math. Much less understanding civics, critical thinking, and geography. I think you should prioritize a bit.

Quote from: jhkimBecause it's an issue that they will be voting on as adults. I believe that 18-year-old graduates of our public education system should be informed about basic facts of issues that they'll be voting on.

Quote from: tenbones;111304718-year old's are not children. These topics are being discussed much earlier than this for the exact reasons you're citing: to propagandize them for the purposes of voting (for all the good that does which only seems to count when it goes the way of the Left's establishment: see Trump). This has been part of the leftist agenda before people in the West ever realized how insipid it is.

I'm not saying that propaganda doesn't happen - but being informed of facts is different than being propagandized. School has always had a fair amount of propaganda - and continues to - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stand for teaching the truth.

The idea that gay people take hormones to change their bodies is dumbass, factually untrue bullshit. It's not propaganda to disabuse people of this idea - it's education.

For example in 2011, I taught my 9th grade integrated science students factual scientific data in a short segment about drugs. I found that contrasted often sharply with the mindless propaganda that they were being fed in their life course - which amounted to "Drugs are bad. Just say no." I felt like they took my teaching more seriously because I gave them real facts.

Along similar lines, I'm saying that students should know the U.S. Constitution and world politics as well as cultural issues and biology. It's impossible to avoid all bias, but we can at least try to convey factual truth. That gay people don't take hormone therapy is factually true - and students should learn this before they graduate.

Quote from: tenbones;1113047People come out of school without the ability to do reading, writing and basic math. Much less understanding civics, critical thinking, and geography. I think you should prioritize a bit.

I think that teaching reading, writing and basic math requires an application.  If you teach math in a vacuum, people can solve equations, but not figure out how to set up equations.  If you teach reading without giving material to read and analyze, well, there's only so much Dick and Jane people can take before they need something more substantial.  

Working on the most important things also means working on the fundamentals.

The Alphabet Community is 5% of the country, yet their issues need to be hammered into every school grade?

In contrast, Chinese Americans make up 1.5% of the country, thus 1/3 of the time we spend wanking about gay issues needs to spent discussing what's up with Chinese Americans. Blacks are 13%, so x2.5 class time is needed for them, and Latinos are 18% so they need x3.5 time on their issues.

Or we could decide schools aren't liberal indoctrination centers and instead focus on teaching the skills necessary for the kids to succeed as independent adults in rapidly changing technological society.

LOL. I made a funny!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113060In contrast, Chinese Americans make up 1.5% of the country, thus 1/3 of the time we spend wanking about gay issues needs to spent discussing what's up with Chinese Americans. Blacks are 13%, so x2.5 class time is needed for them, and Latinos are 18% so they need x3.5 time on their issues.

Or we could decide schools aren't liberal indoctrination centers and instead focus on teaching the skills necessary for the kids to succeed as independent adults in rapidly changing technological society.

LOL. I made a funny!

Talking about the experiences of other Americans outside of your personal monkey-sphere is not wasted time, nor is anyone indicating that the amount of time spent be proportional to the demographic in society.  If that were the case, we would spend a lot less time on white Americans... But there are certainly events that are important when talking about the founding and history of our nation.  Learning about Wounded Knee,the California Missions, the Battle of Little Bighorn and the Trail of Tears are only a few of the things that an educated American ought to know about intersections with Native Americans.  I'd certainly expect them to know about Jamestown, the  Wampanoag, Sacajawea and a few other things.  It's quite possible that it makes up more than 2% of US History being taught, and that's fine.  

I absolutely think that learning about Black Americans is worthwhile.  I would expect educated Americans to know about the Transatlantic slave trade, the underground railroad, the Emancipation Proclamation, Jim Crow, Segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, the 13th Amendment, Dred Scott, and the Real McCoy.  Whether that makes up 13% of what's taught in history class is immaterial.  

I expect students to learn about the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Union Pacific railroad, and the Boxer rebellion.

Cutting these things out to avoid politics is political and it makes dumber students.  Don't advocate for that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113060The Alphabet Community is 5% of the country, yet their issues need to be hammered into every school grade?

In contrast, Chinese Americans make up 1.5% of the country, thus 1/3 of the time we spend wanking about gay issues needs to spent discussing what's up with Chinese Americans. Blacks are 13%, so x2.5 class time is needed for them, and Latinos are 18% so they need x3.5 time on their issues.

Or we could decide schools aren't liberal indoctrination centers and instead focus on teaching the skills necessary for the kids to succeed as independent adults in rapidly changing technological society.

LOL. I made a funny!

If the schools teach how to think rather than what to think, there is a massive danger that the students will have wrongthoughts. And then they might discover that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes....

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064Cutting these things out to avoid politics is political and it makes dumber students.  Don't advocate for that.

We already are graduating morons. All the stuff you mentioned is already taught.

Unfortunately, we can't trust teachers to teach history anymore. Thanks to SJWs, TDS and the "everything is political" hysteria, history has become "bad whitey class" and masturbation about who's over who in the victimhood stack.

There is only limited classroom time. We're either going to spend it educating children into independent adults or we're going to be indoctrinating them into repeating liberal talking points ad nauseum.  [Protip: it's gonna be the latter]

Also, there's the question of whether history even matters. Yes, I know how shocking that statement might be, but I do wonder if History is better as a voluntary elective and Civics and Home Economics should be mandated classes. I know its heresy, but what is truly more important to an adult's daily life? Knowing a bunch of stuff that (maybe) happened in the past? Or knowing how their government works now and how to maneuver the world as an adult?  

And I wonder if more adults would be curious about history if it wasn't that boring as fuck class of endless and meaningless names, places and dates they had to sit through in school.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064I expect students to learn about the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Union Pacific railroad, and the Boxer rebellion.

Are you sure? Union Pacific is for Big Boys

(https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/big-boy-4012.jpg)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113068Unfortunately, we can't trust teachers to teach history anymore. Thanks to SJWs, TDS and the "everything is political" hysteria, history has become "bad whitey class" and masturbation about who's over who in the victimhood stack.

I recently made a group of my Human Biology students read J. Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and I was a bit amused when some students (most notably a Chinese one) cringed at some passages that seemed infused with white guilt (her words, not mine, but looking at it again I had to agree). There is some hope for the younger generations after all. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113068And I wonder if more adults would be curious about history if it wasn't that boring as fuck class of endless and meaningless names, places and dates they had to sit through in school.

They should use Dan Carlins Hardcore History.  That would solve the boring part of History.

Quote from: RandyB;1113067And then they might discover that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes....

Why don't we ever hear about a hot empress in that fable?

It's always just a royal schlongfest.

Quote from: jhkim;1113030The supposed China/India birth boom is simply false. China in particular is quite the opposite. They have a critical birth shortage - with a lower fertility rate than the U.S. even after relaxing their one-child policy. India does have a higher birth rate than the U.S., but it has been dropping rapidly for decades. Here's a graph of fertility rate (births per woman) from World Bank data:

Despite their falling birth rates their population is still a much greater factor in overpopulation compared to the West's population. You CTRL-LEFT propaganda spreading dipshit.

Quote from: jhkim;1113054For example in 2011, I taught my 9th grade integrated science students factual scientific data in a short segment about drugs.

No wonder you are down playing the propaganda in education since given your stances on here. No doubt  you have your students  nicely brainwashed. I am sure the science was properly decolonised before you imparted it to your students.

Quote from: jhkim;1113054I'm not saying that propaganda doesn't happen - but being informed of facts is different than being propagandized. School has always had a fair amount of propaganda - and continues to - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stand for teaching the truth.

The idea that gay people take hormones to change their bodies is dumbass, factually untrue bullshit. It's not propaganda to disabuse people of this idea - it's education.

For example in 2011, I taught my 9th grade integrated science students factual scientific data in a short segment about drugs. I found that contrasted often sharply with the mindless propaganda that they were being fed in their life course - which amounted to "Drugs are bad. Just say no." I felt like they took my teaching more seriously because I gave them real facts.

Along similar lines, I'm saying that students should know the U.S. Constitution and world politics as well as cultural issues and biology. It's impossible to avoid all bias, but we can at least try to convey factual truth. That gay people don't take hormone therapy is factually true - and students should learn this before they graduate.

I will note that what you may contend are facts, can in fact, be highly contested. To pretend that your "facts" are always the "facts" goes to the ideological nature of education and why we have to be careful to present many points of view.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113088Why don't we ever hear about a hot empress in that fable?

It's always just a royal schlongfest.

"... and he's not all that impressive, either."

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113088Why don't we ever hear about a hot empress in that fable?

It's always just a royal schlongfest.

It would distract from the moral if everyone actually enjoyed seeing the naked person (and if said person were arguably naked to show off). :D

Progressive version of the Emperor's New clothes.

It's a female Emperor (not an Empress, because that would be heteronormative) and she can't be naked because that would be the objectification of the female body, and oh dear, what about a non-binary Emperor? What was the moral of the story again? I've lost track.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113097I will note that what you may contend are facts, can in fact, be highly contested. To pretend that your "facts" are always the "facts" goes to the ideological nature of education and why we have to be careful to present many points of view.

Are you actually disputing the facts that I've claimed in this thread? Or is it more of a theoretical point?

There are places in education where different points of view should be taught. But particularly as a science teacher, I don't believe in teaching wishy-washy muddle that everyone's opinion is valid. There is an objective reality that doesn't care about feelings or whether someone is offended.

I do think that students need to learn how to distinguish objective reality, not just be told from authority. Science is a process, and many results - particularly at the cutting edge - can be overturned. But that doesn't mean that everyone's point of view is valid, and we should give out participation prizes for every answer. Some answers are just wrong.

I welcome being challenged on points that I've made. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll try to honestly consider if so. But even if I'm wrong on a point, that doesn't mean that all opinions are valid.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064Talking about the experiences of other Americans outside of your personal monkey-sphere is not wasted time, nor is anyone indicating that the amount of time spent be proportional to the demographic in society.  If that were the case, we would spend a lot less time on white Americans... But there are certainly events that are important when talking about the founding and history of our nation.  Learning about Wounded Knee,the California Missions, the Battle of Little Bighorn and the Trail of Tears are only a few of the things that an educated American ought to know about intersections with Native Americans.  I'd certainly expect them to know about Jamestown, the  Wampanoag, Sacajawea and a few other things.  It's quite possible that it makes up more than 2% of US History being taught, and that's fine.

But that's not what's happening. What's happening is we're trying to redefine reality by attempting to FIX the past. This is the same mechanisms that drive tribalism under the auspices of "revenge". This is how people ended up killing Franz Ferdinand without thinking it would lead to WWI (and WWII)...

Learning about history is not the same thing as legislating revenge policies like "reparations" when the equality of the system is already largely established. And at NO point is anyone obligated to consume the past to the satisfaction of others emotional invested needs. That's what you're advocating for with your intersectional lunacy.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064I absolutely think that learning about Black Americans is worthwhile.  I would expect educated Americans to know about the Transatlantic slave trade, the underground railroad, the Emancipation Proclamation, Jim Crow, Segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, the 13th Amendment, Dred Scott, and the Real McCoy.  Whether that makes up 13% of what's taught in history class is immaterial.

REEAAAALLLLY? And what specifically about those things have led you to believe Intersectional politics is designed to prevent these things when it's actually trying to recreate them on a grand scale?

Ironically - I have yet to hear you, or anyone else speak about MY people's 350+years of slavery to the Spanish and de-facto control by the U.S. despite our average better-than-white-people outcomes... Why is that? Why do people that believe in Social Justice pick and choose who is served first in their endless line of outrages and calls for history-fixing? Especially when they're largely not even the people in question... It seems awfully racist on its face doesn't it?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064I expect students to learn about the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Union Pacific railroad, and the Boxer rebellion.

Cutting these things out to avoid politics is political and it makes dumber students.  Don't advocate for that.

Or using those things to advance outrage politics for the purposes of power-grabbing right now - while advocating for the very things that are actually racist while pretending they're not. All while making people dumber... and more pliable. How convenient! It's like gaslighting dummies by saying Win/Win! when it's really Lose/Lose.

Teaching people "history" without teaching them actual critical thinking IS the politics of education in action. All the more reason for parents to take care of their kids - not rely on the "System" - and look at the roots of every single policy you listed there and who supported those things legislatively in context. You'll see those same analogs doing the "history fixing" and promoting Intersectional Studies, and engaging in outrage politics in/around Social Media today.

It's not that surprising really. Just like it won't be surprising what the outcomes of this idiocy is. I often wonder if there were cafe's around the turn of the last century having coffee talking about the state of the world with assholes screeching about the need for Serbian nationalists to make a move! And others saying - "Man if that happens, shit could really flare up. Bad idea..." I'm sure it happened... I have no evidence. Bad ideas rarely happen in vacuums. This shit going on now certainly isn't unique in that.

People oddly pretend it is.

Quote from: jhkim;1113119Are you actually disputing the facts that I've claimed in this thread? Or is it more of a theoretical point?

There are places in education where different points of view should be taught. But particularly as a science teacher, I don't believe in teaching wishy-washy muddle that everyone's opinion is valid. There is an objective reality that doesn't care about feelings or whether someone is offended.

I do think that students need to learn how to distinguish objective reality, not just be told from authority. Science is a process, and many results - particularly at the cutting edge - can be overturned. But that doesn't mean that everyone's point of view is valid, and we should give out participation prizes for every answer. Some answers are just wrong.

I welcome being challenged on points that I've made. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll try to honestly consider if so. But even if I'm wrong on a point, that doesn't mean that all opinions are valid.

More of a theoretical point, if I intended to challenge you on a point you have made, I will, and there won't be any questions about it. I am not talking about being wishy washy, I am talking about things that are hotly contested in science and yet are only presented in one way in education. An example being evolution. There are major problems with Neodarwinism and yet in all my years in public school, none of these were ever addressed, even at the college level. It is treated as fact, when in fact, there are major issues with his theory, particularly in explaining the Cambrian explosion. Darwin himself acknowledged that fact, particularly after receiving Aggiz's critique of his theory. It has yet to be properly explained, and yet I only learned of it through independent reading. You cannot in the face of this, say there isn't an ideological bent being purveyed in education, even scientific education.

Yes, but are you the one to determine which answers are "just wrong"? Our climate debate is a good example of this, you believe you are right, I believe you are wrong to just accept the "prevailing" opinion wholesale. Once again, I would bet you never would admit to your students that there are some good reasons to doubt everything we are being told about the climate. You have made an overarching decision that you are right, and therefore are teaching on that basis, in that case a somewhat specious basis. In other words, often what you might perceive as an objective reality isn't complete or true, and is only accepted by you because it fits your bias. The fact that you phrase it this way is interesting in that it puts you in the position of the arbiter of objective reality, which we all know you are not, and the fact that you seem to believe you are speaks volumes.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113064I absolutely think that learning about Black Americans is worthwhile.  I would expect educated Americans to know about the Transatlantic slave trade, the underground railroad, the Emancipation Proclamation, Jim Crow, Segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, the 13th Amendment, Dred Scott, and the Real McCoy.

As long as it has been filtered of anything that does not conform to the internationalist jihadist propaganda. Such as the fact that  most of the Trans-Atlantic slaves  were not kidnapped by whitey wading ashore and stealing people from their utopian villages but were actually bought from other Africans.  This version is already very well represented by the media and you want to double down and make it mandatory in schools.

Quote from: tenbones;1113129...People oddly pretend it is.

Well put.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1112286Very true. 18 should be the age of adulthood. Make it a hard line for everything. Sex / Car / Booze / Marriage / Drugs / etc

Welcome to Australia :cool:

Quote from: shuddemell;1113201I am not talking about being wishy washy, I am talking about things that are hotly contested in science and yet are only presented in one way in education. An example being evolution. There are major problems with Neodarwinism and yet in all my years in public school, none of these were ever addressed, even at the college level. It is treated as fact, when in fact, there are major issues with his theory

I agree that things which are contested should not be taught as settled science. However, I strongly disagree that evolution is hotly contested within science. Nearly all scientists accept evolution as an established and thoroughly-supported scientific principle, because it is. The push to teach more criticism of evolution and/or Creationism in schools comes overwhelmingly from religious and political figures, not scientists.

There are some places where I can see liberal bias in education, but teaching evolution isn't one of them. I know plenty of conservatives - especially libertarian-leaning - who are pro-science and think teaching evolution is fine.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113201Yes, but are you the one to determine which answers are "just wrong"? Our climate debate is a good example of this, you believe you are right, I believe you are wrong to just accept the "prevailing" opinion wholesale.

You're using quotes around prevailing as if it isn't actually prevailing, but that seems like saying evolution is hotly contested. If something actually is contested in the field, then I agree it should be taught as controversial.

However, established principles should be taught as established. Economics classes should teach the mainstream, accepted views of economists; music classes should teach the mainstream, accepted views of musicians; and science classes should teach the mainstream, accepted views of scientists.

I don't think it's either practical or reasonable to teach all the fringes. For example, mainstream economics favors capitalism. I don't think that we should give equal weight to Marxist theory just because some people advocate for it. Similarly, music class should teach the common scales and notations of mainstream musicians (scaled from A to G). Students can learn that other approaches to music exist, but they won't be covered in standard schooling.

Quote from: Gagarth;1113202As long as it has been filtered of anything that does not conform to the internationalist jihadist propaganda. Such as the fact that  most of the Trans-Atlantic slaves  were not kidnapped by whitey wading ashore and stealing people from their utopian villages but were actually bought from other Africans.  This version is already very well represented by the media and you want to double down and make it mandatory in schools.

When I learned about the slave trade, I learned about the willing participation/collaboration of Africans.  

That does not absolve Europeans of their involvement.  Nor does it automatically imply that anyone with light skin automatically has a debt to anyone with dark skin payable today in the form of reparations, but slavery was a pretty big deal, and we're still dealing with the ramifications of it.  Slavery wasn't a thing that happened one time in 1619 - it was a powerful institution that warped society around it to permit, justify, and enforce the world that it demanded.  Slavery may have ended in 1865, but the stigma of slavery didn't disappear overnight.  Former slaves weren't automatically granted equal opportunity to pursue an education or live equal and independent lives integrated into the upper echelon of American society.  Instead, the descendants of the slavers tried to continue to justify the system that had been abolished by demeaning and diminishing the humanity of the emancipated slaves.  Instead of joining hands and building a society of mutual trust and admiration, racial terrorists rose up to brazenly murder (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/map-shows-over-a-century-of-documented-lynchings-in-united-states-180961877/) American citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts.  They law was used as a tool of oppression, disenfranchisement, and segregation.  Just over 150 years ago, slavery was still legal.  100 years ago was a period known as the Red Summer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer) where anti-black riots killed hundreds.  Just over 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr was murdered for peacefully advocating for equal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Redlining, which has probably contributed more to the white/black wealth gap than any other issue, while illegal, continues to be a problem with a recent $200 Million settlement with Associated Bank in 2015.  

It's good to learn about slavery, and a part of that is learning that slavery wasn't an invention of Europeans, but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world.  The thing about history is that it doesn't end - the threads that connect us to the past also connect us to the future.  As informed citizens we have to decide what legacy we pass down - we can't change the HISTORY that has already occurred, but we can choose policies that shape the future in ways that our past failings don't continue to punish innocent people born hundreds of years after these mistakes first occurred.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113241When I learned about the slave trade, I learned about the willing participation/collaboration of Africans.  

That does not absolve Europeans of their involvement.  Nor does it automatically imply that anyone with light skin automatically has a debt to anyone with dark skin payable today in the form of reparations, but slavery was a pretty big deal, and we're still dealing with the ramifications of it.  Slavery wasn't a thing that happened one time in 1619 - it was a powerful institution that warped society around it to permit, justify, and enforce the world that it demanded.  Slavery may have ended in 1865, but the stigma of slavery didn't disappear overnight.  Former slaves weren't automatically granted equal opportunity to pursue an education or live equal and independent lives integrated into the upper echelon of American society.  Instead, the descendants of the slavers tried to continue to justify the system that had been abolished by demeaning and diminishing the humanity of the emancipated slaves.  Instead of joining hands and building a society of mutual trust and admiration, racial terrorists rose up to brazenly murder (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/map-shows-over-a-century-of-documented-lynchings-in-united-states-180961877/) American citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts.  They law was used as a tool of oppression, disenfranchisement, and segregation.  Just over 150 years ago, slavery was still legal.  100 years ago was a period known as the Red Summer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer) where anti-black riots killed hundreds.  Just over 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr was murdered for peacefully advocating for equal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Redlining, which has probably contributed more to the white/black wealth gap than any other issue, while illegal, continues to be a problem with a recent $200 Million settlement with Associated Bank in 2015.  

It's good to learn about slavery, and a part of that is learning that slavery wasn't an invention of Europeans, but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world.  The thing about history is that it doesn't end - the threads that connect us to the past also connect us to the future.  As informed citizens we have to decide what legacy we pass down - we can't change the HISTORY that has already occurred, but we can choose policies that shape the future in ways that our past failings don't continue to punish innocent people born hundreds of years after these mistakes first occurred.

1. Slavery dates back thousands of years to before recorded history and has been part of every culture throughout history.
2. Back in the centuries BC India and China came to the east coast of Africa and bought slaves from the coastal tribes. (and would steal them when it was easy to do) China imported only male slaves which they turned in eunuchs and used them for bodyguards and it was a status symbol for them, but no interbreeding because of the racial purity culture of the far east. India imported male and female slaves and centuries and there was ongoing interbreeding during the entire period.
3. Rome and other kingdoms before them trafficked in slaves as a basic tenant of all of their cultures and every ancient empire was built on the back of slavery.
4. The Muslim from there very beginning built a culture centered around the institution of slavery. They conquered all of Africa to its very southern tip, except for Ethiopia. Their modus operandi was convert or die. They killed and raped across the whole continent of Africa for hundreds of years. They took slaves by the millions, they typically killed all the men, and took the women and children back to the middle east. Women and girls went into their harems and the boys were made into eunuchs.
5. The statement above "but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world" is a load of bullshit. Europeans did not change the scale, of what went before, but they did maintain the status quo.
6. It is popular for the last 60 years to blame all slavery on white Americans while ignoring the historical facts.
  A. Slavery post 1700's represent a tiny fraction of all slavery throughout history.
  B. Of the slaves brought to the western hemisphere only 5% came to the USA, the other 95% came to Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean.
  C. The bulk of these slaves were African being sold by other Africans.
  D. In the USA wealthy free blacks in all but two southern states also owned slaves all the way up to the Civil War.
7. Slavery continues in many parts of the world today mostly perpetuated by the Muslim world and East Asian world and Latin American World.

Also if I could go back in time, I would sink every slave ship on its way to Africa and zero slaves would have been brought from there to here. And if I could travel back in time, I would inoculate every native American against Old World diseases in every generation starting before the first contact.

This topic has made me realize I got a very good education over the years. Sounds like several of you here did too. :) Go hug your nearest teacher.

Quote from: ElBorak;11132571. Slavery dates back thousands of years to before recorded history and has been part of every culture throughout history.
2. Back in the centuries BC India and China came to the east coast of Africa and bought slaves from the coastal tribes. (and would steal them when it was easy to do) China imported only male slaves which they turned in eunuchs and used them for bodyguards and it was a status symbol for them, but no interbreeding because of the racial purity culture of the far east. India imported male and female slaves and centuries and there was ongoing interbreeding during the entire period.
3. Rome and other kingdoms before them trafficked in slaves as a basic tenant of all of their cultures and every ancient empire was built on the back of slavery.
4. The Muslim from there very beginning built a culture centered around the institution of slavery. They conquered all of Africa to its very southern tip, except for Ethiopia. Their modus operandi was convert or die. They killed and raped across the whole continent of Africa for hundreds of years. They took slaves by the millions, they typically killed all the men, and took the women and children back to the middle east. Women and girls went into their harems and the boys were made into eunuchs.
5. The statement above "but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world" is a load of bullshit. Europeans did not change the scale, of what went before, but they did maintain the status quo.
6. It is popular for the last 60 years to blame all slavery on white Americans while ignoring the historical facts.
  A. Slavery post 1700's represent a tiny fraction of all slavery throughout history.
  B. Of the slaves brought to the western hemisphere only 5% came to the USA, the other 95% came to Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean.
  C. The bulk of these slaves were African being sold by other Africans.
  D. In the USA wealthy free blacks in all but two southern states also owned slaves all the way up to the Civil War.
7. Slavery continues in many parts of the world today mostly perpetuated by the Muslim world and East Asian world and Latin American World.

Also if I could go back in time, I would sink every slave ship on its way to Africa and zero slaves would have been brought from there to here. And if I could travel back in time, I would inoculate every native American against Old World diseases in every generation starting before the first contact.

Greetings!

Excellent commentary, ElBorak!

I was going to thrash deadDMwalking for his soft Liberal ideas on history and education--but you rose to the challenge and said everything on my own mind quite well.

Liberals do not really like *true* History, because it reveals and exposes their whole "Victimhood Stack" games of identity politics they love to view the world through.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Elborak didn't add anything new to the conversation.  Slavery certainly pre-exists the discovery of the New World, but the practices prior to colonization definitely differ - the plantation slavery we are familiar with wasn't practiced by Muslim conquerors.  

In fact, both Muslims and Christians had rules against enslaving people of their own religion; but both could enslave the other.  The spread of Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa is a mischaracterization.

One Source (https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/islam-islam-sub-saharan-africa)

QuoteIslam in Africa was (as in many parts of the world where it reached) primarily an urban religion (with an urban ethos) which fostered commitment to its religious system, ranging from ethnic self-identity to Islamic self-identity, universal and trans-ethnic in scope. Islamic penetration in the rural areas, on the other hand, made slow infiltration over a long period of time with significant gains awaiting a much later period. The religion therefore entered much of Africa peacefully through the agency of trade and later gained status after the migrant community (purveyors of the written word and the visual symbols of Islam) became integrated into the political structure.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113259This topic has made me realize I got a very good education over the years. Sounds like several of you here did too. :) Go hug your nearest teacher.

Fuck that. Some critical thinking and a love of reading will take you much farther.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113274Elborak didn't add anything new to the conversation.  

Well, you already add plenty of comic relief.....

Quote from: ElBorak;11132573. Rome and other kingdoms before them trafficked in slaves as a basic tenant of all of their cultures and every ancient empire was built on the back of slavery.
4. The Muslim from there very beginning built a culture centered around the institution of slavery. They conquered all of Africa to its very southern tip, except for Ethiopia. Their modus operandi was convert or die. They killed and raped across the whole continent of Africa for hundreds of years. They took slaves by the millions, they typically killed all the men, and took the women and children back to the middle east. Women and girls went into their harems and the boys were made into eunuchs.
5. The statement above "but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world" is a load of bullshit. Europeans did not change the scale, of what went before, but they did maintain the status quo.

Much of this seems more like spin doctoring rather than actual differences. Slavery is an ancient institution, everyone is agreed. On the other hand, the European money and guns did make a huge change in the African slave trade. I'd compare it to the Mexican drug cartels being driven by enormous amounts of American money.

As a side note, Islam's spread went with military conquest, but it was generally not "convert or die" nor was it standard to kill all men. That's clear hyperbole. During the mid-to-late medieval era, Muslim countries were often more tolerant of other religions than Christian - in part because they taxed non-believers at a higher rate. So it was monetarily better for the Muslim conquerors if the populace did *not* convert. That's not to say that they weren't militant or slavery-based, but not particularly moreso than the Roman and Byzantine empires. Medieval Egypt, say, had a ton of Mamluk slaves - but they were often *armed* slaves who made up a big part of the military. That's a peculiar position that's quite different than African slaves in the New World.

The numbers of slaves taken and brought to the New World was a massive upscaling of the prior slave trade in Africa.

Quote from: jhkim;1113294Medieval Egypt, say, had a ton of Mamluk slaves - but they were often *armed* slaves who made up a big part of the military. That's a peculiar position that's quite different than African slaves in the New World.

Armed slaves are not so unusual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries

Quote from: jhkim;1113233I agree that things which are contested should not be taught as settled science. However, I strongly disagree that evolution is hotly contested within science. Nearly all scientists accept evolution as an established and thoroughly-supported scientific principle, because it is. The push to teach more criticism of evolution and/or Creationism in schools comes overwhelmingly from religious and political figures, not scientists..

You are wrong about aspects of evolution being hotly contested. Stephen Jay Gould even declared NeoDarwinism dead, and there are a host of paleontologist and biologists who realize that Darwin's theory of evolution is insufficient and contradicted by much of the paleontological evidence. The Burgess Shale and Fuxian Shale discoveries showing no clear antecedents to a large number of species that suddenly developed during the Cambrian period. I am not talking about creationism, I am talking about the obvious inadequacies of the NeoDarwinian theory. Information theory is also calling into question the biological information explosion that took place during the Cambrian as being untenable according to Darwinian tenants. Darwin's theory is workable in many circumstances, but being taught as if it is "settled" science, is ascientific and wrong. I am not suggesting not teaching evolution, I am suggesting that when teaching evolution, you need to teach where the theory fails, and well as where it succeeds. To do less definitely imparts an ideological bent to the education.

Also, my reference to "prevailing" was toward climate science not evolution.

The issue with teaching "mainstream" is who decides what mainstream is? Sometimes it is pretty obvious, sometimes not so much, but I tend to believe that you believe, whatever you deem mainstream is mainstream, and once again this applies an ideological bent to education. I don't actually believe you can educate without doing that to some degree, but to pretend you are not doing that and are only a purveyor of "facts" is self delusion of a high order. Also, do you not see the irony of deciding what are suitable facts and then purporting to teach critical thinking?

In special education, its common to wear multiple hats so I taught 6th grade earth science for 3 years. I made a big point of teaching the difference between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY because as a student, I found many teachers treated them as the same thing. It's the THEORY of evolution, and while a very good theory, its got holes. And that's okay. It's okay for us to debate theories, especially as scientific laws can even come into question when new evidence is discovered.

And Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1113241When I learned about the slave trade, I learned about the willing participation/collaboration of Africans.  

That does not absolve Europeans of their involvement.  Nor does it automatically imply that anyone with light skin automatically has a debt to anyone with dark skin payable today in the form of reparations, but slavery was a pretty big deal, and we're still dealing with the ramifications of it.  Slavery wasn't a thing that happened one time in 1619 - it was a powerful institution that warped society around it to permit, justify, and enforce the world that it demanded.  Slavery may have ended in 1865, but the stigma of slavery didn't disappear overnight.  Former slaves weren't automatically granted equal opportunity to pursue an education or live equal and independent lives integrated into the upper echelon of American society.  Instead, the descendants of the slavers tried to continue to justify the system that had been abolished by demeaning and diminishing the humanity of the emancipated slaves.  Instead of joining hands and building a society of mutual trust and admiration, racial terrorists rose up to brazenly murder (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/map-shows-over-a-century-of-documented-lynchings-in-united-states-180961877/) American citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts.  They law was used as a tool of oppression, disenfranchisement, and segregation.  Just over 150 years ago, slavery was still legal.  100 years ago was a period known as the Red Summer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer) where anti-black riots killed hundreds.  Just over 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr was murdered for peacefully advocating for equal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Redlining, which has probably contributed more to the white/black wealth gap than any other issue, while illegal, continues to be a problem with a recent $200 Million settlement with Associated Bank in 2015.  

It's good to learn about slavery, and a part of that is learning that slavery wasn't an invention of Europeans, but it's also learning about how they industrialized it on a scale hitherto never seen in the world.  The thing about history is that it doesn't end - the threads that connect us to the past also connect us to the future.  As informed citizens we have to decide what legacy we pass down - we can't change the HISTORY that has already occurred, but we can choose policies that shape the future in ways that our past failings don't continue to punish innocent people born hundreds of years after these mistakes first occurred.

No one said it absolved Europeans.  You learned about participation/collaboration of Africans meaning that it was mentioned and then never mentioned again.  Anyway enabled is a better word to use than participation or collaboration when used to describe the African involvement in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade . How much time was spent on Trans-Saharan slave trade, or Trans-Indian slave trade or the vast numbers of  Europeans kidnapped by North African slavers?    Why are you people always so fixated with Trans-Atlantic slavery terminating in the Unites States? Try being a bit more inclusive.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113306In special education, its common to wear multiple hats so I taught 6th grade earth science for 3 years. I made a big point of teaching the difference between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY because as a student, I found many teachers treated them as the same thing. It's the THEORY of evolution, and while a very good theory, its got holes. And that's okay. It's okay for us to debate theories, especially as scientific laws can even come into question when new evidence is discovered.

And Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.

Then you taught your students wrong, a Scientific Theory is above Scientific Law, most times it involves and explains several laws.

Failure to home-school is child abuse.

[video=youtube;_QBf1rSFtkw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QBf1rSFtkw[/youtube]

Quote from: SpinachcatI made a big point of teaching the difference between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY because as a student, I found many teachers treated them as the same thing. It's the THEORY of evolution, and while a very good theory, its got holes. And that's okay. It's okay for us to debate theories, especially as scientific laws can even come into question when new evidence is discovered.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113325Then you taught your students wrong, a Scientific Theory is above Scientific Law, most times it involves and explains several laws.

I'm not sure what Spinachcat taught, but GeekyBugle sounds more like what I'd say. The biggest misconception is that a theory is upgraded into a law, which isn't how it works. Here a simplified explanation:

https://blog.ed.ted.com/2016/06/07/whats-the-difference-between-a-scientific-law-and-theory-in-ted-ed-gifs/


I'd say that there are debates *within* evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean we should present grade-school evolution as a whole as if it isn't thoroughly-supported, accepted science. Within my field of particle physics, gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces, and it is still being investigated - like with the LIGO experiment in Washington. However, it's wrong to say that the theory of gravity is hotly debated or that it has holes in it. (other than black holes :-) )

So what's the consensus boys and girls?

aw fuck, I screwed up, didn't I?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3975[/ATTACH]

I don't think any of you really get it ;)

A natural law is something innate to nature, something that can be discovered or hypothesized about. But whatever we think of it doesn't really matter or change the law.
A scientific hypothesis is an idea, or educated guess usually about something very specific e.g. how a specific natural law would affect a specific system.
Theory is usually a set of hypotheses (usually pretty well tested) explaining the larger relationships in nature, e.g. theory of particle physics, theory of evolution.

Quote from: Trond;1113379A natural law is something innate to nature, something that can be discovered or hypothesized about. But whatever we think of it doesn't really matter or change the law.
A scientific hypothesis is an idea, or educated guess usually about something very specific e.g. how a specific natural law would affect a specific system.
Theory is usually a set of hypotheses (usually pretty well tested) explaining the larger relationships in nature, e.g. theory of particle physics, theory of evolution.

Maybe some examples would help? Here's typical usage as I've seen it:

Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Coulomb's Law

Theory of Relativity
Quantum Theory

Usually something called a "law" is a simple quantitative relationship or truism, while a "theory" is a more comprehensive explanation.

Both laws and theories can be overturned with new data. For example, the law of conservation of parity was overturned by the discovery of CP violation.

The real distinction is between a hypothesis and a theory. Law is typically synonymous with an applied theory, usually mathematical but not necessarily. A theory in science is something that has been tested by experiment, or supported by direct observation, and proved to reliably explain the results. (Doesn't mean it isn't wrong or incomplete, but it does have a body of evidence to support is likely being true). Whereas a hypothesis is a hypothetical explanation that has yet to be tested by experiment or evidence, though it's tenants are often based on established theories or laws.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113325Then you taught your students wrong, a Scientific Theory is above Scientific Law, most times it involves and explains several laws.

It wasn't an issue of theory being above a law. It was the issue of accepted facts based on our current understanding being in different categories. We can observe and test natural laws. We can sometimes do the same with theories, but often we can only observe, so not all theories are testable.

AKA, we can't test the theory of evolution in the same sense we can test the laws of motion or thermodynamics. We can do remarkable genetic research to understand how the human brain evolved from the monkey brain, but we are not yet in a position to test out how to turn a monkey into a human.

Overall, it was the issue of how "settled science" can be overturned with new discoveries. AKA, those of us who grew up with pre-Voyager textbooks learned very different "astronomy facts" than post-Voyager books. In K-12, science is taught the same as everything else. The teacher and textbook have immutable facts, but our scientific understanding of the universe keeps expanding, so our texts are not immutable. Our texts are only a snapshot of what we currently understand.

BTW, Saturn just got 20 new moons.
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/saturn-surpasses-jupiter-after-discovery-20-new-moons-and-you-can-help-name-them

Quote from: Shasarak;1113362[ATTACH=CONFIG]3975[/ATTACH]

I've been meme'd! This day shalt live in infamy!

Quote from: jhkim;1113384Maybe some examples would help? Here's typical usage as I've seen it:

Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Coulomb's Law

Theory of Relativity
Quantum Theory

Usually something called a "law" is a simple quantitative relationship or truism, while a "theory" is a more comprehensive explanation.

Both laws and theories can be overturned with new data. For example, the law of conservation of parity was overturned by the discovery of CP violation.

Yup, gravity exists wherever there is mass, no matter what we think of it, so we could call that a law of nature. We have a theory of gravity (which is many tested ideas) to try to explain it. I guess gravitons are hypothetical (?) and might prove to be wrong.

Of course our ideas of the existence of a specific natural law could be wrong, but the laws themselves are there either way, and they can be discovered or hypothesized about.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113398It wasn't an issue of theory being above a law. It was the issue of accepted facts based on our current understanding being in different categories. We can observe and test natural laws. We can sometimes do the same with theories, but often we can only observe, so not all theories are testable.

AKA, we can't test the theory of evolution in the same sense we can test the laws of motion or thermodynamics. We can do remarkable genetic research to understand how the human brain evolved from the monkey brain, but we are not yet in a position to test out how to turn a monkey into a human.

Overall, it was the issue of how "settled science" can be overturned with new discoveries. AKA, those of us who grew up with pre-Voyager textbooks learned very different "astronomy facts" than post-Voyager books. In K-12, science is taught the same as everything else. The teacher and textbook have immutable facts, but our scientific understanding of the universe keeps expanding, so our texts are not immutable. Our texts are only a snapshot of what we currently understand.

BTW, Saturn just got 20 new moons.
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/saturn-surpasses-jupiter-after-discovery-20-new-moons-and-you-can-help-name-them



I've been meme'd! This day shalt live in infamy!

We not only have tested Evolutionary Theory, those tests have made us change it in specific things (re Puntuacted Equilibrium)..

This sounds like a rephrasing of the "Macro-Evolution" vs "Micro-Evolution". There's no such difference except in the Creationists videos.

We don't need to be able to turn a monkey into a human, not only because we can (and have) test it on lesser beings. But because humans are monkeys.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113415We not only have tested Evolutionary Theory, those tests have made us change it in specific things (re Puntuacted Equilibrium)..

Punctuated equilibrium is more an observation than a method. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual transition from one species to the next, it shows species with minor variation over a period of time, and then they vanish and are replaced with a new species. The concept of evolution is (for all practical purposes) universally accepted, but despite Darwin's title, and a few witnessed instances among plants and butterflies, the origin of species is still kind of a mystery. It's tough to test because of the time scales involved, and with horizontal gene transfer, biosymbiosis, and epigenetics, it's turned out to be a lot more complicated than Mendel, or even Watson and Crick, imagined. That's a stark contrast with gravity, which is known to a great degree of precision, and the big question that remains is how to integrate it with quantum theory.

It's okay to admit what we don't know, that's an important part of the process of expanding our knowledge.

You should all look at the evidence from the Burgess Shale and Maotian Shale as there is NO workable theory to explain the Cambrian Explosion. Darwininism doesn't come close to explaining it adequately. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, no matter how widely accepted, no matter how elegant your theory, if it doesn't agree with observations, it is wrong.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113421You should all look at the evidence from the Burgess Shale and Maotian Shale as there is NO workable theory to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

Eyes.

Quote from: Pat;1113419The concept of evolution is (for all practical purposes) universally accepted, but despite Darwin's title, and a few witnessed instances among plants and butterflies, the origin of species is still kind of a mystery. It's tough to test because of the time scales involved, and with horizontal gene transfer, biosymbiosis, and epigenetics, it's turned out to be a lot more complicated than Mendel, or even Watson and Crick, imagined. That's a stark contrast with gravity, which is known to a great degree of precision, and the big question that remains is how to integrate it with quantum theory.

I think the parallel is actually pretty close. Gravity is only barely testable in the lab, because it is so weak. We know that it exists and have measured it, but know almost nothing about the mechanism of *how* it operates. Even the gravitational constant isn't very well known, compared to other forces. Here's a table of some recent measurements:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3976[/ATTACH]
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06028-6

That's very similar to evolution -- where the fossil record shows unquestionably that species do evolve into each other, but the details of the genetic mechanisms have yet to be fully explained.

If there were any politics around gravity, then critics would be seizing on the discrepancies in the graph above to say that gravity scientists don't really know what they're talking about, and there are holes in the theory.

Quote from: jhkim;1113434That's very similar to evolution -- where the fossil record shows unquestionably that species do evolve into each other, but the details of the genetic mechanisms have yet to be fully explained.

If there were any politics around gravity, then critics would be seizing on the discrepancies in the graph above to say that gravity scientists don't really know what they're talking about, and there are holes in the theory.

I don't think they're equivalent. With gravity, they can make some pretty precise predictions, even in truly extreme cases like black holes. It only breaks down in very specialized areas that are mostly outside the human condition, like the boundary between the quantum and macro realms. And while the ultimate mechanism (graviton?) may be unknown, that's mostly an abstract question; we have a good feel for what it does.

By comparison, your statement about evolution is false: The fossil record does not show species evolving into other species. There are plenty of transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and Ambulocetus, but they're between higher level taxa (dinosaurs/birds, fish/amphibians, and land animals/whales, in those three cases). We can then take all those fossils, and place them into phylogenic trees based on their characteristics and stratiography; and over time, we've developed a fairly good idea of the major groups and how they relate. But at the most basic level, i.e. how a new species emerges, it's not clear.

Quote from: Pat;1113419Punctuated equilibrium is more an observation than a method. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual transition from one species to the next, it shows species with minor variation over a period of time, and then they vanish and are replaced with a new species. The concept of evolution is (for all practical purposes) universally accepted, but despite Darwin's title, and a few witnessed instances among plants and butterflies, the origin of species is still kind of a mystery. It's tough to test because of the time scales involved, and with horizontal gene transfer, biosymbiosis, and epigenetics, it's turned out to be a lot more complicated than Mendel, or even Watson and Crick, imagined. That's a stark contrast with gravity, which is known to a great degree of precision, and the big question that remains is how to integrate it with quantum theory.

It's okay to admit what we don't know, that's an important part of the process of expanding our knowledge.

If by "TheOrigen of Species" you mean the origin of life yes, you're correct, if instead you mean how a new species evolves from another we know exactly how it works and we can even do it on purpose.

As for predictions, the theory predicted we we're closely related to chimps, and lo and behold, genetics confirms it.

By looking at a flower with it's pollen hidden into a very deep and narrow tube it was predicted we would find some pollinizer capable to reach it, and lo and behold it was discovered.

Ring species also serve as evidence of evolution, where the close by species can interbreed but you go one step beyond and they can't.

Horses and Donkeys can still produce offspring, but their offspring is infertile, like the theory predicts.

Antibiotic resistant diseases are also predicted by the theory.

We can see evolution at work (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/foxy-behavior-russian-fox-farm-uncovered-basis-canine-domestication/).

Also punctuated equilibrium is one change made to the theory based on observations.

You better hope evolution is real and we understand it well enough since many medical and crop R&D depend heavily on we knowing this stuff.

Edited to add:

PREDICTIONS (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113443If by "TheOrigen of Species" you mean the origin of life yes, you're correct, if instead you mean how a new species evolves from another we know exactly how it works and we can even do it on purpose.

I never said anything about the origin of life, I was very specific that we don't have a clear idea how new species emerge. And we don't.

Nothing else you said has any bearing on that topic, it's just a random collection of unrelated simplistic truisms and not-really-truisms about evolution in general. For instance, genetic sequencing didn't prove anything about our relationship to chimps, we already had overwhelming morphological, chemical, and stratiographic evidence. What it did was clarify things like our degree of genetic similarity, and when our lineages diverged. Or the part about medical and crop R&D, which don't really have anything to do with evolution. They have to with breeding, genetics, and CRISPR. Or horses and donkeys -- mules and hinnies have existed since before the sciences emerged from natural history, so nothing could have been predicted, because it was already known. Not only that, it wouldn't have predicted anything -- fertile offspring, infertile offspring, and complete infertility are largely determined by testing. There's no magical difference in taxonomic rank that determines any of them, it's more widespread among plants, and microbes pass entire stretches of DNA back and forth making them all effectively a single species.

Quote from: jhkim;1113340I'm not sure what Spinachcat taught, but GeekyBugle sounds more like what I'd say.

6th grade Earth Science for 3 of my 10 years as a classroom teacher. I mentioned it earlier in this thread as special education teachers often wear various hats. I primarily taught math (pre-K to algebra) and language skills (all levels), and a couple years of sex education and civics (oddly, that was a combo job at 2 different schools I taught at).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113415We not only have tested Evolutionary Theory, those tests have made us change it in specific things (re Puntuacted Equilibrium)

I am familiar with GMO mice and the gene sequencing experiments. But that's direct intervention on a genetic level, not the natural evolution of a species in the wild based on how we believe evolution works.

But maybe you're referencing other tests. I'm happy to learn more because remember, I'm not challenging evolutionary theory, only pointing out that in general, science isn't as settled as its made out to be.

There's a big chasm between Creationism and acknowledging there's incomplete aspects in our understanding. If Creationists want to claim that incompleteness equals proof for Bible literalism, there's no set of facts that's gonna stop them.

Also, as a devout cultist of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't worry about either Creationists or Evolutionists since our faith knows all life flowed forth from the Beer Volcano, then brought to Earth by pirates. Which is why Talk Like a Pirate Day is our holiest of holidays.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113415We don't need to be able to turn a monkey into a human, not only because we can (and have) test it on lesser beings. But because humans are monkeys.

We haven't uplifted a species into sapience. We clearly don't know how.

Quote from: Pat;1113448I never said anything about the origin of life, I was very specific that we don't have a clear idea how new species emerge. And we don't.

Nothing else you said has any bearing on that topic, it's just a random collection of unrelated simplistic truisms and not-really-truisms about evolution in general. For instance, genetic sequencing didn't prove anything about our relationship to chimps, we already had overwhelming morphological, chemical, and stratiographic evidence. What it did was clarify things like our degree of genetic similarity, and when our lineages diverged. Or the part about medical and crop R&D, which don't really have anything to do with evolution. They have to with breeding, genetics, and CRISPR. Or horses and donkeys -- mules and hinnies have existed since before the sciences emerged from natural history, so nothing could have been predicted, because it was already known. Not only that, it wouldn't have predicted anything -- fertile offspring, infertile offspring, and complete infertility are largely determined by testing. There's no magical difference in taxonomic rank that determines any of them, it's more widespread among plants, and microbes pass entire stretches of DNA back and forth making them all effectively a single species.

So you're gonna disregard every bit of evidence that contradicts your position.

Then we're done here.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11134506th grade Earth Science for 3 of my 10 years as a classroom teacher. I mentioned it earlier in this thread as special education teachers often wear various hats. I primarily taught math (pre-K to algebra) and language skills (all levels), and a couple years of sex education and civics (oddly, that was a combo job at 2 different schools I taught at).




I am familiar with GMO mice and the gene sequencing experiments. But that's direct intervention on a genetic level, not the natural evolution of a species in the wild based on how we believe evolution works.

But maybe you're referencing other tests. I'm happy to learn more because remember, I'm not challenging evolutionary theory, only pointing out that in general, science isn't as settled as its made out to be.

There's a big chasm between Creationism and acknowledging there's incomplete aspects in our understanding. If Creationists want to claim that incompleteness equals proof for Bible literalism, there's no set of facts that's gonna stop them.

Also, as a devout cultist of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't worry about either Creationists or Evolutionists since our faith knows all life flowed forth from the Beer Volcano, then brought to Earth by pirates. Which is why Talk Like a Pirate Day is our holiest of holidays.




We haven't uplifted a species into sapience. We clearly don't know how.

Most of the universe is made up off dark matter and dark energy, we can't see, smell, touch weight or measure them, we only infer their existence by observations that can only be explained by they being real.

And still you won't find any serious physicist who doubts their existence.

We have more evidence for Evolution than for Gravity and yet you won't find even a creationist denying Gravity.

There's a huge difference between forcing the evolution of a lesser being into a different lesser being and making any species sapient. Namely the astronomical number of generations and variables involved. It's not that we don't know how, it's that we can't do it in less than a couple million years at the very least.

And yet we have produced different species of many living things, plants, animals, insects and microbes. The last one being the more interesting since we first did it without trying, and this is evidence that the Theory is correct.

We can't produce fusion, and we still know it's real, because we see it in the stars.

In the same vein we can't produce a sapient being, yet we know evolution can, we see them all around us and talk to them, hell some are even in this very discussion. :D

Punctuated equilibrium isn't a test, it's a change made to the Theory due to observations: First we thought Evolution was always slow, millions of years slow. Then discoveries pointed this wasn't always the case. So Punctuated Equilibrium was born.

It postulates that evolution can be millions of years slow or a lot faster, depending on the evolutionary pressures put in the species by the environment. So, if there's no pressure to evolve (plenty food, few predators, all niches taken, etc.) then evolution is slow, but if one of the variables gets out of wack then evolution is a lot faster.

Look for plastic eating bacteria, wasn't any, then there was. Of course in the case of microbes, virus and bacteria evolution takes less time since they have millions of generations in a single year. Same goes for infections resistant to antibiotics, there was none, then presto super sifilis.

So, as far as evolution being real, the Theory being mostly right and the laws explained by the Theory being mostly right, yes, science is settled. Of course new discoveries will lead to small or big changes here or there, yet in over 100 years no discovery has ever disproved it, and I doubt it will happen.

Quote from: Pat;1113448I never said anything about the origin of life, I was very specific that we don't have a clear idea how new species emerge. And we don't.

Nothing else you said has any bearing on that topic, it's just a random collection of unrelated simplistic truisms and not-really-truisms about evolution in general. For instance, genetic sequencing didn't prove anything about our relationship to chimps, we already had overwhelming morphological, chemical, and stratiographic evidence. What it did was clarify things like our degree of genetic similarity, and when our lineages diverged. Or the part about medical and crop R&D, which don't really have anything to do with evolution. They have to with breeding, genetics, and CRISPR. Or horses and donkeys -- mules and hinnies have existed since before the sciences emerged from natural history, so nothing could have been predicted, because it was already known. Not only that, it wouldn't have predicted anything -- fertile offspring, infertile offspring, and complete infertility are largely determined by testing. There's no magical difference in taxonomic rank that determines any of them, it's more widespread among plants, and microbes pass entire stretches of DNA back and forth making them all effectively a single species.

It's fuzzy. Just like the borders between different languages are fuzzy. Well, actually sexually reproducing species are less fuzzy than that. But it doen't mean that we don't have any clear ideas on how speciation happens. I have worked with several profs who have published on speciation for starters.

This shit is coming thick and fast.  A bunch of female Labour MP's are up in arms about an image of Theresa May with a gun to her head. The reason being that it promotes violence against female politicians. Obviously violence against male politicians is fine and dandy.  

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-revolt-over-candidate-shared-130400147.html

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113457So you're gonna disregard every bit of evidence that contradicts your position.

Then we're done here.

What is my position, then?

Seriously, go back and read my posts. Based on your replies, it's become very clear you have no idea what I was actually saying.

Protip: If you're starting from the assumption that I'm a Creationist. Let's just say you're wrong. So wrong. So very, very wrong. Ending up on Pluto when you were trying to drive from Tijuana to San Diego wrong.

Quote from: Trond;1113460It's fuzzy. Just like the borders between different languages are fuzzy. Well, actually sexually reproducing species are less fuzzy than that. But it doen't mean that we don't have any clear ideas on how speciation happens. I have worked with several profs who have published on speciation for starters.

Post links to some of their papers, if they're relevant.

But plenty of other scientists point out what we don't know. And restricting it to sexual reproduction is part of the problem -- traditionally, most evolutionary biologists don't have a background in microbiology, or even botany, and sexual reproduction among "higher" animals is only a tiny part of the picture. It's things like horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, and epigenetics that are complicating things.

Quote from: Pat;1113470What is my position, then?

Seriously, go back and read my posts. Based on your replies, it's become very clear you have no idea what I was actually saying.

So, why don't you say your actual position?

My position is that I don't consider it a problem to teach evolution as a settled scientific principle, even if there are unanswered questions of genetics and the fossil record. From my experience of how evolution is taught, I think it's basically fine. It could be taught better on average - but everything can always be taught better. It a misconception to say that calling it the "theory of evolution" means that the science isn't settled, or in general that a theory is less settled than a law.

Teaching evolution as settled science is not a problem in education. I think ideally, roughly the same curriculum should be taught as now - though with better techniques and materials.

Personally, I'm reacting in particular to shuddemell's example of evolution when discussing things that are hotly contested in science -- and Spinachcat's characterization of the difference between scientific law and theory. In particular:

Post #324:

Quote from: shuddemell;1113201I am not talking about being wishy washy, I am talking about things that are hotly contested in science and yet are only presented in one way in education. An example being evolution. There are major problems with Neodarwinism and yet in all my years in public school, none of these were ever addressed, even at the college level. It is treated as fact, when in fact, there are major issues with his theory, particularly in explaining the Cambrian explosion.

Post #338:

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113306I made a big point of teaching the difference between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY because as a student, I found many teachers treated them as the same thing. It's the THEORY of evolution, and while a very good theory, its got holes. And that's okay. It's okay for us to debate theories, especially as scientific laws can even come into question when new evidence is discovered.

Quote from: jhkim;1113487So, why don't you say your actual position?

Its more fun to just guess.  I did and frankly I am appalled that people can even have that position in modern day!

Quote from: jhkim;1113487So, why don't you say your actual position?

On what? Because I did state my position on the topic I was discussing, which was that we don't know the precise mechanism that leads to speciation. The problem is GeekyBugle's replies had absolutely nothing to do with that. But at least one of the links was to an anti-Creationist website, and the general tenor of the replies were of someone trying (badly) to defend evolution as a general concept, so I specifically stated I wasn't a Creationist. I can't be any more specific and precise than that, because I don't have a fucking clue what that was all about.

And fuck you by the way, GeekyBugle, for that implicit accusation. It's the equivalent of have you stopped beating your wife yet, and there's no good way to answer that type of sidelong accusation. By making it, you gave me the choice between letting your shitty little baseless innuendo stand, or defending myself explicitly against an abhorrent accusation. You're an awful person for doing that. And fuck you too, John Kim, for abetting it.

Quote from: Pat;1113499On what? Because I did state my position on the topic I was discussing, which was that we don't know the precise mechanism that leads to speciation. The problem is GeekyBugle's replies had absolutely nothing to do with that. But at least one of the links was to an anti-Creationist website, and the general tenor of the replies were of someone trying (badly) to defend evolution as a general concept, so I specifically stated I wasn't a Creationist. I can't be any more specific and precise than that, because I don't have a fucking clue what that was all about.

And fuck you by the way, GeekyBugle, for that implicit accusation. It's the equivalent of have you stopped beating your wife yet, and there's no good way to answer that type of sidelong accusation. By making it, you gave me the choice between letting your shitty little baseless innuendo stand, or defending myself explicitly against an abhorrent accusation. You're an awful person for doing that. And fuck you too, John Kim, for abetting it.

We do know the exact mechanism, it's called descent with modification, said modifications pile on over enough generations you end with a different species.

I think you need to go read about evolution from experts and not whatever idiot's blog/youtube you have been taking your talking points from.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113500We do know the exact mechanism, it's called descent with modification, said modifications pile on over enough generations you end with a different species.

I think you need to go read about evolution from experts and not whatever idiot's blog/youtube you have been taking your talking points from.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...

... then you assume it's a quasar?

Because that's what you're doing. Irrational religioevolutionists like you, who have little idea what they're talking about and jump to wild conclusions, are just as bad as Creationists. Worse, because you just feed the Creationists ammo, by giving evolution a bad name.

Descent with modification doesn't specify a mechanism. That's the point. Darwin, despite the title of his book, never did explain the origin of species. That's one of the key reason why his theory holds up, because he stuck to what he knew, and could back up with evidence, and limited his speculation. Earlier theorists, like his grandfather Erasmus, had proposed that all life was related, but didn't explain how. Others, speculated in error, like Lamarck's belief that acquired traits, like a giraffe stretching its neck, were passed on. Darwin hit on the idea of heritable traits, and also recognized that when left unchecked, populations tend to outgrow their environments. That led to the realization that most creatures die, before having progeny. So out of all the innumerable creatures that live, only a few pass on their traits. That's where the idea of fitness comes from, which has a technical meaning in evolutionary science. It's not some judgment about the abstract quality of an organism, just how many offspring it has. Hence, natural selection.

But some of Darwin assumptions were incorrect, like the idea that change is progressive and gradual. He struggled with why the world wasn't full of intermediate forms. And it also didn't match the fossil record, which shows species existing for a period of time, then vanishing, rather than slow shift from one form to the next. That led to Eldredge's concept of punctuated equilibrium, which proposed that rare events cause species to evolve rapidly, and split. But again that didn't really explain how; it's more an observation. Same with Mendelian heredity, which only really applies in very special cases anyway (sexual reproduction where a single trait is linked to a single alelle in a fairly simple way), though it's a start at dealing with hybridization.

The discovery of RNA and DNA provide a framework. But the idea that mutations in single base pairs, say by radiation, accumulate and over time cause speciation never really help up; it's a return to gradualism. Turns out, it's a lot more complex. The ability to sequence entire genomes, first done in humans by the Human Genome Project, opened a flood gate. Mutations don't just affect single base pairs, replication errors can affect large stretches of DNA at once, and so can viruses. In fact, it's estimated that a significant minority of our DNA comes from viruses.

To further complicate things, we also have to consider the vast majority of living diversity is not multicellular eukaryotes, it's microbial. And microbes pass around genes like candy -- all those super-bugs resistant to multiple strains of antibiotics didn't independently develop convergent mutations that added up to immunity. No, Watanabe and Fukasawa realized what happened is one bug became immune, and then passed that genetic material to other seemingly unrelated bugs. That's why it can be said that all microbes are one species, because they can all share genes (reproduce) with each other.

To throw even more complication into the mix, there's also endosymbiosis. It was a revolutionary idea when Margulis starting promoting it, but it's been supported by genetic evidence: Chloroplasts were originally cyanobacteria, captured by eukaryotic cells; and mitochondira were bacteria (perhaps several, happening several times). In other words, the two greatest evolutionary leaps in the history of life were caused by symbiosis between two organisms, whose combined genetic code defines them. There are also innumerable cases of lesser symbiosis; we couldn't eat without our gut flora, there are plants who species are distinguished by colors which are based on bacteria in their leaves, and the entire kingdom of fungi is based on a symbiotic relationship. In many ways, we're really collectives, rather than individuals with a single genome.

So how does it fit together? What combinations lead to new species, and which combinations just lead to variation within a single species? We know it involves reproductive isolation and heredity, but there are many factors at play. I'm skimming over a lot, randomly hitting a bunch of related topics, and this is out of my field so I could be out of date, might have skipped something important, or even screwed up a few details, but as far as I know, the answer is still: It's complicated. But you clearly told us that everyone I've cited are idiots who don't qualify as experts, so I'm sure they're wrong and your opinion is correct in every way.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113458Most of the universe is made up off dark matter and dark energy, we can't see, smell, touch weight or measure them, we only infer their existence by observations that can only be explained by they being real.

And still you won't find any serious physicist who doubts their existence.

And that bothers me.

We know so little about dark matter and dark energy. It's a relatively new field of study and we are just developing the basic tools to study them. And yet, all our serious physicists are on the unanimous non-doubting ban wagon?

That's too close to the climate change "science" being deemed undoubtable.

I don't like the term "settled science" or the concept. It arrogantly assumes omniscience on a topic that we most certainly don't possess. Again, I'm NOT saying we need to paint "Here Be Dragons" in every area of science that isn't fully understood (although, those were the most badass maps ever).

I'm not a scientist, but to me, it seems good science requires questioning, probing and revisiting the "settled science", especially as new tools are developed.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1113500We do know the exact mechanism, it's called descent with modification, said modifications pile on over enough generations you end with a different species.

I think you need to go read about evolution from experts and not whatever idiot's blog/youtube you have been taking your talking points from.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...

You are wrong. Quit resorting to the same lame genetic fallacies as jkhim does. We do not know the specific mechanism of speciation, gradual evolution (Darwinism) is part of the picture, it isn't the complete picture. The Burgess Shale (which was discovered in 1909, by a professor from the Smithsonian, Charles Doolittle Walcott) shows NO clear antecendents for many extremely complex organisms arising seemingly ab initio. Over the years, NO adequate explanation has been forwarded, nor any intermediary forms found, and punctuated equillibrium doesn't explain the mechanism at all. In addition discoveries in Biochemistry have all but excluded certain structures from being formed by graduated modification, the mammalian eye being one, which Pat alluded to earlier. Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Behe goes into this in great detail if you have a mind to actually look at the evidence. Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer also examines the issue of the Burgess Shale extensively and reveals the inadequacies of NeoDarwinism. I am not a creationist either, and am a working chemist, so I am not inclined toward making unfounded statements, but as a scientist I am also obligated to look at all evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand as you are doing. The Evolution Religion is nearly as strong as the Climate Alarmism one is. As the discoverer of the Maotianshan Shales, which reveal many of the same problems with NeoDarwinism (which is what you are promoting) said when criticized for challenging NeoDarwinism 'In China we cannot question the government, In America you can question the government, but not Darwin". Stephen Jay Gould also wrote extensively on the issues these confront NeoDarwinism with. Here's a link to a wikipage with links to actual papers on the MaoTianshan shales and the revealing research from them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maotianshan_Shales.
Perhaps rather than resorting to genetic fallacies, loaded questions, and "creationist" slurs, you should expand your myopic view just a bit.

There are also some very serious challenges developing from the fields of information theory and statistical analysis which further indicate the sheer unlikelihood that graduated evolution from base chemicals is even possible given the time frames available. The development of the proteins used in DNA alone are about 1:10^40 unlikely to develop from base, non living materials... but that is another discussion.

Quote from: jhkim;1113487So, why don't you say your actual position?

My position is that I don't consider it a problem to teach evolution as a settled scientific principle, even if there are unanswered questions of genetics and the fossil record. From my experience of how evolution is taught, I think it's basically fine. It could be taught better on average - but everything can always be taught better. It a misconception to say that calling it the "theory of evolution" means that the science isn't settled, or in general that a theory is less settled than a law.

Teaching evolution as settled science is not a problem in education. I think ideally, roughly the same curriculum should be taught as now - though with better techniques and materials.

Personally, I'm reacting in particular to shuddemell's example of evolution when discussing things that are hotly contested in science -- and Spinachcat's characterization of the difference between scientific law and theory. In particular:

Post #324:

Post #338:

Perhaps our view of what is hotly contested is different, but a known failure of Darwinism over a hundred years old, as yet unexplainable and with evidence that contradicts the very premise of Darwinism, I consider that hotly debated, or at least blindly ignored with an almost religious fervor.

A lot of the time, the people that are arguing against evolution have a religious motive for that. It's as if evolution invalidates one's relationship with God. God could have picked up Adam and Eve from a box that the flying spaghetti monster left out saying free humans to good planet. How we got here doesn't change the relationship.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113532In addition discoveries in Biochemistry have all but excluded certain structures from being formed by graduated modification, the mammalian eye being one, which Pat alluded to earlier. Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Behe goes into this in great detail if you have a mind to actually look at the evidence. Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer also examines the issue of the Burgess Shale extensively and reveals the inadequacies of NeoDarwinism.

I was alluding to the theory that the development of the eye spurred the rapid evolutionary change of the Cambrian by dramatically changing the competitive landscape, not to the abrupt emergence of the eye itself. I probably have less of a problem than you do with the apparently sudden emergence of complex organs, without any evidence of intermediate states. After all, the Cambrian explosion wasn't really that fast and they've identified possible precursors in the Ediacaran; the fossil record is woefully incomplete, particularly when it comes to soft features that are only fossilized in lagerstatten; evolution is remarkably good at repurposing features for new uses; and they've worked out fairly detailed and reasonable progressions for other complex features that were originally very hard to explain, like the development of winged flight among dinosaurs. Though the sudden appearance of complex, novel features can be another example of the kind of discontinuity we see in the appearance of new species, so your skepticism may be warranted.

I'm not familiar with either author you cite, and based on a quick skim, I expect I'd thoroughly oppose any of their conclusions. They seem to be associated with intelligent design, which I think is roughly as credible an explanation as the Discovery Channel's aliens, i.e. completely outside anything even vaguely resembling science. My criticisms of neo-darwinism are based on the work of people like Margulis and Woese (2 national medals of science between them), the omission of microbial life from most evolutionary theories, the implications of horizontal gene transfer and other mechanisms that shake the tree of life as a metaphor, and the lack of a clear answer for how species diverge.

Yes, there is an association with Intelligent Design, though that is not my position. However, all of their scientific work is credible, and should be read before you reject it out of hand. Behe has a PhD in the field of biochemistry and Stephen Meyer has a PhD in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, a BS in Physics and Earth Science. and the arguments they make for the problems with NeoDarwinism are not religious or faith based, but science based. I don't agree with Meyer's religious bent myself, but his book is a synthesis of the data accumulated so far on the subject and where the problems occur. You can certainly recognize the problems without necessarily agreeing with his resultant conclusions. Both Margulis and Woese are also credible scientists, as are many of the biologists and paleontologists associate with Maotianshan Shale, which by the way, reveals a lot of the soft body preservation that you mention being missing. Don't also fall prey to the genetic fallacy of not entertaining their arguments because you don't like their religious or political bent, as your comment indicates you are likely to adopt that position. I was reluctant at first to read those as I had been taught Darwinian evolution as canon, but given time, I took the leap to at least entertain their positions. Take the argument only on it's own merit. It is one of the biggest hurdles in discussing any contentious scientific subject, because, as has been the case with JHKim, they reject any argument from a source they don't accept without ever actually reading or understanding their argument, largely too much ego in believing that what they believe true is incontrovertible. It is problematic and largely was the same thing that held Galileo and others back, in going against the orthodoxy of the time, very few would really entertain their argument without bias. It's not good science, by any stretch of the imagination, and really limits what you can truly know. I am not saying I accept any of the suppositions of intelligent design, but that is beside the biochemical and paleontological points being made. If you aren't willing to take the time to do so, I understand that, but it is very self limiting. At least you haven't felt the need to be deliberately insulting as of yet. I am certainly willing to listen to any valid and thoughtful critique, because it is always possible I have missed something along the way.

There are also those that critique Meyer's work regarding the Cambrian Explosion, that the explosion never occurred, though the fossil record is woefully incomplete to make a positive assertion that it is true, and it is quite possible that I am unfamiliar with more recent discoveries that may indeed complete the fossil record in a way that would solve the gaps in the fossil record, but as far as I am currently aware that is not the case.

This is a fascinating article on post NeoDarwinian theory...

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/1/7

Note, that if it wasn't obvious before, I am not Anti-Evolution, I am just highlighting the problems with the theory as it is currently understood, and that some of the Darwinian precepts are incorrect. Ironically, I don't accept anything with religious fervor... I suppose that's why I am contrary as a scientist and agnostic as a "religion". :)

Quote from: shuddemellIn addition discoveries in Biochemistry have all but excluded certain structures from being formed by graduated modification, the mammalian eye being one, which Pat alluded to earlier. Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Behe goes into this in great detail if you have a mind to actually look at the evidence. Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer also examines the issue of the Burgess Shale extensively and reveals the inadequacies of NeoDarwinism.

Quote from: Pat;1113541I'm not familiar with either author you cite, and based on a quick skim, I expect I'd thoroughly oppose any of their conclusions. They seem to be associated with intelligent design, which I think is roughly as credible an explanation as the Discovery Channel's aliens, i.e. completely outside anything even vaguely resembling science. My criticisms of neo-darwinism are based on the work of people like Margulis and Woese (2 national medals of science between them), the omission of microbial life from most evolutionary theories, the implications of horizontal gene transfer and other mechanisms that shake the tree of life as a metaphor, and the lack of a clear answer for how species diverge.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113551Note, that if it wasn't obvious before, I am not Anti-Evolution, I am just highlighting the problems with the theory as it is currently understood, and that some of the Darwinian precepts are incorrect. Ironically, I don't accept anything with religious fervor... I suppose that's why I am contrary as a scientist and agnostic as a "religion". :)

I've been called contrarian here over some issues, but I think some things should be supported with fervor - and some opposed with fervor. Being moderate isn't inherently more reasonable. In the debate of Intelligent Design versus mainstream evolutionary science, I support the latter with fervor. That's not irrationality - quite the opposite. There's good reason for the fervor.

I also haven't read either of the books, but this is a description of Darwin's Doubt's from the author himself:

Stephen Meyer: Recall that Darwin's Doubt argues that intelligent design provides the best explanation for the origin of the genetic (and epigenetic) information necessary to produce the novel forms of animal life that arose in the Cambrian period. In making this case, I show first that neither the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations, nor more recently-proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change (species selection, self-organization, neutral evolution, natural genetic evolution, etc.--see Darwin's Doubt Chapters 15-16) are sufficient to generate the biological information that arises in the Cambrian period. Instead, I show--based upon our uniform and repeated experience--that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to generate the kind of functional information that is present in biological systems (and that arises with the Cambrian animals). Thus, I conclude that the action of a designing intelligence provides the best ("most causally adequate") explanation for the origin of that information.

Source: https://biologos.org/articles/reviewing-darwins-doubt-response-by-stephen-meyer

shuddemell, I believe that you're not anti-evolution -- but you have recommended a book that is self-described by the author as supporting intelligent design. I think these should be opposed with fervor.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113547There are also those that critique Meyer's work regarding the Cambrian Explosion, that the explosion never occurred, though the fossil record is woefully incomplete to make a positive assertion that it is true, and it is quite possible that I am unfamiliar with more recent discoveries that may indeed complete the fossil record in a way that would solve the gaps in the fossil record, but as far as I am currently aware that is not the case.

I can't really speak to the Cambrian, but I can definitely say the macroscopic fossil record in other periods has dramatically improved over the last 50, 20, or even 10 years. Even excluding resurgences in specific areas (like the large increase in dinosaurian paleontologists thanks to Ostrom and Bakker's Renaissance), the opening of the world, the growth of local geology and paleontology in all those countries, translations of scientific papers, and better techniques and technologies have led to a huge jump in the number of genera and species, and more importantly the overall phylogenetic tree has come into much clearer focus. We've got a much better grasp of how everything is related, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume the gaps are anything except missing pieces. The issue with speciation is it seems to happen faster than the fossil record can record, so we may never catch a good glimpse.

Quote from: jhkim;1113559I've been called contrarian here over some issues, but I think some things should be supported with fervor - and some opposed with fervor. Being moderate isn't inherently more reasonable. In the debate of Intelligent Design versus mainstream evolutionary science, I support the latter with fervor. That's not irrationality - quite the opposite. There's good reason for the fervor.

I also haven't read either of the books, but this is a description of Darwin's Doubt's from the author himself:

Stephen Meyer: Recall that Darwin's Doubt argues that intelligent design provides the best explanation for the origin of the genetic (and epigenetic) information necessary to produce the novel forms of animal life that arose in the Cambrian period. In making this case, I show first that neither the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations, nor more recently-proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change (species selection, self-organization, neutral evolution, natural genetic evolution, etc.--see Darwin's Doubt Chapters 15-16) are sufficient to generate the biological information that arises in the Cambrian period. Instead, I show--based upon our uniform and repeated experience--that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to generate the kind of functional information that is present in biological systems (and that arises with the Cambrian animals). Thus, I conclude that the action of a designing intelligence provides the best ("most causally adequate") explanation for the origin of that information.

Source: https://biologos.org/articles/reviewing-darwins-doubt-response-by-stephen-meyer

shuddemell, I believe that you're not anti-evolution -- but you have recommended a book that is self-described by the author as supporting intelligent design. I think these should be opposed with fervor.

Well, I think that you should actually be familiar with his argument before you oppose it, even if it is on principle alone. It's only fair, otherwise you are tilting at straw men.

All this talk of evolution, Darwin, and Intelligent Design makes me remember that one time when Epstein didn't kill himself.

Quote from: Gagarth;1113463This shit is coming thick and fast.  A bunch of female Labour MP's are up in arms about an image of Theresa May with a gun to her head. The reason being that it promotes violence against female politicians. Obviously violence against male politicians is fine and dandy.  

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-revolt-over-candidate-shared-130400147.html

In the world of identity politics, no one is more worthy than your tribe, which coincidentally is also the most oppressed tribe.

I oppose violence and violent imagery in politics, but that's where the train is heading. Things should get fun after December 10th when YouCensorTube launches its new "terms of service" and the pre-2020 purge of wrongthink shall begin.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113532I am not a creationist either, and am a working chemist,

So you're one of those meth-cooking atheists?? :eek:

:D

Quote from: shuddemell;1113532'In China we cannot question the government, In America you can question the government, but not Darwin".

That's scary and weird. Darwin's discoveries were amazing, but its bizarre his work can't be questioned. Darwin only had the tools of his age as any great scientist of the past. Thus, whenever we gain new tools, it should be a natural aspect for science to re-examine the old science, but also honor their contributions, yet never be hidebound to "doctrine as science".

I suspect the issue is that "Darwin = Death of God" became a meme where science is used to promote atheism.  As communists / liberals / leftists dominated our education system, their doctrine became the new "religion" with St. Darwin. And its not really "worship of science" because while the leftists scream "evolution is settled science", they're screeching "there are 87 genders" and "men can have periods" in the same breath.  

Quote from: shuddemell;1113532ere's a link to a wikipage with links to actual papers on the MaoTianshan shales and the revealing research from them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maotianshan_Shales.

Thank you! I never heard of the Maotianshan Shales. Fascinating stuff.

Definitely proof of ancient alien astronauts! :D

Quote from: shuddemell;1113574Well, I think that you should actually be familiar with his argument before you oppose it, even if it is on principle alone. It's only fair, otherwise you are tilting at straw men.

You're right that one irrational belief doesn't necessarily invalidate the rest of someone's work, but it's real a warning sign. Plenty of scientists hold irrational beliefs outside the scope of their work, but when they incorporate it into their field of expertise, it tends to lead to contorted justifications where the data is forced to fit a preconceived conclusion. Had we but universe enough and time, we could consider every aspect of everyone's work on its own merits, but since we can hear time's winged chariot hurrying near, we need to use filters. I'd be willing to reconsider it in the future, but right now I don't see a good reason to spend the time to give their arguments due consideration, when there's so much else to peruse.

Quote from: Pat;1113580You're right that one irrational belief doesn't necessarily invalidate the rest of someone's work, but it's real a warning sign. Plenty of scientists hold irrational beliefs outside the scope of their work, but when they incorporate it into their field of expertise, it tends to lead to contorted justifications where the data is forced to fit a preconceived conclusion. Had we but universe enough and time, we could consider every aspect of everyone's work on its own merits, but since we can hear time's winged chariot hurrying near, we need to use filters. I'd be willing to reconsider it in the future, but right now I don't see a good reason to spend the time to give their arguments due consideration, when there's so much else to peruse.

I would make a final couple of points. First, I agree time is limited, and it is a matter of priorities, so I understand your reticence to spend the time actually understanding their argument and instead going with a caricature of it. However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as irrational either. First, atheism is every bit a religion as is Christianity. They carry their beliefs into their work every day (it's even implicit in your bias against Christian thought), and they also claim to know god DOES NOT exist. This is irrational as there is no proof of that, anymore than there is proof god does exist. Lack of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of lack. It's exactly why I am agnostic. I do not pretend to know whether there is a higher power or not, but I certainly am neither going to bend the knee to their god, or to the atheists godless dogma either. As you mention before, it is okay to admit we don't know and neither religion is humble enough to admit that.

In general, I don't consider the carrying of atheist beliefs into science as nearly as damaging, however if a scientist does their due diligence, I don't see a reason why faith is relevant at all. You are probably aware that the large bulk of western scientists were Christian until the last half century or so. It's why I can consider their arguments valid, but not necessarily their conclusion, as they are falling in the same lack of evidence/evidence of lack dichotomy that is the underpinnings of atheism. Neither is really credible on that point in my estimation.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1113578Thank you! I never heard of the Maotianshan Shales. Fascinating stuff.

Definitely proof of ancient alien astronauts! :D

I found it to be so. Glad you were able to get something useful from it. LOL

Quote from: shuddemell;1113594I would make a final couple of points. First, I agree time is limited, and it is a matter of priorities. However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as irrational either. First, atheism is every bit a religion as is Christianity. They carry their beliefs into their work every day (it's even implicit in your bias against Christian thought), and they also claim to know god DOES NOT exist. This is irrational as there is no proof of that, anymore than there is proof god does exist. Lack of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of lack. It's exactly why I am agnostic. I do not pretend to know whether there is a higher power or not, but I certainly am neither going to bend the knee to their god, or to the atheists godless dogma either. As you mention before, it is okay to admit we don't know and neither religion is humble enough to admit that.

What bias against Christian thought? I think you're reading things into my post that aren't there. Your bias certainly shows in your definition of atheism. Because while some atheists practice an atheistic religion, that's not what the word means. It was originally a pejorative, used by theists to label everyone else, and that's still the primary meaning. So it doesn't really mean anything, except "not a theist". That's an incredibly broad range, because it's literally everyone who doesn't believe one specific thing, and subsumes many variations on agnosticism, because there's really no difference between saying "nah I don't really believe in that", and "I don't know, I don't worry about it". Notice my emphasis on apathy, because that's the locus around which most people who are dubbed "atheists" are found. That contrasts with the ardent self-proclaimed atheists, who are a loud (because they care) but vanishingly small minority.

But more topically, all of that's utterly irrelevant to science, because science deals not with the unknowable, but with what can be proven. That's what I contrasted with irrational, which just means outside the scope of reason. Same applies to art appreciation. And while theoretically, intelligent design is the kind of hypothesis that could be proven (if it were true), we know based on long experience with its advocates that it almost always involves imposing a priori expectations and then cherry picking data to support it. That's why it's a warning flag.

Quote from: Pat;1113601But more topically, all of that's utterly irrelevant to science, because science deals not with the unknowable, but with what can be proven. That's what I contrasted with irrational, which just means outside the scope of reason. Same applies to art appreciation. And while theoretically, intelligent design is the kind of hypothesis that could be proven (if it were true), we know based on long experience with its advocates that it almost always involves imposing a priori expectations and then cherry picking data to support it. That's why it's a warning flag.

Agreed. Just like there's nothing inherently irrational with the idea that aliens contacting us, but in practice, the people holding that belief aren't basing that on rational evidence. This isn't against Christianity - I'm a church-going Christian myself. It's that Intelligent Design is not good science. I've read enough on it to make that conclusion, and while in principle I am open to debate, I'm not going to prioritize reading another book to confirm that. That's not how I'd prefer to spend my limited time.

Quote from: Pat;1113601What bias against Christian thought? I think you're reading things into my post that aren't there. Your bias certainly shows in your definition of atheism. Because while some atheists practice an atheistic religion, that's not what the word means. It was originally a pejorative, used by theists to label everyone else, and that's still the primary meaning. So it doesn't really mean anything, except "not a theist". That's an incredibly broad range, because it's literally everyone who doesn't believe one specific thing, and subsumes many variations on agnosticism, because there's really no difference between saying "nah I don't really believe in that", and "I don't know, I don't worry about it". Notice my emphasis on apathy, because that's the locus around which most people who are dubbed "atheists" are found. That contrasts with the ardent self-proclaimed atheists, who are a loud (because they care) but vanishingly small minority.

But more topically, all of that's utterly irrelevant to science, because science deals not with the unknowable, but with what can be proven. That's what I contrasted with irrational, which just means outside the scope of reason. Same applies to art appreciation. And while theoretically, intelligent design is the kind of hypothesis that could be proven (if it were true), we know based on long experience with its advocates that it almost always involves imposing a priori expectations and then cherry picking data to support it. That's why it's a warning flag.

You're right, in that not all atheists are not rabid. And a lot of people call themselves atheists out of apathy, though particularly with atheists and discussions of science, that isn't usually the case in my experience. Firstly, a- can also mean anti- as well, so dissection of the word can lead to all sorts of conclusions. It can mean anti-theist, without theism, or a whole host of shades in between. And yes, I agree that it can be a red flag, and often is, because any conclusion (which intelligent design is) without evidence is bad science. If I misread your intent then I apologize, I just rankle at things being dismissed out of hand due to bias, that is my bias. I have stated clearly my feelings on atheist and religion pretty well, I do believe. I do make a distinction in the terminology as it is used, for those that either don't care, or don't know, agnostic is a better term than atheist, and my criticism are leveled at those that insist they know, not the apathetic or undecided.

Quote from: jhkim;1113610Agreed. Just like there's nothing inherently irrational with the idea that aliens contacting us, but in practice, the people holding that belief aren't basing that on rational evidence. This isn't against Christianity - I'm a church-going Christian myself. It's that Intelligent Design is not good science. I've read enough on it to make that conclusion, and while in principle I am open to debate, I'm not going to prioritize reading another book to confirm that. That's not how I'd prefer to spend my limited time.

While overall I agree with you in that, I would say, that unless you examine each particular set of evidence, you don't really know that. You are making a broad generalization (which we all do, and which is probably mostly accurate) about a group that may indeed be largely kooks, but may also include real evidence you will never see due to that generalization (I happen to believe that both Behe and Meyer offer pretty good arguments apart from their religious bent). It's reasonable to make that assumption, I have to make such assumptions all the time to preserve my limited time as well.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113614And a lot of people call themselves atheists out of apathy...

"Atheist" is a primarily a label imposed by those who hold a particular set of beliefs on those who do not. Most people classified as "atheist" don't call themselves atheists. If it even comes up, they just say they don't believe or something of that nature. You're reacting strongly to an entire group on the basis of the few who adamantly oppose the labelers, and who have adopted that badge of opprobrium as a symbol of pride.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113614I do make a distinction in the terminology as it is used, for those that either don't care, or don't know, agnostic is a better term than atheist....

I think agnostic is a terrible term, because when there's no evidence in support of a theory, there's no practical difference between saying you don't believe in a theory, and saying the theory hasn't been proven. That's the true neutral stance. Agnostic pretends to be neutral, but presupposes a strong dose of theism, because saying you're on the fence when there's no evidence in support of a theory is not impartiality, it's evidence of bias in favor of the theory.

Quote from: Pat;1113625"Atheist" is a primarily a label imposed by those who hold a particular set of beliefs on those who do not. Most people classified as "atheist" don't call themselves atheists. If it even comes up, they just say they don't believe or something of that nature. You're reacting strongly to an entire group on the basis of the few who adamantly oppose the labelers, and who have adopted that badge of opprobrium as a symbol of pride.


I think agnostic is a terrible term, because when there's no evidence in support of a theory, there's no practical difference between saying you don't believe in a theory, and saying the theory hasn't been proven. That's the true neutral stance. Agnostic pretends to be neutral, but presupposes a strong dose of theism, because saying you're on the fence when there's no evidence in support of a theory is not impartiality, it's evidence of bias in favor of the theory.

Really? There are an awful lot of groups in America self labeled as Atheists. Your experience of those using that term is wildly different than mine. In addition, a + gnosis means an absence of knowledge of spiritual truths. That is what I profess, so I think the term fits my leaning quite well, as I was specific to using it as it relates to religion. But I understand your use of the term and will keep that in mind in the future. No, I don't think it is at all, if there is evidence to the contrary, then that would be true, but if there is no evidence either way, it is impartial to keep an open mind to incoming evidence.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113633Really? There are an awful lot of groups in America self labeled as Atheists. Your experience of those using that term is wildly different than mine. In addition, a + gnosis means an absence of knowledge of spiritual truths. That is what I profess, so I think the term fits my leaning quite well, as I was specific to using it as it relates to religion. But I understand your use of the term and will keep that in mind in the future. No, I don't think it is at all, if there is evidence to the contrary, then that would be true, but if there is no evidence either way, it is impartial to keep an open mind to incoming evidence.

I don't think we're communicating very well.

An open mind involves a willingness to accept new information, it is not about giving undue emphasis to one remote possibility. That's the problem with agnosticism. We can't prove or disprove there is a god. But we also can't prove or disprove there are flying spaghetti monsters, or that exactly 20 years from now, Brownian motion will cause all the air in your room to move into one corner, leaving you to suffocate. There's really no evidence for any of them, so why do we have a classification for people who don't believe in just one of those three, and yet another classification for the people who say they aren't sure? There are an infinite number of unlikely things. By defining yourself as someone who isn't sure whether one particular unlikely thing exists, you're implicitly supporting the idea of that one specific unlikely thing.

That's why agnosticism isn't the neutral, rational, impartial stance; it's actually weak theism. The neutral stance is giving the same weight to all unlikely events, which is to say they're not really going to consider any of them unless some clear evidence emerges. There's no name for that, because no rational person is going to define themselves based on their lack of belief in just one of the infinitude of unlikely things. Those people will however be labeled as atheists by theists, or by bureaucratic attempts at categorization that are implicitly biased towards theism. But that's not their identity, even if they check that box as the closest fit; it's something imposed from outside.

The self-proclaimed atheists are implicit theists as well, because they're defining themselves based on the same unlikely thing. You could say they're anti-theists or negative theists, but the sign is less important than the absolute value. Both theists and self-proclaimed atheists pay an inordinate amount of attention to the same unlikely thing.

I didn't read far past the first page, so I'll just offer my thoughts on the OP.

There is a HUGE difference between bullying (i.e. the actual definition of the word) and the ways guys in a group talk to each other. Bullying is someone trying to keep a weaker person down. Guys socialize with each other, shoot the shit, crack jokes, call out each other when they're doing something that is bullshit etc. to make each other in the group stronger, not weaker. Group dynamics require that everyone is more or less on the same page about what is acceptable or not acceptable... humans know what are useful traits and what are deleterious traits and the latter is what we are weeding out when we socialize. That is fundamentally different from bullying.

Now if someone can't hack it, then there are different conventions that frame social gatherings with people who have very different expectations and attitudes... politeness, reservedness, courtesy etc. If you can't have a social gathering where you can let down your guard and just be yourself, though, then that is a problem. People need places where they can develop solidarity and feel comfortable enough to take the criticism that makes them better people and ultimately better team players.

Aaaaaand... first post!

Quote from: Theros;1113653I didn't read far past the first page, so I'll just offer my thoughts on the OP.

There is a HUGE difference between bullying (i.e. the actual definition of the word) and the ways guys in a group talk to each other. Bullying is someone trying to keep a weaker person down. Guys socialize with each other, shoot the shit, crack jokes, call out each other when they're doing something that is bullshit etc. to make each other in the group stronger, not weaker. Group dynamics require that everyone is more or less on the same page about what is acceptable or not acceptable... humans know what are useful traits and what are deleterious traits and the latter is what we are weeding out when we socialize. That is fundamentally different from bullying.

Now if someone can't hack it, then there are different conventions that frame social gatherings with people who have very different expectations and attitudes... politeness, reservedness, courtesy etc. If you can't have a social gathering where you can let down your guard and just be yourself, though, then that is a problem. People need places where they can develop solidarity and feel comfortable enough to take the criticism that makes them better people and ultimately better team players.

Aaaaaand... first post!

Welcome! Someone will be around to give you a wedgie pronto. :)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113656Welcome! Someone will be around to give you a wedgie pronto. :)

Ready and waitin'

https://youtu.be/l8NjLDt-2oQ

Quote from: Theros;1113661Ready and waitin'

https://youtu.be/l8NjLDt-2oQ

Welcome aboard!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3980[/ATTACH]

All this talk about Atheists reminds me of the joke that Atheists only believe in one less god then a Theist does.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113705All this talk about Atheists reminds me of the joke that Atheists only believe in one less god then a Theist does.

It's been offered as a serious argument. And it falls down on the point that multiple exclusive ideas doesn't mean all the ideas are necessarily wrong.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113706It's been offered as a serious argument. And it falls down on the point that multiple exclusive ideas doesn't mean all the ideas are necessarily wrong.

You are right, explaining the joke does make it more funny.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113711You are right, explaining the joke does make it more funny.

If it helps to kill a bad joke, I'm all for it. :)

Quote from: Shasarak;1113711You are right, explaining the joke does make it more funny.

If it was even 'funny' in the first place.

Being an Atheist or a Christian has nothing to do with being bullied or someone being a bully. Both Atheists and believers in a God have bullies amongst them and also people who have been bullied.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Theros;1113653Aaaaaand... first post!

Welcome aboard Theros! Also, don't forget that your favorite game suxxors, unless its also my favorite game, but in that case, you're playing it wrong!

Quote from: Pat;1113625"Atheist" is a primarily a label imposed by those who hold a particular set of beliefs on those who do not. Most people classified as "atheist" don't call themselves atheists.

You base that on what?

Quote from: Gagarth;1113746You base that on what?

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
8% agree with the statement "Do not believe in God", but only 3% identify as atheists.

Quote from: Pat;1113762https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
8% agree with the statement "Do not believe in God", but only 3% identify as atheists.

Atheists have earned their bad rap. It's not enough to have a disbelief in god. They've also got to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a dummy dumb head poopy doopie. Dawkins and Harris are prime examples. And I say that having gone through a hard-atheist-materialist phase, and I did call religious people dummy dumb head poopy doopies. (Not in those words, of course, but the sentiment)
I'm still an atheist, but I do not consider myself an anti-theist anymore. Perhaps that's part of the reason why some people do not believe in god, but reject the label of atheist.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113773Atheists have earned their bad rap. It's not enough to have a disbelief in god. They've also got to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a dummy dumb head poopy doopie. Dawkins and Harris are prime examples. And I say that having gone through a hard-atheist-materialist phase, and I did call religious people dummy dumb head poopy doopies. (Not in those words, of course, but the sentiment)
I'm still an atheist, but I do not consider myself an anti-theist anymore. Perhaps that's part of the reason why some people do not believe in god, but reject the label of atheist.

Theists have also earned their bad rap. It's not enough to believe in one specific unprovable thing. They also have to make up nasty labels for everyone who doesn't positively affirm the same belief, look down on them, patronize them, exclude them, treat them as inferior, force them pick sides even if they don't really care one way or the other, and that's ignoring how horrifically worse the treatment has been through most of history.

That's why I said it's the absolute value of belief along that spectrum that matters, not whether those beliefs are positive or negative. Theists and self-proclaimed atheists are two of a kind.

Id say the vocabulary when addressing religion is woefully underserved. I think that a word for "people that don't believe in gods or supernatural elements but still exhibit the same kind of religous fervor" needs to exist.

Like communists and technopheliacs persue technology or socialism the same way that people worship at a church. But there is no word for them except "Religous-like". I think sociologists explained it as somekind of mental state that allowed us to make larger scale communities without imploding?

Id say 8% of the USA doesn't believe in a god but 0.001% don't believe in something with religious fervor.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1113814Id say the vocabulary when addressing religion is woefully underserved. I think that a word for "people that don't believe in gods or supernatural elements but still exhibit the same kind of religous fervor" needs to exist.

Like communists and technopheliacs persue technology or socialism the same way that people worship at a church. But there is no word for them except "Religous-like". I think sociologists explained it as somekind of mental state that allowed us to make larger scale communities without imploding?

Id say 8% of the USA doesn't believe in a god but 0.001% don't believe in something with religious fervor.

In that case maybe the word you are looking for is "people"

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1113814Like communists and technopheliacs persue technology or socialism the same way that people worship at a church. But there is no word for them except "Religous-like". I think sociologists explained it as somekind of mental state that allowed us to make larger scale communities without imploding?

The True Believer. (https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/09/04/summary-of-eric-hoffers-the-true-believer/)

Quote from: Pat;1113833The True Believer. (https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/09/04/summary-of-eric-hoffers-the-true-believer/)

I guess, but I think that that feeling exists on one level or another. I only know a few people that really can come to terms with meaninglessness and not crack. Like the guy who writes Dilbert.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1113850Like the guy who writes Dilbert.

Can't tell if joking or not.

Quote from: Rhiannon;1113860Can't tell if joking or not.

I'm not kidding when I say that Dilbert (At least the animated series) is the most nihilistic show I have seen.

Quote from: Pat;1113762https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
8% agree with the statement "Do not believe in God", but only 3% identify as atheists.

Are you aware this board has members from outside the U.S.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113773Atheists have earned their bad rap. It's not enough to have a disbelief in god. They've also got to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a dummy dumb head poopy doopie. Dawkins and Harris are prime examples. And I say that having gone through a hard-atheist-materialist phase, and I did call religious people dummy dumb head poopy doopies. (Not in those words, of course, but the sentiment)
I'm still an atheist, but I do not consider myself an anti-theist anymore. Perhaps that's part of the reason why some people do not believe in god, but reject the label of atheist.

Well we Atheists are not executing anybody for be religious.  You can't say the same for the religious folk https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html.

Quote from: Gagarth;1113879Well we Atheists are not executing anybody for be religious.  You can't say the same for the religious folk https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html.

And if I provided examples of atheists executing religious people for being religious you would amend your view how?

Quote from: Gagarth;1113879Well we Atheists are not executing anybody for be religious.  You can't say the same for the religious folk https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

Quote from: Gagarth;1113879Well we Atheists are not executing anybody for be religious.  You can't say the same for the religious folk https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-13-countries-where-being-an-atheist-is-punishable-by-death-a6960561.html.

Cool story bro.  Check your avatar:

(https://www.therpgsite.com/customavatars/avatar12052_2.gif)

Oh look, it's atheists who executed people for believing.  Atheists who were the foulest and most prolific killers since Genghis Khan.

Quote from: Gagarth;1113877Are you aware this board has members from outside the U.S.

Sure. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to be an asshole?

Quote from: Gagarth;1113877Are you aware this board has members from outside the U.S.

We call them Americants.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113895https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

Seem's to have escape your notice but that was 300 years ago and more about lefties  getting rid of existing power structures. That and the Russian revolution are not evidence that religious believers are being killed on mass today by atheists in Europe or the Americas since that is where you seemed to be focused on.

Quote from: Pat;1113907Sure. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to be an asshole?

Your the asshole for pulling a  Pew poll of people in the  U.S to represent  the entire world.

Quote from: Alathon;1113906Cool story bro.  Check your avatar:

(https://www.therpgsite.com/customavatars/avatar12052_2.gif)

Oh look, it's atheists who executed people for believing.  Atheists who were the foulest and most prolific killers since Genghis Khan.

I refer you to the answer above.

Quote from: Gagarth;1113979Your the asshole for pulling a  Pew poll of people in the  U.S to represent  the entire world.

Where did I claim it represented the entire world?

Oh, I didn't. You're just an asshole.

When Atheists execute and discriminate against the religious their just not called atheists but something else. Communists murdered and discriminated but that wasn't because they where athiest but because they where communist.

See what I mean about how religious thought is inescapable?

Quote from: Gagarth;1113978Seem's to have escape your notice but that was 300 years ago and more about lefties  getting rid of existing power structures.

And your examples were from middle eastern countries with a specific religious and ethnic demographic, while saying "The religious folk" as if that was a broad example.

Apropos of religion and education, I note that the Ohio State House just passed a "Student Religious Liberties Act". (Though it still hasn't passed the State Senate.) The bill widens student religious freedom so that they are explicitly allowed to express their religion in the classroom and in their homework and other assignments, and not be penalized for it. Critics argue that it would cause problems if students submit homework with, say, Creationist beliefs.

Article:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohios-religious-liberty-measure-kicks-up-controversy-over-application-to-students

Here's the homework clause from the law, for reference:

Quote(No school authority) shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

Source: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-164

Even if it doesn't allow Creationism, I'm not clear that there was a problem here that needed to be addressed in law. Do students really need to express their religion within their homework?

Quote from: jhkim;1114026Even if it doesn't allow Creationism, I'm not clear that there was a problem here that needed to be addressed in law. Do students really need to express their religion within their homework?

You've got the argument backwards. While there are occasions when certain limits must be put on certain types of expression, they need to be carefully delimited and strongly justified exceptions. The argument "do you really to express your beliefs in this particular case?" is a blatant attack on the very concept of freedom of speech. It can be used to justify suppressing speech nearly everywhere, because there's almost never a compelling argument that someone needs to say something right here, right now, and in this way. So it can't be on the speaker to justify to why they need to express themselves and in what way; we must place a high burden on the suppressor to justify why in this case there's a compelling need to do so, and to strictly limit its scope.

I think a bigger question is why on earth anyone felt the need to pass a bill like this. Are children being punished for expressing religious beliefs in schools, is this an overreaction, or is it a stealth attempt to introduce something like Creationism (though based on the wording of the statue, the latter doesn't seem to be the case). There's some missing context.

Quote from: jhkimEven if it doesn't allow Creationism, I'm not clear that there was a problem here that needed to be addressed in law. Do students really need to express their religion within their homework?

Quote from: Pat;1114054I think a bigger question is why on earth anyone felt the need to pass a bill like this. Are children being punished for expressing religious beliefs in schools, is this an overreaction, or is it a stealth attempt to introduce something like Creationism (though based on the wording of the statue, the latter doesn't seem to be the case). There's some missing context.

What you say here sounds exactly like what I was trying to say. The law presupposes that there's a problem with suppression of religious expression in children's homework -- which I'm skeptical of. Even if it's not intended for Creationism per se, I suspect it of political grandstanding rather than addressing a real problem.

Students should be free to advocate for Creationism on their own time -- but if they turn in Creationist answers in their evolution homework, they should get lousy grades for it.

Quote from: jhkim;1114057What you say here sounds exactly like what I was trying to say.

Nope. You created for a test for when freedom of speech applied that basically nullified the concept. I oppose that.

Anyone upset about kids expressing any particular origin belief in a pre-university education is much more concerned about shaping their worldview against religion than they are truly worried about so-called wrong knowledge.

The only context for origins is spiritual/philosophical for the vast majority of people, lumping atheism into that category, and everyone knows it.  The number of occupations that creationists can't succeed in while believing Genesis is true is very small - and this is conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt every day of the week.  So the hand-wringing over what is written on a 7th grade biology test on an out of Africa question is laughable.  It's about making sure children know from a young age that many people will actively hold them in contempt unless they, at the very least, mouth the words they don't believe - and that is all it is.

Quote from: EOTB;1114112It's about making sure children know from a young age that many people will actively hold them in contempt unless they, at the very least, mouth the words they don't believe - and that is all it is.

Well, why abandon it if it has educational value then?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114116Well, why abandon it if it has educational value then?

Thanks for confirming your definition of "education" for us.

That Ohio law is a can of worms. I don't see it going good places.

EOTB is very right that 99% of professions don't require any opinion about evolution. And I'm not talking low paid jobs only, you don't need to believe in evolution to be a doctor, a lawyer, a pharmacist, a business owner, real estate mogul, stock broker or computer programmer.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114001See what I mean about how religious thought is inescapable?

You're right. Humans will always turn something into a religion. Our species does not like uncertainty and hates hard questions, and religion solves both. Sometimes the religion involves a deity, other times it's the state apparatus, a cult leader or a political ideology.

Quote from: EOTB;1114112Anyone upset about kids expressing any particular origin belief in a pre-university education is much more concerned about shaping their worldview against religion than they are truly worried about so-called wrong knowledge.

Except that teaching evolution is not anti-religion. Evolution is taught without any issue in all Catholic schools, for example. Are Catholic schools anti-religion? The vast majority of religious people accept evolution as well as other science as part of the divine creation -- not as an attack.

Quote from: EOTB;1114112The only context for origins is spiritual/philosophical for the vast majority of people, lumping atheism into that category, and everyone knows it. The number of occupations that creationists can't succeed in while believing Genesis is true is very small - and this is conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt every day of the week.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1114143EOTB is very right that 99% of professions don't require any opinion about evolution. And I'm not talking low paid jobs only, you don't need to believe in evolution to be a doctor, a lawyer, a pharmacist, a business owner, real estate mogul, stock broker or computer programmer.

So the fuck what? You don't need to believe that the sun goes around the Earth in order to be in any of those jobs either. Should we stop teaching kids heliocentrism?

I would say no, we should teach them heliocentrism as well as evolution, because they're important parts of science, and they're worth knowing -- just like it's worth learning music, Shakespeare, and history.

Goal post shifting.  Teach what you want.  Why does that require preventing them from responding with their religious beliefs?  "This textbook states x which I believe not to be true because y". Fail them or no?  

What are you so worked up about?  Every time creationism comes up you lose all sense of perspective and subtly use rhetoric to position it beyond the pale of respectability.  You and many people don't want to believe the Bible is true in that regard, which is fine, but you're not so fucking obtuse as to fail to realize that for many believing such is what they build their center around.  Let them.  Without front-loading those sorts of struggles to do so.  Don't be a dick because you've made a decision another way for your own conscience.  And don't try to pretend you don't understand why heliocentrism isn't apples to apples, sophist.

For Pete's sake - these are purportedly fellow believers you want failed.  I've met more sympathetic atheists.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1114143You're right. Humans will always turn something into a religion. Our species does not like uncertainty and hates hard questions, and religion solves both. Sometimes the religion involves a deity, other times it's the state apparatus, a cult leader or a political ideology.

Il be more kind in the examination: there are a ton of hard questions all the time, generally without satisfactory solutions. Religion in one way or another is coping with those questions to a better or worse degree.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1113814Id say the vocabulary when addressing religion is woefully underserved. I think that a word for "people that don't believe in gods or supernatural elements but still exhibit the same kind of religous fervor" needs to exist.

Like communists and technopheliacs persue technology or socialism the same way that people worship at a church. But there is no word for them except "Religous-like". I think sociologists explained it as somekind of mental state that allowed us to make larger scale communities without imploding?

Id say 8% of the USA doesn't believe in a god but 0.001% don't believe in something with religious fervor.

Agreed.

I'm also going to second the notion of Atheism earning its bad rep in the West. The SJW movement owes a lot of its origins to the New Atheism movement of the 1990's and 2000's. The near-dogmatic dominance of postmodernism in the higher education systems in America also play a major role.

I'm also going to throw shade at punk culture for playing a noticeable part in the rise of the SJW Left, although it's not as important to the origin of the movement as postmodernism and intersectionality paired with a backlash against the old Christian Right of the 80's and 90's.

I used to be an anti-theist/atheist before becoming a polytheist. Trust me, there's a difference between atheists and Atheism as a movement.

Quote from: EOTB;1114165What are you so worked up about?  Every time creationism comes up you lose all sense of perspective and subtly use rhetoric to position it beyond the pale of respectability.  You and many people don't want to believe the Bible is true in that regard, which is fine, but you're not so fucking obtuse as to fail to realize that for many believing such is what they build their center around.  Let them. Without front-loading those sorts of struggles to do so.  Don't be a dick because you've made a decision another way for your own conscience.

They have the right to believe what they want - but no, I don't consider Creationism to be respectable, and I don't feel like science teachers should have to make concessions so that Creationists aren't offended.

Sending the message that scientists are faithless heathens full of lies is a social ill, and encourages people to distrust scientists in other ways - like refusing vaccines and trying to pray the cancer away.

I believe that science improves understanding, saves lives, and makes the world an objectively better place. I think it has been vital to our culture and civilization, and should be taught in school along with other essentials like math, grammar, and other mainstream topics. That is me expressing my belief, and I will vote on this basis, and try to convince other people to vote with me.

People who are opposed to this message are free express their opposition, and I will argue against them.

Quote from: jhkim;1114205They have the right to believe what they want - but no, I don't consider Creationism to be respectable, and I don't feel like science teachers should have to make concessions so that Creationists aren't offended.

Sending the message that scientists are faithless heathens full of lies is a social ill, and encourages people to distrust scientists in other ways - like refusing vaccines and trying to pray the cancer away.

I believe that science improves understanding, saves lives, and makes the world an objectively better place. I think it has been vital to our culture and civilization, and should be taught in school along with other essentials like math, grammar, and other mainstream topics. That is me expressing my belief, and I will vote on this basis, and try to convince other people to vote with me.

People who are opposed to this message are free express their opposition, and I will argue against them.

Scientists are just human with all of humanities foibles.  The reason science works is that it operates independently to what a scientist may believe.

Quote from: Shasarak;1114212Scientists are just human with all of humanities foibles.  The reason science works is that it operates independently to what a scientist may believe.

I agree with that.

But individual people's beliefs matter in a democracy, because it affects what they vote for. If anti-science beliefs take too much hold in the population, then we'll get more laws passed to restrict science education, appoint anti-science judges, and so forth.

Quote from: jhkim;1114214I agree with that.

But individual people's beliefs matter in a democracy, because it affects what they vote for. If anti-science beliefs take too much hold in the population, then we'll get more laws passed to restrict science education, appoint anti-science judges, and so forth.

Has there been any popular movement recently that is based on real science?

You have "Climate" science that is not real science.  You have "Gender" science that is not real science.  You have "Feminist" science that is not real science.

Look at what is happening in Canada, the anti-science judges and laws are here already.  People are correct to be skeptical of news reports because the science is never as settled as the headlines claim.

In your slippery slope to it being a choice whether science or religion is suppressed, you avoided the question: fail them or no?

Quote from: EOTB;1114222In your slippery slope to it being a choice whether science or religion is suppressed, you avoided the question: fail them or no?

Sorry. No, don't fail them. If they demonstrate actual understanding of the material, then they should pass in a test or homework.

Cool.  Then to my way of reading that bill, there's no real concern in its text

Quote from: jhkim;1114214I agree with that.

But individual people's beliefs matter in a democracy, because it affects what they vote for. If anti-science beliefs take too much hold in the population, then we'll get more laws passed to restrict science education, appoint anti-science judges, and so forth.

We already have laws and law makers who deny science but those are ones you would agree with.

Quote from: EOTB;1114224Cool.  Then to my way of reading that bill, there's no real concern in its text

I would agree that if everyone handling it were reasonable, the law would not be a major problem. If all Creationist students understood the evolution fine, and teachers, judges, and parents were all reasonable and supportive of the educational standards -- then sure, things would go smoothly.

However, from my experience in education, unreasonable parents will sue over any sort of excuse -- and rather than fight the lawsuit at high expense, school districts will settle and compromise. The law gives ammunition especially to Creationist parents who sue in some rural Ohio district with a sympathetic judge. Putting laws in place telling teachers how to grade papers in a science classroom is classic micromanagement that will only lead to problems.

Quote from: jhkimBut individual people's beliefs matter in a democracy, because it affects what they vote for. If anti-science beliefs take too much hold in the population, then we'll get more laws passed to restrict science education, appoint anti-science judges, and so forth.

Quote from: Gagarth;1114258We already have laws and law makers who deny science but those are ones you would agree with.

There are a number of science-denying movements that have had success in the legislature - like anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccine. I'm opposed to those movements. And their existence doesn't mean we should put laws in place to enable more religious expression in science classrooms.

Maybe we differ on some other science points - I'm not sure - but I don't see why that means we couldn't agree about teaching evolution.

Evolution isn't a sacrament so holy it needs to be placed outside of sympathetic judges.  If the opposite side has to deal with judges twisting laws outside on their intent, and that isn't a reason to say laws dealing with those subjects can't be passed out of an abundance of caution not over what they actually say but what might be interpreted out of them, then that standard also applies here.

No one should ever have to mouth the words "the Bible isn't literally true" to get some paper allowing advancement in life.  Period.  Just as no one should have to mouth the words that it is.  Of course very limited exceptions can be made - if you're getting a degree in evolution or literal bible study then the exception proves the rule, but outside of that lay off.  If it's inconvenient to the glorious future you envision them tough shit.  To say we must institute one to protect against the other is to say the means aren't the problem, only the ends.

Quote from: EOTB;1114293If it's inconvenient to the glorious future you envision them tough shit.

And thats why I hate centralization under the government so much. We could have space for states to do more of whatever if it wasn't for this mess.

Quote from: jhkim;1114291There are a number of science-denying movements that have had success in the legislature - like anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccine. I'm opposed to those movements. And their existence doesn't mean we should put laws in place to enable more religious expression in science classrooms.

Maybe we differ on some other science points - I'm not sure - but I don't see why that means we couldn't agree about teaching evolution.

What about the self identification of sex/gender I am sure you well behind those types of laws. I do not believe in Creationism but I also don't believe that anyone that does so should be cancelled.

Quote from: EOTB;1114112Anyone upset about kids expressing any particular origin belief in a pre-university education is much more concerned about shaping their worldview against religion than they are truly worried about so-called wrong knowledge.

The only context for origins is spiritual/philosophical for the vast majority of people, lumping atheism into that category, and everyone knows it.  The number of occupations that creationists can't succeed in while believing Genesis is true is very small - and this is conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt every day of the week.  So the hand-wringing over what is written on a 7th grade biology test on an out of Africa question is laughable.  It's about making sure children know from a young age that many people will actively hold them in contempt unless they, at the very least, mouth the words they don't believe - and that is all it is.

I always taught my kids that teachers and textbooks will often lie about things, sometimes through ignorance and sometimes through deliberate malice. So what you do is pay attention and on anything that counts for a grade you give them the answer they are looking for. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, just save yourself some grief and give them what they want.

Now if you are in a class with a good teacher that encourages critical thinking and dissent, then speak up and take any position you want and argue it to the best of your ability, you'll learn a lot in those classes. Meanwhile, never limit yourself to just a textbook, read many different books on each subject and pursue other sources of information. Education is something you get in spite of the government and is your own responsibility to see that you get it.

Quote from: shuddemell;1113532We do not know the specific mechanism of speciation, gradual evolution (Darwinism) is part of the picture, it isn't the complete picture. The Burgess Shale (which was discovered in 1909, by a professor from the Smithsonian, Charles Doolittle Walcott) shows NO clear antecendents for many extremely complex organisms arising seemingly ab initio. Over the years, NO adequate explanation has been forwarded, nor any intermediary forms found, and punctuated equillibrium doesn't explain the mechanism at all. In addition discoveries in Biochemistry have all but excluded certain structures from being formed by graduated modification, the mammalian eye being one, which Pat alluded to earlier [no I was alluding to something else]. Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Behe goes into this in great detail if you have a mind to actually look at the evidence.

I've been reading Acquiring Genomes: A Theory for the Origins of Species by Lynn Margulis (and her son, Dorion Sagan, but he's a science writer, not a scientist, so we can safely assume the arguments are hers). It has a very heavy focus on microbiology and the omnipresence of symbiosis in the ecosystem, and covers a lot of theories and research about biosymbiosis, larval integration, karyotypic fission, and other methods whereby speciation can take place by large and rapid changes in an organism's genome, instead of the small incremental mutations neodarwinists have struggled to reconcile with the punctuated equilibrium of the fossil record. Though while her book is interesting, I can't really recommend it. It's written in a very scattered fashion, making it hard to follow chains of thought; and is very poor at explaining technical topics (helps to have a strong background in microbiology). Not to mention the book's almost old enough to vote, so it predates the cheap and easy sequencing of entire genomes, which gave us an immense amount of new information about how genomes are structured and change. (I read her book mostly for context.)

For what it's worth, in the last few pages, she referenced Behe's book: "Anthropocentric writers with a proclivity for the miraculous and a committment to divine intervention tend to attribute historical appearances like eyes, wings, and speech to 'irreducible complexity' (as, for example, Michael Behe does in his book, Darwin's Black Box)...." (p. 202).

Yes, like I said before, I don't agree with their conclusions, only their illumination of the problems with NeoDarwinism. However, her critique actually doesn't address the problem, only the conclusion. The ultimate point I was making, and still am, is teaching NeoDarwinism as a certainty is as fraught with problems and bias as is any conclusion with lack of evidence. I believe, particularly when you see what information theory is telling us about biological information, irreducible complexity isn't as irrational as they would have us believe. NeoDarwinism requires slow graduated change, and that isn't what the fossil record really indicates. No proof is exactly that, there is no proof of Darwinism or Divinities causing speciation. It is an unanswered question, and should be taught as such. I would like to see some of the newer theories about speciation that are credible however, perhaps there is a more modern source that would be more useful.

She does address the problem in book, though (I mentioned 3 of mechanisms she discussed: biosymbiosis, larval integration, and karyotypic fission). A more recent alternative is horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from viruses, the consequences of which have led to easy human manipulation of genes (cf. CRISPR). A recent popular book on the subject is The Tangled Tree (2018), by David Quammon. He's not a scientist, but he's a very good writer. Though while he gets a bit too chatty about the personal lives of the scientists for my taste (the book almost turns into a bio of Carl Woese), it's a good overview of the latest science, though the main focus is HGT, and it dances around speciation.

Quote from: Pat;1114946She does address the problem in book, though (I mentioned 3 of mechanisms she discussed: biosymbiosis, larval integration, and karyotypic fission). A more recent alternative is horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from viruses, the consequences of which have led to easy human manipulation of genes (cf. CRISPR). A recent popular book on the subject is The Tangled Tree (2018), by David Quammon. He's not a scientist, but he's a very good writer. Though while he gets a bit too chatty about the personal lives of the scientists for my taste (the book almost turns into a bio of Carl Woese), it's a good overview of the latest science, though the main focus is HGT, and it dances around speciation.

None of which of course fit within the NeoDarwinism taught in school, which was the subject of my criticism. I have a buddy that works in Microbiology doing CRISPR for trial medications (they recently did a version of the universal flu vaccine, but that was a dead end), and I think that HGT is a potential candidate for some speciation, though to my knowledge they have yet to be able to prove it has caused speciation in the wild, though it will be revolutionary if they do. Have any of those theoretical forms of speciation actually been conclusively demonstrated? It would be interesting if so.

Quote from: shuddemell;1114948None of which of course fit within the NeoDarwinism taught in school, which was the subject of my criticism. I have a buddy that works in Microbiology doing CRISPR for trial medications (they recently did a version of the universal flu vaccine, but that was a dead end), and I think that HGT is a potential candidate for some speciation, though to my knowledge they have yet to be able to prove it has caused speciation in the wild, though it will be revolutionary if they do. Have any of those theoretical forms of speciation actually been conclusively demonstrated? It would be interesting if so.

Not that I know of, this is outside my area of expertise. But Margulis is more known for promoting provocative theories (which occasionally turn out to be right) than supporting the established consensus, which should help place them in context. The one I'd like to see more information on is larval integration. It's based on the observation that the larval forms of widely separated animals (sea urchins and brittle stars, for instance) can have nearly identical larval forms, while closely related animals (for instance, different species within a sea urchin or starfish genus) can have radically different larval forms. From a phylogenetic standpoint, it's almost like the mature and immature forms have different evolutionary trees. The most extreme examples are among the sergestid decapod shrimp, who metamorphose into 4 entirely different larval forms before reaching maturity. Donald Williamson argued that that this happens because of extremely rare fertile crossbreeding between animals in radically different taxonomic groups, which result in the incorporation of a new larval form into the new ensuing lineage. Which sounds absolutely crazy, but apparently they witnessed it happening when an Enchinua esculentus father fertilized the eggs of an Ascidia mentula mother. The offspring that survived had the larval form of their father, but developed adhesive discs like their mother. Enchinodermata x Chordata... they're not even in the same phylum.

https://www.omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/2168-9296-SR230.pdf

Quote from: Pat;1114953Not that I know of, this is outside my area of expertise. But Margulis is more known for promoting provocative theories (which occasionally turn out to be right) than supporting the established consensus, which should help place them in context. The one I'd like to see more information on is larval integration. It's based on the observation that the larval forms of widely separated animals (sea urchins and brittle stars, for instance) can have nearly identical larval forms, while closely related animals (for instance, different species within a sea urchin or starfish genus) can have radically different larval forms. From a phylogenetic standpoint, it's almost like the mature and immature forms have different evolutionary trees. The most extreme examples are among the sergestid decapod shrimp, who metamorphose into 4 entirely different larval forms before reaching maturity. Donald Williamson argued that that this happens because of extremely rare fertile crossbreeding between animals in radically different taxonomic groups, which result in the incorporation of a new larval form into the new ensuing lineage. Which sounds absolutely crazy, but apparently they witnessed it happening when an Enchinua esculentus father fertilized the eggs of an Ascidia mentula mother. The offspring that survived had the larval form of their father, but developed adhesive discs like their mother. Enchinodermata x Chordata... they're not even in the same phylum.

https://www.omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/2168-9296-SR230.pdf

That is fascinating and quite provocative. Thanks for the link.

Men are violent but women are not  therefore women are thoroughly justified in wanting women only groups.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/ (https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/)

Quote from: Gagarth;1115599Men are violent but women are not  therefore women are thoroughly justified in wanting women only groups.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/ (https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/)

I'm not surprised. As an oppressed wahman suffering the pain of the patriarchy, she had no choice but to get drunk in a bar, smash glasses when she was told they were closing, and then stab people so they're scarred for life. Totally understandable why the judge would recognize her oppressed wahmenhood and let her go.

As the comment section pointed out, her next victim should be a judge.

Quote from: Gagarth;1115599Men are violent but women are not  therefore women are thoroughly justified in wanting women only groups.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/ (https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/28/woman-scarred-mans-face-pint-glass-spared-jail-told-grow-10999607/)

Pussy pass strikes again.

Ooh, she's crazy, and apparently a repeat offender. :eek: She got 20 months imprisonment, suspended if she completes rehab and 118 hrs of unpaid labor (UK equivalent of community service). ... I doubt if she will complete that condition without failure and end up having to serve her 20 months.

:( OK, that's the criminal segment of it. Where's the young man's tortious civil suit for being scarred and losing out on his job due to emotional trauma (apparently the woman and victim live in the same neighborhood)? Does the UK bother with civil cases for restitutional damages? :confused:

Quote from: Opaopajr;1115995Ooh, she's crazy, and apparently a repeat offender. :eek: She got 20 months imprisonment, suspended if she completes rehab and 118 hrs of unpaid labor (UK equivalent of community service). ... I doubt if she will complete that condition without failure and end up having to serve her 20 months.

:( OK, that's the criminal segment of it. Where's the young man's tortious civil suit for being scarred and losing out on his job due to emotional trauma (apparently the woman and victim live in the same neighborhood)? Does the UK bother with civil cases for restitutional damages? :confused:

Compensation can be part of the sentencing if the offender can afford it. Otherwise  the victim can apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).

One my favourites of this type of female privilege is this  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832

I wonder if the judge would have been so lenient if the woman had scarred another woman. How does the "woman privilege" mentality handle female on female transgressions?

I'm a member of three 'men's groups' and women have never given me shit about it.  Two of them are through church and one is entirely social - a monthly poker game.  The first two are for men only and is a place for men to discuss the issues they have as husbands and fathers with other men who are also husbands and fathers.  It's like a support group, and it wouldn't really be helpful to include women.  The other we've invited women, but hey, if they're not interested, they're not interested.  Several of our wives choose to socialize during poker night but not play directly.  

There are lots of reasons why you might have gendered groups, and they're not all problems.  But generally deliberately excluding women from a D&D group can't be justified.  To do so you'd have to make the claim that you're trying to focus on a game that is based on shared experiences that women can't identify with.  And that's fine if it's true, but the closer you are to the perceived 'non-descript' the harder that is to justify.  This is why privilege factors into it - if you've never been denied entry based on factors beyond your control, you don't have that treatment as an 'other' to build the experience around.  

Building a group around a shared experience can be liberating - whether that is 'people who went on a cruise together in 2015' or 'people who are female gamers'.  While there are some good reasons to have a guys only group, there are a lot of people who are just misogynists afraid of cooties, and it's not wrong to hold them to a higher standard to show that they're not deliberately excluding people based solely on prejudice.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116251But generally deliberately excluding women from a D&D group can't be justified.

"I feel more comfortable with guys".
Done.

Why do men have to justify themselves but women do not?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116257"I feel more comfortable with guys".
Done.

No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.
If I heard someone say that - I might think they need therapy or a psychologist's help.

-Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1116265No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.
If I heard someone say that - I might think they need therapy or a psychologist's help.

-Ed C.

Yes everyone feel sorry for the non existent girl that got excluded from an imaginary game.

Quote from: Koltar;1116265No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.
If I heard someone say that - I might think they need therapy or a psychologist's help.

-Ed C.

OK, a Klingon Cosplayer thinks that someone needs therapy because they don't feel comfortable gaming with women. That's rich.

Marge: I think he prefers the company of men.

Homer: Sure, but who doesn't?

Greetings!

Geesus. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with some people. Why is the topic of mixed groups or non-mixed groups of people playing a fucking RPG together such a goddamn issue?

I love playing in mixed groups, with women. They are awesome.

But guess fucking what? I have also played in groups where it has just been a group of us guys. All gathered around, smoking cigars, rolling dice and gaming together. THAT has also been fucking awesome!

Sometimes I really wonder how some gamers can be so fucking socially dysfunctional.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1116270!

Sometimes I really wonder how some gamers can be so fucking socially dysfunctional.
SHARK

I don't know if they're gamers or not, and I'm not sure if it really matters, but I can answer the second part of your question.

They're making shit up just to piss you off, and attempt to ruin your day.

Quote from: Koltar;1116265No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.
If I heard someone say that - I might think they need therapy or a psychologist's help.

-Ed C.

As someone who actually prefers to hang out with women, I don't really see the need to say this about someone who prefers to spend time with the guys.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116251There are lots of reasons why you might have gendered groups, and they're not all problems.  But generally deliberately excluding women from a D&D group can't be justified.

Fuck off you soy boy cunt. Also there are other games apart from D&D you fuckwit.  Like fucking Pendragon.  I have had women happily play male knights in the past. But with assholes like you pushing this bullshit I could do without the drama.

Quote from: Koltar;1116265No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.

If a woman said she was more comfortable with women I would guess the same would not apply?

Figures.

Seems relevant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_are_wonderful_effect

Does anyone have any experience with deliberately men-only gaming groups? I've been in a number of male-only gaming groups, but they weren't deliberately that way - just by . I do know that my friend Mickey had a women-only group that she gamed with, and I think that it was deliberately recruited to be women-only. It sounded like fun to me, and I don't see an issue with it.

Quote from: SHARK;1116270I love playing in mixed groups, with women. They are awesome.

But guess fucking what? I have also played in groups where it has just been a group of us guys. All gathered around, smoking cigars, rolling dice and gaming together. THAT has also been fucking awesome!

Yeah, I don't see an issue with selective gaming groups. Pundit was calling it "segregation" in his recent thread on the RPG forum,

D&D SJWs Want Segregation (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41430-D-amp-D-SJWs-Want-Segregation)

But I think it's fine. Not every gaming group has to be open to everyone.

Quote from: jhkim;1116303Yeah, I don't see an issue with selective gaming groups. Pundit was calling it "segregation" in his recent thread on the RPG forum,

D&D SJWs Want Segregation (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41430-D-amp-D-SJWs-Want-Segregation)

But I think it's fine. Not every gaming group has to be open to everyone.

I agree with this. I'm not against segregation one way or another if it's on a social level.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116305I agree with this. I'm not against segregation one way or another if it's on a social level.

That will last until it gets decided that you are the one to be segregated against.

Quote from: jeff37923;1116313That will last until it gets decided that you are the one to be segregated against.

That's already happening to me. On both business and social levels. If I want to have the ability to choose who to exclude its only fair that others exclude me as well.
Like why would I want to hang-out with people that have to be forced to spend time with me? And I would not appreciate not being able to curate my own groups as well.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116314That's already happening to me. On both business and social levels. If I want to have the ability to choose who to exclude its only fair that others exclude me as well.
Like why would I want to hang-out with people that have to be forced to spend time with me? And I would not appreciate not being able to curate my own groups as well.

Except when it is social it isn't a matter of you forcing someone to spend time with you, it is a matter of someone using their influence to bring about negative consequences for those who spend time with you. Big difference there.

Quote from: jeff37923;1116326Except when it is social it isn't a matter of you forcing someone to spend time with you, it is a matter of someone using their influence to bring about negative consequences for those who spend time with you. Big difference there.

That's not segregation, literally not segregation but bigotry.

Everyone has the right to Freedom of Association in your personal life. AKA, exactly why MLK pointed out that Sunday church hours were the most segregated time in America. People have the right to choose who they wish to associate with during their free time for whatever reason.

So go ahead and segregate your RPG group as much as you like, but the problematic issue is when public events, such as conventions or game days begin pushing segregation agendas.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1116338Everyone has the right to Freedom of Association in your personal life. AKA, exactly why MLK pointed out that Sunday church hours were the most segregated time in America. People have the right to choose who they wish to associate with during their free time for whatever reason.

So go ahead and segregate your RPG group as much as you like, but the problematic issue is when public events, such as conventions or game days begin pushing segregation agendas.

This is how I feel about it but the problem is the extremist left, like deadDMwalking, do not see it that way.  If you do exclude someone who is part of a particular  demographic you would be worthy of scorn.  The exclusion could be so traumatic they could take it to social media with people like deadDMwalking retweeting it to the rest of the outrage mob.  That would like nice the next time a prospective employer has a social media sweep done before hiring you.

Quote from: Koltar;1116265No, that is a crappy thing to say or do.
If I heard someone say that - I might think they need therapy or a psychologist's help.

-Ed C.

Oddly enough, my wife generally prefers gaming with guys and often finds other female gamers annoying as fuck (with a few exceptions).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1116372Oddly enough, my wife generally prefers gaming with guys and often finds other female gamers annoying as fuck (with a few exceptions).

My wife is the same.

One of her "friends" that gamed with us, went full-on 5-Wave Feminist and made a veiled threat to shoot me (in my own house, no less!) because I didn't care enough about her "issues". It didn't go over well.

Quote from: Gagarth;1116354The exclusion could be so traumatic they could take it to social media with people like deadDMwalking retweeting it to the rest of the outrage mob.

I am not on Twitter.  

I think that excluding a person because you are uncomfortable with their appearance makes you a horrible person.  Excluding a person because they share a physical characteristic with someone else you don't like also makes you a horrible person.  Excluding someone because you don't like them for their personality is completely different.  I'm not offended that you don't want to game with me and I hope you take it as a compliment that I don't want to game with you.  But that has everything to do with you being a bigoted asshole and nothing to do with your race, religion, country of origin, or political affiliation.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116393I think that excluding a person because you are uncomfortable with their appearance makes you a horrible person.  Excluding a person because they share a physical characteristic with someone else you don't like also makes you a horrible person.

What if the way they dress I find is overtly sexualized and makes me uncomfortable? Also what do you mean more specifically about physical characteristics? Is it that "You can't decide to have a boys-only Night" thing again?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116395What if the way they dress I find is overtly sexualized and makes me uncomfortable? Also what do you mean more specifically about physical characteristics? Is it that "You can't decide to have a boys-only Night" thing again?

Come on, if you cant signal your virtue on the internet without actually having to follow your own "rules" in real life then what can you do?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116395What if the way they dress I find is overtly sexualized and makes me uncomfortable? Also what do you mean more specifically about physical characteristics? Is it that "You can't decide to have a boys-only Night" thing again?

I previously mentioned that I'm in two men's groups at my church and I'm going to my poker group tonight that is an all guy thing.  In the first two, women are not welcome - it is for husbands and fathers.  In the second, women are welcome but none have opted to join.  There's no problem with a boys night out - or at least - there doesn't have to be.  

As far as the clothes someone chooses to wear (or maybe they don't have a choice, I don't know - not everyone has money), I don't think that's a good reason to avoid them.  I don't think it's possible to say that someone wearing a particular outfit can be harmful to you, even if you don't approve from a fashion perspective.  For example, I don't APPROVE of wearing pajamas to McDonalds at 3pm in the afternoon, but someone doesn't stop being a person because that's what they've chosen to do.  

If your position is 'I can't let any women into the group because I am so sexually overcharged that a woman wearing a burqa will make me cream my shorts', well, I think that's a problem with you and I'd consider you a terrible person.  If your position is that 'I can't let any women into this group because then I'll have to tell one woman that she dresses in a manner I find uncomfortable so I won't let someone else in that I'd actually like gaming with', I'd consider you a terrible person.  You're letting someone else's actions punish an innocent person because you're too cowardly to confront the actual issue.  

As far as 'physical characteristic', I mean things like being in a wheelchair, having a different skin color than you, having a medical condition that makes them appear unusual (like a burn victim), etc.  It's not weird that people in the middle ages despised people with hunchbacks and deliberately treated them like monsters, but I believe that recognizing that such small-minded bigotry is bad is good - it's the 21st century and we can be better about recognizing human dignity in whatever package it comes in.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116398I previously mentioned that I'm in two men's groups at my church and I'm going to my poker group tonight that is an all guy thing.  In the first two, women are not welcome - it is for husbands and fathers.  In the second, women are welcome but none have opted to join.  There's no problem with a boys night out - or at least - there doesn't have to be.  


As far as 'physical characteristic', I mean things like being in a wheelchair, having a different skin color than you, having a medical condition that makes them appear unusual (like a burn victim), etc.  It's not weird that people in the middle ages despised people with hunchbacks and deliberately treated them like monsters, but I believe that recognizing that such small-minded bigotry is bad is good - it's the 21st century and we can be better about recognizing human dignity in whatever package it comes in.

How dare you suggest that a woman can't be a husband or a father! You religious conservative bigot! I bet you are Trump supporter!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116398I previously mentioned that I'm in two men's groups at my church and I'm going to my poker group tonight that is an all guy thing.  In the first two, women are not welcome - it is for husbands and fathers.  In the second, women are welcome but none have opted to join.  There's no problem with a boys night out - or at least - there doesn't have to be.  

As far as the clothes someone chooses to wear (or maybe they don't have a choice, I don't know - not everyone has money), I don't think that's a good reason to avoid them.  I don't think it's possible to say that someone wearing a particular outfit can be harmful to you, even if you don't approve from a fashion perspective.  For example, I don't APPROVE of wearing pajamas to McDonalds at 3pm in the afternoon, but someone doesn't stop being a person because that's what they've chosen to do.  

If your position is 'I can't let any women into the group because I am so sexually overcharged that a woman wearing a burqa will make me cream my shorts', well, I think that's a problem with you and I'd consider you a terrible person.  If your position is that 'I can't let any women into this group because then I'll have to tell one woman that she dresses in a manner I find uncomfortable so I won't let someone else in that I'd actually like gaming with', I'd consider you a terrible person.  You're letting someone else's actions punish an innocent person because you're too cowardly to confront the actual issue.  

As far as 'physical characteristic', I mean things like being in a wheelchair, having a different skin color than you, having a medical condition that makes them appear unusual (like a burn victim), etc.  It's not weird that people in the middle ages despised people with hunchbacks and deliberately treated them like monsters, but I believe that recognizing that such small-minded bigotry is bad is good - it's the 21st century and we can be better about recognizing human dignity in whatever package it comes in.

I once hosted a game at my 3rd-floor apartment. I had someone in a wheelchair want to play. I said sure, but there's no elevator. He wanted me to move the game. None of the other players (including the guy in the wheelchair) had a suitable place to play, but boy did I have to hear about how I'd excluded the wheelchair user from his friend (a player in my group). Frankly, if he could have found a way up the stairs, he was welcome to play, but I wasn't going to move the game to a game store/pubic play area for him (most of my other players were uninterested in playing in a public place).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116398I previously mentioned that I'm in two men's groups at my church and I'm going to my poker group tonight that is an all guy thing.  In the first two, women are not welcome - it is for husbands and fathers.  In the second, women are welcome but none have opted to join.  There's no problem with a boys night out - or at least - there doesn't have to be.  

Why is there no problem with a boys night? Thats a physical characteristic.

QuoteAs far as the clothes someone chooses to wear (or maybe they don't have a choice, I don't know - not everyone has money), I don't think that's a good reason to avoid them. I don't think it's possible to say that someone wearing a particular outfit can be harmful to you, even if you don't approve from a fashion perspective.

Well what if somebody thinks differently? Does your opinion overrule theirs?
I dislike the many strawman arguments you made in the rest of your post so I won't be commenting on them.

You seem to be very judgemental and unwilling to try to view things from somebody else's perspective. Would you say you speak from a position of superior moral authority?

Was anyone at  PAX Unplugged last year?  Because if you were in a playtest of a game called Misbehavin' based on Blades in Dark this is what you PoC Gm (who works for Roll20) thought of you:-

QuoteSo I ended up running two separate sessions of Misbehavin' for strangers at PAX Unplugged this past weekend. That wasn't exactly my plan for the weekend but I decided to roll with it. Besides, what's the worst that could happen?
The worst thing was, well, two tables of white people who hadn't even played Blades before trying to step into a world even more bluntly about oppression, marginalization, intersectionality, and only tangentially about doing crimes. Hoo boy. It was an entire time, where the connect didn't even begin until the weight of consequences for actions started being felt. It was a trip and a half to me, who always feels like I'm being watched because I exist, to encounter people who felt they didn't really have to care about the effects of what they did. But that's not what this is going to be about. This is going to go through the critique and feedback I got about the game once the sessions were done and my observations about the way the players approached things.

QuoteBarriers On Top Of Barriers
Still, even with access, tabletop gaming has been and still is coded as something for white people for the reasons stated above and others. For that reason, it is incredibly hard to sell a lot of people of color on tabletop games without approaching it in roundabout ways. No one wants to be seen as the person “who talks and acts white”, to many people a shorthand for assimilating and repressing your culture

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116398For example, I don't APPROVE of wearing pajamas to McDonalds at 3 pm in the afternoon, but someone doesn't stop being a person because that's what they've chosen to do.

No, but sometimes it stops them from being perceived in anything other than a negative way. If someone goes out of their way to project an image of being a loon, then many of us will for personal safety of our loved ones choose to keep our distance.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116398If your position is 'I can't let any women into the group because I am so sexually overcharged that a woman wearing a burqa will make me cream my shorts',

This is ridiculous, women in burqas are not allowed to hang out with men who are not their father, brother or husband even if they wanted to. Along with the virtual impossibility of any such theoretical burqa wearing woman being interested in an RPG. What is even more ridiculous is the idea that someone would ban women from their game because they had a fetish for women in burqas. Your whole premise is devoid of any logic.

Quote from: Gagarth;1116793

QuoteBarriers On Top Of Barriers
Still, even with access, tabletop gaming has been and still is coded as something for white people for the reasons stated above and others. For that reason, it is incredibly hard to sell a lot of people of color on tabletop games without approaching it in roundabout ways. No one wants to be seen as the person "who talks and acts white", to many people a shorthand for assimilating and repressing your culture

It has never been my experience at any point in time that tabletop gaming is limited to white people, of course I did not grow up in an all white area, so maybe that is the difference. I am curious though as to why assimilating (learning to speak the common language of your country in an intelligible matter is automatically assumed to mean "repressing your culture?" All of the ethnic groups I knew growing up spoke as well or better than I do and yet their rich cultures did not seem to be impaired at all by choosing to get an education. The black people I know sound the same to me whether they are using slang or mainstream American English. The cadence and rhythm of their speech does not change, it still has that rich melodious sound. Just as most of the Irish I grew up with still have some or a lot of that Irish brogue unless they consciously suppress it.

Quote from: Gagarth;1116793

QuoteBarriers On Top Of Barriers
Still, even with access, tabletop gaming has been and still is coded as something for white people for the reasons stated above and others. For that reason, it is incredibly hard to sell a lot of people of color on tabletop games without approaching it in roundabout ways. No one wants to be seen as the person "who talks and acts white", to many people a shorthand for assimilating and repressing your culture

I have never found tabletop gaming to be a white only activity at any point in time. I also have never found D&D to be difficult to invite people of color too, at least no more difficult than inviting anyone else. Learning to speak the language so as to be mutually intelligible does not equate with "repressing your culture." Unless you are implying something that is IMO quite bigoted.

Quote from: Gagarth;1116793Was anyone at  PAX Unplugged last year?  Because if you were in a playtest of a game called Misbehavin' based on Blades in Dark this is what you PoC Gm (who works for Roll20) thought of you:-

They are not a PoC GM. They're a PoS. Nothing less, nothing more.

FYI, PoS stand for "Piece of Shit."

There is (and always has been) no barrier to entry for non-whites or women to enjoy RPGs. This current generation of leftist garbage are unfortunately praised for wallowing in their pretend victimhood which only guarantees more pretend victimhood and more Oppression Olympics.

For that reason, it is incredibly hard to sell a lot of people of color on tabletop games without approaching it in roundabout ways.

It's funny how SJW imbeciles want "people of color" to be this monolithic entity without division. Koreans are Nigerians, Guatemalans are Chinese, Ugandans are Lebanese, etc. All non-whites have zero diversity!! Their experience and thinking process is defined ONLY by their lack of white skin.  

Fortunately for our hobby, SJWs are morons and its really EASY to sell tabletop games to everyone. Not everyone is going to be interested because humans are different with different interests, but I have never seen anyone play or not play a game because of their skin color.

No one wants to be seen as the person "who talks and acts white", to many people a shorthand for assimilating and repressing your culture

If you're in the USA and you're not assimilating to American culture, go fuck off somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If your culture is so important to you, move back to where you're from. Why be miserable in the USA when you could be enjoying your lovely culture in a place where your lovely culture is the norm?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1116827If you're in the USA and you're not assimilating to American culture, go fuck off somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If your culture is so important to you, move back to where you're from. Why be miserable in the USA when you could be enjoying your lovely culture in a place where your lovely culture is the norm?

This is spitting on everything that America stands for. The original colonists came here precisely to be *free* from assimilation -- to be allowed to live and worship the way they wanted to. My father grew up in forced assimilation -- he was forced to speak Japanese in grade school, or he would be beaten. Thankfully, he was freed from that - because both Koreans and Americans stood up against this tyranny.

America is built on precisely this freedom. We've been guilty of forced assimilation as well (especially with blacks and American Indians) -- but we've gotten better at living up to our ideals. In the true America, you can be Irish and proud of it - or a Jew and proud of it -- or a Korean and proud of it -- or a Lakota and proud of it. These Americans can live with their own separate ways of life and worship, and they contribute to the whole.

As for the game Misbehavin' and the author's quotes -- that hasn't been my experience, but different people have different experience. It looks like the playtest version of the game is available here.

https://madpierrot.itch.io/misbehavin

And the quotes are from a Medium post by the author. I don't know anything about the game - just providing links if anyone wants to get more context or information.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848This is spitting on everything that America stands for. The original colonists came here precisely to be *free* from assimilation -- to be allowed to live and worship the way they wanted to. My father grew up in forced assimilation -- he was forced to speak Japanese in grade school, or he would be beaten. Thankfully, he was freed from that - because both Koreans and Americans stood up against this tyranny.

No, the original colonists came here to be free from oppression. Assimilation is neither oppression, not cultural erasure. A child who has to use English in grade school instead of Irish Gaelic is not having their Irish heritage destroyed. It just means they'll be able to fully participate in the wider American culture when they grow up, including engaging in commerce, utilizing government services, taking on civic responsibility, and making their opinions heard, without any barriers.

Assimilation involves a core set of shared values and practical tools, nothing else. It doesn't say what religion you have to practice, what ideology you have believe in, what your skin color has to be, or how many languages you speak. But we need to be able to communicate, so it helps if everyone speaks the same language. And we need to explain why essentials like democracy are important, to each new generation, whether native born or newly arrived. This is education, not coercion. A 40 year old immigrant may be encouraged to learn the lingua franca, but nobody will force them to do so.

It's hard to precisely define the boundaries of those core values, and as a result all kinds of unrelated values are sometimes lumped in, and have to be later stripped out or ignored. For instance, many of the core values are based on Christian culture, but that doesn't mean Christianity is a core value. But ambiguity around the fringes has no impact on the center, which is strong and clear, and includes things freedom of expression, free markets, free elections, and the value of the individual. Note most of these are negative values, not positive ones -- they don't say anything about what you have to do, they're mostly about what you're not allowed to do to others.

Also the original colonists arrived to impose the vision of their own will. They didnt take a couple of muslims with them because "lets all be free together".

Does anybody give a single true shit about what the colonists actually wanted outside of scoring cheap brownie points? Its like those people that reference bible quotes for progressive policies while spitting on the religious on every other occasion.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1116827There is (and always has been) no barrier to entry for non-whites or women to enjoy RPGs.

There are barriers, they are just self-made.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848This is spitting on everything that America stands for. The original colonists came here precisely to be *free* from assimilation -- to be allowed to live and worship the way they wanted to. My father grew up in forced assimilation -- he was forced to speak Japanese in grade school, or he would be beaten. Thankfully, he was freed from that - because both Koreans and Americans stood up against this tyranny.

America is built on precisely this freedom. We've been guilty of forced assimilation as well (especially with blacks and American Indians) -- but we've gotten better at living up to our ideals. In the true America, you can be Irish and proud of it - or a Jew and proud of it -- or a Korean and proud of it -- or a Lakota and proud of it. These Americans can live with their own separate ways of life and worship, and they contribute to the whole.

This is why they took the native american children away from their parents and put them in the religious boarding schools after conquering their land, right?  Probably also why the anti-asian laws were passed in the 19th century, why Teddy Roosevelt gave the "we're not a boarding house and everyone who comes must become 100% american" speech, and why immigration was practically shut down in the 1920s because the the national fabric was straining at the cultural seams.  Clearly, lots of evidence there that the ideal of the first few building generations was a salad bowel where people in their new country didn't have to assimilate.

I'm not advocating for conquering-assimilation of people in their historical lands; I think that phase should be put to bed forever.  But someone wanting to voluntarily move in and live cheek and jowel?  Different story.  Assimilate please. Don't beat me over the head with some poem one person wrote that wasn't even true when she put her pen down, as is too often made clear whenever guilt about what dead people did to other dead people is more convenient to the argument at hand then the guilt that should be felt by the same listener for failing to live up to the first group of dead people's lofty example.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848This is spitting on everything that America stands for. The original colonists came here precisely to be *free* from assimilation -- to be allowed to live and worship the way they wanted to. My father grew up in forced assimilation -- he was forced to speak Japanese in grade school, or he would be beaten. Thankfully, he was freed from that - because both Koreans and Americans stood up against this tyranny.

You don't seemed to be to outraged about the forced assimilation by the SJWs in the gaming industry.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848And the quotes are from a Medium post by the author. I don't know anything about the game - just providing links if anyone wants to get more context or information.

Do SJWs like the author of that Medium article give a fuck about context?

Quote from: Pat;1116872No, the original colonists came here to be free from oppression. Assimilation is neither oppression, not cultural erasure. A child who has to use English in grade school instead of Irish Gaelic is not having their Irish heritage destroyed. It just means they'll be able to fully participate in the wider American culture when they grow up, including engaging in commerce, utilizing government services, taking on civic responsibility, and making their opinions heard, without any barriers.

I think you should review your history.  If you're talking about the Pilgrims as the 'original colonists', you might not be aware that they left England, not for America, but for Holland.  

The Pilgrims in Holland (https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/who-were-pilgrims)

QuoteAlthough they had religious freedom, life in the Netherlands was not easy. The Separatists had to leave their homeland and friends to live in a foreign country without a clear idea of how they would support themselves. The congregation stayed briefly in Amsterdam and then moved to the city of Leiden. There they remained for the next 11 or 12 years. Most found work in the cloth trades, while others were carpenters, tailors and printers. Their lives required hard work. Even young children had to work. Some older children were tempted by the Dutch culture and left their families to become soldiers and sailors. Their parents feared that they would lose their identity as English people. To make matters worse, the congregation worried that another war might break out between the Dutch and Spanish. They decided to move again.

It's telling that the Pilgrims obtained the religious freedom they sought and STILL came to America.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116946I think you should review your history.  If you're talking about the Pilgrims as the 'original colonists'...

I was not talking about the Pilgrims in specific, if I was I would have said so.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116946It's telling that the Pilgrims obtained the religious freedom they sought and STILL came to America.

It is telling you completely ignored the last two sentences of his post. The Netherlands was still embroiled in what would be a brutal 80 year war of independence with the Catholic Spanish Habsburgs. Added to that was that the Thirty Years War had started a  few years before a major feature of which was was that the  Catholic Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II desire to wipe out Protestantism.  The Netherlands was not exactly the first safe country which is was your obviously trying to imply and you should be the one to go review history.

Quote from: Pat;1116957I was not talking about the Pilgrims in specific, if I was I would have said so.

So what do you mean by 'original colonists'?  In 1620 there were approximately 2,300 'colonists' in America, including the first African slaves arriving in Virginia.  Surely you're not claiming they came to be free from oppression.  

Which colonists, exactly had freedom from oppression as their primary motivation?  

Or are you ready to admit that you're perpetuating a revisionist version of history that isn't based firmly on facts?  The pilgrim narrative at least often includes a desire to avoid religious persecution (ie, freedom from oppression), but just about everyone else was focused on economic exploitation.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - people wanted to have the opportunity to work hard and achieve personal wealth and that was hard to do in Europe - but let's call a spade a spade.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1117052So what do you mean by 'original colonists'?  In 1620 there were approximately 2,300 'colonists' in America, including the first African slaves arriving in Virginia.  Surely you're not claiming they came to be free from oppression.  

Which colonists, exactly had freedom from oppression as their primary motivation?  

Or are you ready to admit that you're perpetuating a revisionist version of history that isn't based firmly on facts?  The pilgrim narrative at least often includes a desire to avoid religious persecution (ie, freedom from oppression), but just about everyone else was focused on economic exploitation.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - people wanted to have the opportunity to work hard and achieve personal wealth and that was hard to do in Europe - but let's call a spade a spade.

You took two words that had almost nothing to do with the main thrust of my post, and claimed it was a reference to the Pilgrims. I told you it wasn't.

In reply, you've gone even further, fabricating an entire edifice of beliefs and positions that you now claim I hold, which includes doubling down the Pilgrims with a new reference.

You literally made everything up, and when I told you that wasn't what I said, you not only greatly expanded your imaginary world, you completely ignored my previous reply. How the hell can I respond to that? No matter what I say, you're just going to ignore it and make up more shit.

It's also not a discussion I care about, one way or the other. I was talking about assimilation, not your obsession with people with funny hats.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848This is spitting on everything that America stands for.

Bullshit.

America is supposed to be the melting pot, not the toilet bowl were every shitty identity group floats about like a special snowflake.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848The original colonists came here precisely to be *free* from assimilation -- to be allowed to live and worship the way they wanted to.

The "original colonists" crossed over land bridges from Asia following mammoths, then spend the several millennia killing other tribes for the crime of not being their tribe.

The Pilgrims were like ISIS. They wanted their own holy caliphate, showed up in North America and carved out their territory. Also, the Pilgrims landed in 1620 and America was founded in 1776, so while the Pilgrims were ancestors of many Revolutionary Americans, they certainly weren't the same people with same desires. I doubt the Pilgrims would have appreciated the First Amendment.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848My father grew up in forced assimilation -- he was forced to speak Japanese in grade school, or he would be beaten. Thankfully, he was freed from that - because both Koreans and Americans stood up against this tyranny.

That has ZERO anything to do with non-assimilation in the USA.

Your father grew up in a Korea that had been conquered by the Japanese. He did not freely move to Japan and immerse himself in a Japanese society. That was imposed upon him by Japanese conquerors. He was not a free citizen in a free country. He did not make any free choice of where to live or go to school. What happened to your father and all of Korea was nightmarish. The fact South Korea has bounced back as much as it has since the WW2 and the Korean war is a tribute to Korean's strength as a culture and people.

My father grew up under the murderous and soul crushing boot of communism that your fellow liberals love so much and want to impose on the USA. My father left Yugoslavia by his own choice and emigrated first to France and then to the USA. In France, he learned to speak fluent French and lived as the French. In the USA, he learned English and how to bbq franks on 4th of July. He never bemoaned America demanding he shouldn't have to learn English, or that America had to conform to him. He made the decision to come to America and become an American.

Quote from: jhkim;1116848America is built on precisely this freedom. We've been guilty of forced assimilation as well (especially with blacks and American Indians) -- but we've gotten better at living up to our ideals. In the true America, you can be Irish and proud of it - or a Jew and proud of it -- or a Korean and proud of it -- or a Lakota and proud of it. These Americans can live with their own separate ways of life and worship, and they contribute to the whole.

Either be a proud AMERICAN or fuck off elsewhere.

Can you honor your ethnic heritage as an American? Sure. I'm not "proud" of my Italian or Croatian ancestry because I find ethnic pride weird, but I enjoy aspects of my ancestry, yet I am never moving to Italy nor Croatia because I'm an American like my immigrant parents and grandparents before me. Everybody in America can eat their ethnic food, have their ethnic holiday, do their ethnic dances, but if they're not Americans first and foremost, they need to find another country.

My issue with languages is that if at one point we don't decide to speak the same language communication breaks down.

Assimilation makes communication and co-existence possible on some level.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117130Either be a proud AMERICAN or fuck off elsewhere.

I don't agree.

America has a core set of values, but at the most fundamental level, they're based on individual choice. The individual's right to do what they want to do, say what they want to say, believe what they want to believe, and choose their friends and even family. Those values mean nothing, if they're forced. There's no catechism you must follow, or be excommunicated. No party line you must toe, or be gulaged. Enforced conformity, or purity checks, are anathema. Even if what someone thinks and shouts go against America's core set of values, that's their right, and that right only ends when they attempt to take away those rights from others.

Dissent is what makes those core values strong. When anyone can argue for or advocate anything, and nobody is compelled to listen to anyone, the ideas that endure have to be powerful.

Quote from: Pat;1117153I don't agree.

America has a core set of values, but at the most fundamental level, they're based on individual choice. The individual's right to do what they want to do, say what they want to say, believe what they want to believe, and choose their friends and even family. Those values mean nothing, if they're forced. There's no catechism you must follow, or be excommunicated. No party line you must toe, or be gulaged. Enforced conformity, or purity checks, are anathema. Even if what someone thinks and shouts go against America's core set of values, that's their right, and that right only ends when they attempt to take away those rights from others.

Dissent is what makes those core values strong. When anyone can argue for or advocate anything, and nobody is compelled to listen to anyone, the ideas that endure have to be powerful.

True, but then somebody pointed out a very harsh truth to me:
"Democracy works best when everyone agrees on most things in the first place when they don't democracy becomes a rat race".

America has always had spots for other cultural niches, but if there is no strong monoculture they are attached too it will collapse.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1117154True, but then somebody pointed out a very harsh truth to me:
"Democracy works best when everyone agrees on most things in the first place when they don't democracy becomes a rat race".

America has always had spots for other cultural niches, but if there is no strong monoculture they are attached too it will collapse.

Democracy is a separate issue, it's based on the collective delusion that each person's vote matters. It doesn't, but a functional democracy requires a significant portion of the population to act as if it does.

And it doesn't require a monoculture, it just requires a core set of shared values, which are mostly based around personal responsibility and live and let live. That's why assimilation is important. It's not about brainwashing or erasing someone's culture, it's about sharing those core values, and letting each new generation decide on their own. Hopefully they continue to do, because all the alternatives have horrible track records. The best selling point for those values is America itself, warts and all.

The shared language is vital, because the best guarantee of future success is fluent kids.

Quote from: Pat;1117157And it doesn't require a monoculture, it just requires a core set of shared values, which are mostly based around personal responsibility and live and let live.

If enough people reject personal responsibility and a view of collective responsibility isn't enforced, then the ones that are not responsible will dominate the conversation *cough*handouts*cough*.

Like I used to be a staunch 100% individualist before....But then I realized just how much society still depends on ENFORCING said views. And that's still a collective responsibility. If enough people just decide to not work, or become coked-up drug addicts, the whole thing falls apart.

You can't both demand responsibility, and be live and let live.

I like America as well, but I think a great argument for why this divide is getting larger is a lack of unified principles. One side is individualist and the other side is collectivist. One side or the other will have to loose.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1117158You can't both demand responsibility, and be live and let live.

You absolutely can. In fact, that's how it works. The only way to cultivate responsibility is to allow people make their own choices, and to live with the consequences of their actions. If you force them to do something, or require them to ask permission for everything they do, or take care of them so they don't have to take care of themselves, you just cultivate dependence. It's the switch from "I should do something" to "somebody should do something" or "somebody should pass a law".

Quote from: Pat;1117081You took two words that had almost nothing to do with the main thrust of my post, and claimed it was a reference to the Pilgrims.

Even in the post you quoted, I literally asked you who you mean by 'original colonists'.  You know, the ones that you brought up:

Quote from: PatNo, the original colonists came here to be free from oppression. Assimilation is neither oppression, not cultural erasure.

When you say 'original colonists', I want to know what you mean.  The reason I keep mentioning pilgrims is that is the only group that I've heard referred to as 'original colonists' that is frequently invoked to support a 'freedom from oppression narrative'.  Any other definition of 'original colonist' is worse for supporting your claim.  

So, to restate, your claim is bullshit.  You don't know what you're talking about.  There are no 'original colonists' coming to America to be free of oppression.  That might be part of the mythology we create about ourselves as Americans, just like 'pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps', but any serious discussion of history has to recognize the difference between the historical facts and the comforting stories we tell ourselves about them.  The myths are very flattering - the historical reality is a little more mixed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1117208Even in the post you quoted, I literally asked you who you mean by 'original colonists'.  

I wrote two words. You assumed I was talking about the pilgrims, and I told you I was not.

You replied, completely ignoring the only thing I actually said (which is that I wasn't talking about the pilgrims), and then built up this whole elaborate mythology based on things I never said (the pilgrims thing, just in case it's not clear).

I replied, told you (again) that I wasn't talking about the pilgrims, that I didn't care about the topic, pointed out that you completely ignored literally the only thing I said on the topic (that I wasn't talking about pilgrims) and instead created a complete set of fantasies (about pilgrims) based on nothing, so I concluded it's pointless to discuss anything further with you because you've proven that you'll just ignore what I said (pilgrims again) and continue making up things I never said (on the topic of pilgrims).

So in reply to that, just now, you claimed I'm talking about the pilgrims (I think you've done that before), and went off on another rant (about some groups in funny hats whose name may or may not start with the letter p). You seem a little obsessed. More than a little.

BTW, I wasn't referring to the pilgrims.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1117158If enough people reject personal responsibility and a view of collective responsibility isn't enforced, then the ones that are not responsible will dominate the conversation *cough*handouts*cough*.

Like I used to be a staunch 100% individualist before....But then I realized just how much society still depends on ENFORCING said views. And that's still a collective responsibility. If enough people just decide to not work, or become coked-up drug addicts, the whole thing falls apart.

You can't both demand responsibility, and be live and let live.

I like America as well, but I think a great argument for why this divide is getting larger is a lack of unified principles. One side is individualist and the other side is collectivist. One side or the other will have to loose.

I am not sure what you are saying here. To be clear those who do not work and those who are coked-up drug addicts are not individualists. The left, the SJWs, they are not individualists, a lot of the right are not individualists either. But it is true that only staunch 100% individualists take responsibility for their own actions and these are the only people responsible for any meaningful advances that happen in any field.

I was reading all of the back and forth about Democracy and assimilation. First we are not, thankfully, a Democracy. A Democracy is tyranny by the majority. We are a Representative Republic whose purpose is to protect the minority from the majority. Our government is designed to be slow and inefficient and the three branch (one two pronged) are to maintain the government as slow and inefficient as a protection against tyranny. When Congress became full time, instead of part time and the pay started going up like a rocket and lobbying became a national scandal we moved away from the vision of the founding fathers. Part of what drove the downward slide from Republic to Democracy and the growth of a political elite was the advance of technology around the world. If the world still used sailing ships and muskets, we would not need taxes to provide for the common defense and if we didn't have taxes we would not have the bloated federal government going way beyond its constitutional responsibilities. The evil of slavery lead directly to the moving from strong states and weak central government to weak states and strong central government and so we ended up were the founding fathers did not want us to go. If this country could have been founded without slavery we might have been able to have kept a weak central government and so avoided a lot of our problems that come with a strong central government.

Assimilation is a must, if people can't learn a common language and can't lay down their hyphens and leave them at the shore then we have no common ground. To use one example, there is a world of difference between an American with Irish ancestry and an Irish-American. The first respects and values their past, but lives in the present. The second does not respect or value the present, but lives in the past. Substitute anything word you want for Irish, it remains true. Substitute white, black, red, yellow or brown, still true.

Democracy has multiple meanings, but it is more technically correct to say the U.S. is a republic. But it's neither being a republic nor representative that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, it's the Constitution. Which places limits on the centralization of power by establishing multiple competing power centers, sets up checks and balances to prevent any of those power centers from coming to dominate the rest, and restricts the scope of their power; and just as importantly, lays out rights that individuals possess, and which cannot be abrogated by a simple vote. The U.S. is a constitutional republic.

Of course, those checks and balances have been chipped away, as power has progressively been centralized and the scope of government has been greatly increased, to the diminishment of state and individual rights. As government and the number of regulations have grown, the bureaucratic state also has become a power locus in its own, with unelected career officials unfettered by checks and balances making more, and more intrusive, decisions. The centralization of power and the vast number of laws has also been harmful to competition, because when there's so much meddling it's often more effective to lobby for special privileges than to compete on price or quality. More generally, the sheer volume of governmental activity means special interests who have a strong but narrow vested interest and are thus inclined to dedicate significant resources and attention to very specific areas (like subsidies or favoritism toward a particular industry, or corporation, or cause) tend to get their way on those very specific things, even if collectively all the red tape and favoritism in toto is detrimental to the people as a whole.

The abolishment of slavery may have been a factor that contributed to the current state, but I don't think it was a major one. Probably the largest single factor was the rise of socialism as the dominant strain of political and economic thought among intellectuals in Europe and around the world in the late 19th century. Its hegemony was so strong, that even those who rejected the label and the complete control of the means of production still tended to favor a well-meaning and intelligent elite making decisions for the bulk of the populace, and the first prerequisite for a planned society is centralization of power. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, the 16th amendment, the world wars, FDR, Nazism, fascism, communism, central banks and fiat money, and many other things flow from those ideals. Which are in direct opposition to the earlier liberal mode of thought that, as the name suggests, focused on liberty: Specifically in the form of representative democracies, the mutually beneficial trades of free markets, limited government, and individual rights.

Edit: I'm using the word "liberal" as it was used to describe the movements from the 17th through the early 20th centuries, which is almost the opposite of many current meanings.

Quote from: Pat;1117311Democracy has multiple meanings, but it is more technically correct to say the U.S. is a republic. But it's neither being a republic nor representative that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, it's the Constitution. Which places limits on the centralization of power by establishing multiple competing power centers, sets up checks and balances to prevent any of those power centers from coming to dominate the rest, and restricts the scope of their power; and just as importantly, lays out rights that individuals possess, and which cannot be abrogated by a simple vote. The U.S. is a constitutional republic.

Of course, those checks and balances have been chipped away, as power has progressively been centralized and the scope of government has been greatly increased, to the diminishment of state and individual rights. As government and the number of regulations have grown, the bureaucratic state also has become a power locus in its own, with unelected career officials unfettered by checks and balances making more, and more intrusive, decisions. The centralization of power and the vast number of laws has also been harmful to competition, because when there's so much meddling it's often more effective to lobby for special privileges than to compete on price or quality. More generally, the sheer volume of governmental activity means special interests who have a strong but narrow vested interest and are thus inclined to dedicate significant resources and attention to very specific areas (like subsidies or favoritism toward a particular industry, or corporation, or cause) tend to get their way on those very specific things, even if collectively all the red tape and favoritism in toto is detrimental to the people as a whole.

The abolishment of slavery may have been a factor that contributed to the current state, but I don't think it was a major one. Probably the largest single factor was the rise of socialism as the dominant strain of political and economic thought among intellectuals in Europe and around the world in the late 19th century. Its hegemony was so strong, that even those who rejected the label and the complete control of the means of production still tended to favor a well-meaning and intelligent elite making decisions for the bulk of the populace, and the first prerequisite for a planned society is centralization of power. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, the 16th amendment, the world wars, FDR, Nazism, fascism, communism, central banks and fiat money, and many other things flow from those ideals. Which are in direct opposition to the earlier liberal mode of thought that, as the name suggests, focused on liberty: Specifically in the form of representative democracies, the mutually beneficial trades of free markets, limited government, and individual rights.

Edit: I'm using the word "liberal" as it was used to describe the movements from the 17th through the early 20th centuries, which is almost the opposite of many current meanings.

NO, no you misunderstand it was not the abolishment of slavery that caused the problem, but its presence in the first place. Had slavery been dealt with originally as being banned from day one a whole lot of bad things would not have happened, both to people and to our government. The biggest single factor was the growth of technology that made so many of the things you mention possible.

Quote from: ElBorak;1117262Assimilation is a must, if people can't learn a common language and can't lay down their hyphens and leave them at the shore then we have no common ground. To use one example, there is a world of difference between an American with Irish ancestry and an Irish-American. The first respects and values their past, but lives in the present. The second does not respect or value the present, but lives in the past. Substitute anything word you want for Irish, it remains true. Substitute white, black, red, yellow or brown, still true.

This is exactly my point. Thank you for putting it better.

Quote from: Pat;1117212\
BTW, I wasn't referring to the pilgrims.

You've spilled a lot of ink defending yourself without answering the question - who do you mean when you say 'original colonists'.

I've pointed out that ANY DEFINITION of original colonist is bullshit for your claim.  So, which specific group do I have to explain is bullshit for you?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1117425I've pointed out that ANY DEFINITION of original colonist is bullshit for your claim.

No you didn't. You brought up the pilgrims again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Okay, that last again might have been slight hyperbole.

Quote from: Pat;1117426No you didn't. You brought up the pilgrims again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Okay, that last again might have been slight hyperbole.

Greetings!

Hello, Pat! I don't think that deadDMwalking realizes the distinction and important differences between the *Pilgrims* and the *Puritans*. The Pilgrims left England to separate from the Anglican religion, to worship as low-key, loosely-organized congregations, specifically *NOT* part of some larger, highly organized Church hierarchy. The Pilgrims, led by Bradford, were more or less approving of religious liberty.

The Puritans, led by Winthrop, were a distinctly different group. Theologically and culturally, the two groups had a great deal in common. However, the Puritans were not separatists, unlike the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were also considerably less wealthy, modest, and humble. In contrast, the Puritans were far more numerous, wealthy, and powerful. Theologically, the Puritans were not religiously tolerant. The Puritans very much viewed Christianity as the one, true religion, and thus promulgated everywhere throughout society.

Cheers!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1117435Hello, Pat! I don't think that deadDMwalking realizes the distinction and important differences between the *Pilgrims* and the *Puritans*.

Quite possibly, but I'll leave that discussion to you. deadDMwalking poisoned the waters by making false claims about me, and leaching out all the toxins would be far too much work given how little I care about this tangent, so I've just bothered myself with hammering in the metaphorical equivalent of signs saying "poison!".

Quote from: Pat;1117426Okay, that last again might have been slight hyperbole.

Nope not hyperbole, not at all. I think you could have put a few more in to tell the truth.:D

Quote from: Pat;1117441Quite possibly, but I'll leave that discussion to you. deadDMwalking poisoned the waters by making false claims about me, and leaching out all the toxins would be far too much work given how little I care about this tangent, so I've just bothered myself with hammering in the metaphorical equivalent of signs saying "poison!".

Greetings!

*Laughing* Ah, Pat. Thank you, but I'll pass on that. Watching you joust with deadDMwalking has persuaded me that such a discussion would be more than frustrating. I'm always amazed at how some people simply seem to be illiterate on the internet. It's like they only read what they want, and entirely ignore everything else that someone says to them.

I'm always alternatingly amused and boggled by straw men arguments that people like to try and have with a person, but often it's more like they are having this weird kind of argument in their own head, fighting against an argument *they wanted you to really make* instead of the argument you actually did make. It's like, damn, dude, read what the person actually said! *Laughs*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1117455I'm always alternatingly amused and boggled by straw men arguments that people like to try and have with a person, but often it's more like they are having this weird kind of argument in their own head, fighting against an argument *they wanted you to really make* instead of the argument you actually did make. It's like, damn, dude, read what the person actually said! *Laughs*

I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt, because all conversations require a certain degree of realignment. Bandwidth is finite and responses are discrete, so we have to make assumptions to bridge the gray areas, and the lens of our preconceptions can subtly or dramatically shade how we interpret different things. So a dialog is never just point then counterpoint ad infinitum; there's always a certain amount of backtracking as we clarify and reframe past statements.

But if those course corrections aren't accepted or a least glossed over, any further discussion is literally impossible. The conversation becomes a perpetual loop, continually being reset to the same point. It's also a really weird experience, because it involves a complete stranger insisting they know what I think and and believe better than I do.

Quote from: SHARK;1117455It's like, damn, dude, read what the person actually said! *Laughs*

Not reading or understanding what someone actually said is standard procedure for anyone disagreeing with people over 55.:cool: