Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I suggest you try to comprehend my post instead of reading your bias into it.Yet you have no problem using stereotyping in the post above, all because I pointed out that education does not prevent racism, thus the argument that racism is a function of ignorance is flawed. If that observation is offensive, call me a heretic;.
Racism is a form of stereotyping as is sexism and anti-intellectualism, the point that you don't seem to be able to grasp is when there is an agenda to discredit a collection of individuals, stereotyping is a form a willful ignorance based on ad hominems where the facts are irrelevant.
Ah well you are either trolling or my attempts to make my position as simple as possible for you to comprehend has failed miserably.Stereotyping again. Ah, well.
You seem to have just stereotyped education. The ability of education to eradicate, or prevent, the emergence of racism etc. would surely depend upon the nature of that education. Consequently your attempt to demonstrate that education does not prevent racism is left with a large hole in it. The only way that your argument makes sense is if you redefine education to mean "a system of teaching in which views I hold to be correct and good are transmitted to the student".Yet you have no problem using stereotyping in the post above, all because I pointed out that education does not prevent racism,
This was your response to @sjastro's post #42. I could see why you felt there was stereotyping in their earlier posts, but I've read #42 repeatedly and cannot see even the ghost of stereotyping. Could you point it out to me please?Stereotyping again. Ah, well.
Wrong. Science created the methods that led to the various forms of pollution and destruction as side-effects of the benefits. It was us - the general public, for the most part, who took advantage of those benefits and continued to ignore the side effects even when Science recognised them and pointed them out. Global warming isn't caused by Big Oil, but our insistence on flying half way across the world for a vacation, driving an SUV and eating avocado on toast even though we live in Munich.Jesus wasn't a scientist. Science does both good and bad. Look at the environment and our water supply, it's contaminated with waste created by Science.
"...not for you" sure worked like honey does as flyAh well you are either trolling or my attempts to make my position as simple as possible for you to comprehend has failed miserably.
Science can be quite foolish at times. Religion as well.Wrong. Science created the methods that led to the various forms of pollution and destruction as side-effects of the benefits. It was us - the general public, for the most part, who took advantage of those benefits and continued to ignore the side effects even when Science recognised them and pointed them out. Global warming isn't caused by Big Oil, but our insistence on flying half way across the world for a vacation, driving an SUV and eating avocado on toast even though we live in Munich.
Odd. Pointing out that education isn't a universal panacea is a stereotypical view? Education is good for what it is. You wouldn't want a brain surgeon who hadn't gone to med school, yet going to med school would not necessarily change his or her views on race. If anyone wants to dismiss that as stereotyping education, have at it. Education seldom changes what's inside. For that you need a willingness to change. Education provides knowledge, but knowledge is of no use if it isn't applied.You seem to have just stereotyped education. The ability of education to eradicate, or prevent, the emergence of racism etc. would surely depend upon the nature of that education. Consequently your attempt to demonstrate that education does not prevent racism is left with a large hole in it. The only way that your argument makes sense is if you redefine education to mean "a system of teaching in which views I hold to be correct and good are transmitted to the student".
This was your response to @sjastro's post #42. I could see why you felt there was stereotyping in their earlier posts, but I've read #42 repeatedly and cannot see even the ghost of stereotyping. Could you point it out to me please?
There's a marvelous feature called ignore, and I suggest any who consider my views stereotypical to make use of it.
Wouldn't want to aggravate anyone.
I appear to have made a poorly written post, as my point has not carried. I would make a second attempt, but you appear to be taking umbrage at my simple expression of a contrary view point. I say that, since I can see no other reason for your "ignore" suggestion. It sounds that you are saying "It's my way, or the highway". If you are that sensitive perhaps I should take your advice.Odd. Pointing out that education isn't a universal panacea is a stereotypical view? Education is good for what it is. You wouldn't want a brain surgeon who hadn't gone to med school, yet going to med school would not necessarily change his or her views on race. If anyone wants to dismiss that as stereotyping education, have at it. Education seldom changes what's inside. For that you need a willingness to change. Education provides knowledge, but knowledge is of no use if it isn't applied.
If anyone wants to call that stereotype, have at it.
The stereotype I referred to is dismissing the above by applying a stereotype to me. Whatever. There's a marvelous feature called ignore, and I suggest any who consider my views stereotypical to make use of it. Wouldn't want to aggravate anyone.
Science is just man's wisdom. Don't be so serious about it.Pehaps, but I cannot think of a single sound example. Do you have one? Notice, you said science - not scientists. I ask for an example of the former.
I mean no offence, but I think accuracy in statements is important and should be taken seriously. (I think man's wisdom is important., so I can't readily accept describing it as "just man's wisdom".) The scientific method has proven invaluable for gaining knowledge of the world. It is a self correcting system, where inaccuracies are detected and corrected. Egregious errors arise when the method is misapplied, or deliberatley corrupted, by scientists - their error, not that of Science. Is the method perfect? Certainly not, but for objective fact finding there is no better.Science is just man's wisdom. Don't be so serious about it.
Self correction? It's getting worse not better.I mean no offence, but I think accuracy in statements is important and should be taken seriously. (I think man's wisdom is important., so I can't readily accept describing it as "just man's wisdom".) The scientific method has proven invaluable for gaining knowledge of the world. It is a self correcting system, where inaccuracies are detected and corrected. Egregious errors arise when the method is misapplied, or deliberatley corrupted, by scientists - their error, not that of Science. Is the method perfect? Certainly not, but for objective fact finding there is no better.
Pehaps, but I cannot think of a single sound example. Do you have one? Notice, you said science - not scientists. I ask for an example of the former.
Look around. What's good? Is disease wiped out?Care to support this statement with facts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?