|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
|
On March 14 2012 02:30 FreddYCooL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:26 SySLeif wrote: I don't think Uni education should be free or trade school. I worked my butt off getting enough scholarships to be able to go through college free and also working part time to pay for side expenses.
I'm starting my third year's worth of classes this summer and I have 0 debt, and most likely will have 0 debt until my senior year.
In America you can get free, but you have to really work for it, which is a good thing. It weeds out people who otherwise go to college just for the heck of it or shouldn't be in college at all. It also makes the rich kids, who go to college because daddy tells them to, to pay a high tuition rate so I can go free. And those who should go to college but due to financial reasons cannot afford it? There cannot be scholarships for all.
I have financial reasons. I've lived on my own since the beginning of my senior year of high school. I, luckily, in the summers have a good factory job working 3am to 3pm for 18 dollars an hour. Then it's just part time the rest of the year and learning to budget harshly.
The "no scholarships for all" is a myth. Schools have their own scholarships they give also to help college students who are needy. But if you can't go because of financial reasons, and your grades are not good enough, then you probably should not be going.
The thing that ruins it for other people is when you have huge dropout rates. According to the New York Times only around half of the kids who enter college finish with their bachelors, taking into students who are going for a bachelors. This is a huge strain of resources that now hurts the low socio-economic class.
|
On March 14 2012 02:41 WerderBremen wrote: I pay about 780€ per semester and i hate it to death. I have to take a credit and go to work to pay my flat etc. Its about break even every month; I was thankful to be allowed to take a credit without having any collaterals. Otherwise i would have just not been able to study. Not because i'm stupid but just because i got no € On the other hand i see the people from well saturated families. they are studying on the most expensive private universities (buying every book necessary / having a great laptop / car / making semesters in other countries).And in many cases these are the exact people who would have never received a high educational degree (to be allowed to go to university) without getting extra help (by well payed private teacher).
In my opinion education must be free for everyone! People with money are heavily priviliged anyways. Higher taxes even increase the difference.
This is an argument from envy. Not exactly too persuasive rationally. Given this argument, one should take the position that you are extremely privileged and wealthy compared to the mass poor lot of billions around the world (such as say, much of Africa), and therefore tax monies from your country should be given to those people instead of you.
No one has brought it up yet, but I guess I will. Instead of this argument of envy, if you actually made a reasoned assessment, you would realize that State-licensing, restriction, and rent-seeking is highly destructive to new entrants (you) and expensive. Then perhaps you would find actual solutions which would drive down costs, improve quality, and remove unnecessary barriers to employment and opportunity. The State says you need license X, therefore gives monopoly either to itself, or some privileged company who lobbied, therefore charging X rate which usually gets more expensive over-time. You then complain about X rate, and completely miss the problem itself therefore leading you to some Socialist position.
You can hardly get a job these days without a State-license, create an entrepenuerial start-up, or generally make a living for yourself without permission and thus, rent, from/to the State and its subsidiary leeches in the so-called 'private' sector.
The problem has always been and always will be monopoly (re: State as it has always been understand), rent-seeking, and barriers to entry. This is why it is so frustrating to hear people diagnose what is wrong, and then be so completely wrong on how to fix the problem. I generally attribute this to a lack of any understanding of economics, class theory, and sociology (of say, Herbert Spencer).
|
It should be almost free imo, totally free is never good, there needs to be a small stepping stone. like 500€ ayear for uni in Belgium is reasonable, above 1K a year is just... criminal
|
What the fuck. I live just a 10 Hour drive away in the same country and I'm paying like quadruple per semester. Fucking Dalhousie lol.
Yes education should be free but obviously there is a lot more to that. How high are the grades to get in, to stay in? Should grades matter? Should you be able to get into University with a shitty academic record in High school etc. etc. There has to be some way that keeps everyone from going to University.
|
On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:01 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology. That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit.
90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
|
On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back.
I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases.
USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college.
For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
|
Higher education should be free. But for-profit institutions should have the freedom to charge what they want, as well. State funded schools ought to be free to taxpayers. In fact, this is already how it's like in America, from my experience. I went to my state university without paying a dime.
|
Educated members of society are good for the country. Less crime and more informed decisions. Or let's put it this way: the better educated your general public is, the higher the chance you have competent government officials who are not corrupted rich people.
|
I'll start my bachelor this summer, and will i pay anything? NO! :D I'll get around $1.000 a month for studying + an airplane ticket a year to visit family. Scandinavia FTW!
EDIT: And this would apply for any country I would like to study in except I would get more travel money the further I go.
I haven't looked a lot into this, but IMO ATM I would say education should be free as educated people are good for society and people who could do very well aren't held back by their family's social circumstances.
|
It should be free.
To deal with the "slackers" that everyone mentions, could it not be based on achievement? You don't get into Harvard or Yale as a student who "doesn't take things seriously." Maybe instead of paying a financial price you have to pay an academic fee - where cutoffs are based on grades/community service/etc.
Seems wrong that the most important thing a person can have in their life costs so many such an absurd amount for so many, while others get the same thing for free.
Been there, done that, paid my tuition. It's not the end of the world but it sure would have been nice to have that tuition as extra cash right when I finished university.
|
On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money).
in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
|
On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
He might have come to a conclusion much too son on the global warming issue, but he was definitely right on the evolution issue.
|
On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality.
|
On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Im not saying that everybody need to have higher education, Im saying by not having free schools many people dont even get a chance, and thats the really sad part.
|
On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:01 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology. That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
|
On March 14 2012 03:08 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated. Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality.
Im just gonna leave this here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
97-98 % of all scientists believes in man made global warming. That people even discusses this is weird.
|
On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month.
I have the same problem. It is almost impossible to argue with people like them, as they cant argue with us. We have no place to start, no where we can agree on, and that makes it very hard to have an argument. We cant convice each others. For me I cant see anything more valuable than a well educated society. Some people dont apperantly. Well, after all scandinavians have a quite different way of thinking that most other countries it seems. The idea about equality have a much stronger/different hold here, than especially in the US.
On March 14 2012 03:11 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:08 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated. Then prove me otherwise? At least at my uni all the scientists think global warming is a reality. Im just gonna leave this here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract97-98 % of all scientists believes in man made global warming. That people even discusses this is weird.
Well it is mostly only in the US. For me it is a easy choice. Not only beecouse it seems legit after I have learned a lot about it. But trusting sources that have very economic intentions, I cant trust it. Seems to me that oil companies spend a lot of money on trying to lobby it out, almost everywhere. "Green" technology dont have that money and I cant remember I have ever read about they "founding" pro-global warming research.
|
On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated. So you are saying that the fact that the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere reflect heatwaves is a lie?
Edit* Failed on writing in correct place lol
|
On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
But global warming exists doesn't it. Not saying anything apocalyptic is going to happen. I'm willing to trust science, but trust it from where?
|
|
|
|