Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Mine either

Just trying to have open dialogue.

when you twist ones words around and/or omit certain words from a statement, it changes the context and meaning. That is not open and honest dialogue…

 

[Chris Craig]

Then you can take offense to teachers teaching religious curriculum. If you don't think some teachers have agendas, then you are just as naive as those who think Trump can do no wrong…

But also taking offense at all? Why? Why take offense?I didn't attack you personally. Get the emotions out of it.
Thats a big part of society problems. Reaction with emotion instead of rational thoughts.
If you told me some project managers in construction can be selfish pricks out for nothing but money, i wouldn't take offense, id agree because its true.

I do think religion has no place in public school. I don't take offense to the teaching of religion. There is a place for that. Either does politics (unless you are in a high school politics class but even then taught in a non partisan manner)

I take offense because you are echoing a Trump/far right fear mongering talking points. That school children are being indoctrinated. They aren't.

That's not to say there aren't bad teachers.

 

[RR7]

See that word CAN in there? It is being spun i said science cant be trusted. Bullshit. I never said teachers cant be trusted and yet some teacher have agendas.

Are you actually gonna claim all scientists are 100% on the up and up and not one might have a personal agenda based on ideologies?

You and others are omitting certain words to mKe my statement seem different than it is.
That is a literacy issue or an agenda of its own accord. I dont know…

I didn't omit shit. I directly quoted your post. I can do it again for you...

let’s not pretend educators and scientists don't also have beliefs and agendas just like politicians.
.

give light to the fact that scientists are also human and have agendas

 

[crandc]

Exactly how were scientists "silenced"? No one was arrested or sent to concentration camps. The small minority who rejected the emerging scientific consensus about Covid were feted on Fox and other right wing media as martyrs while raking in cash on quackery like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

 

[Chris Craig]

when you twist ones words around and/or omit certain words from a statement, it changes the context and meaning. That is not open and honest dialogue…

I'm not twisting your words though. I'm just pointing out what you said. Ok let's start over.

What do you mean by scientists (at least some of them)have agendas and what does that say to you about science? Do you believe science can be trusted?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I do think religion has no place in public school. I don't take offense to the teaching of religion. There is a place for that. Either does politics (unless you are in a high school politics class but even then taught in a non partisan manner)

I take offense because you are echoing a Trump/far right fear mongering talking points. That school children are being indoctrinated. They aren't.

That's not to say there aren't bad teachers.

Wth? Saying that some can have agendas is saying school children are being indoctrinated?

how much further aRe you going to twist my words up????

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I didn't omit shit. I directly quoted your post. I can do it again for you...

yea you did. In the first post i said some scientists CAN have agendas. I didnt know i then Had to specify that again in every following statement. My error for thinking you would follow along. My fault.

 

[Phatguysrule]

See that word CAN in there? It is being spun i said science cant be trusted. Bullshit. I never said teachers cant be trusted and yet some teacher have agendas.

Are you actually gonna claim all scientists are 100% on the up and up and not one might have a personal agenda based on ideologies?

You and others are omitting certain words to mKe my statement seem different than it is.
That is a literacy issue or an agenda of its own accord. I dont know…

All scientists don't have to be on the up and up. That's the whole point about the scientific method, competition and peer-reviewed studies.

It's not a perfect system but it's better than anything else we have.

If you accept the scientific consensus and take action with that in mind you are generally going to be going in a logical direction that is far more likely to work out well and less likely to work out poorly.

From my perspective if you make policies based on these scientific consensuses which help the poor and middle class (while protecting individual freedom) then everybody will be better off.

 

[Chris Craig]

Wth? Saying that some can have agendas is saying school children are being indoctrinated?

how much further aRe you going to twist my words up????

Ok then. What did you mean by some teachers have agendas like politicians? That very thought process has been used to argue children are being indoctrinated by teachers? Trump and the right have used this. You don't agree with that then?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'm not twisting your words though. I'm just pointing out what you said. Ok let's start over.

What do you mean by scientists (at least some of them)have agendas and what does that say to you about science? Do you believe science can be trusted?

es, legitimate scientists, being human, can and do have personal agendas and biases that can influence their work
. A personal agenda isn't always negative or malicious; however, a robust scientific process is designed with safeguards to mitigate its effects and ensure the reliability of research.
What are a scientist's personal agendas and motivations?
Scientists are motivated by a complex mix of professional and personal factors, which can sometimes create biases or conflicts of interest. These motivations include:

• Career advancement: Scientists may focus on topics that are likely to attract funding, gain recognition, and lead to prestigious publications in high-impact journals, which are often necessary for career progression.
• Desire for fame and prestige: Similar to other professionals, a scientist's desire for recognition and legacy can influence their choice of research subjects and the way they present their findings.
• Passion and curiosity: Many scientists are driven by a genuine passion for their field and a desire to solve puzzles and make discoveries. This intrinsic motivation is central to scientific progress.
• Political or ideological beliefs: A researcher's personal views on political, social, or religious issues can consciously or unconsciously influence their research. This can affect the questions they ask, the data they emphasize, and how they interpret results.
• Financial gain: A scientist's financial interests, such as stock ownership in a company that sponsors their research, can create a conflict of interest.
• Desire to help society: Many scientists are motivated by a sense of duty to improve human health or protect the environment, driving them to pursue research with practical applications.

How does science account for personal agendas?
Scientific integrity relies on a system of checks and balances designed to combat personal bias and agendas. These include:

• Peer review: Before publication, research papers are scrutinized by other experts in the field. The peer-review process is designed to catch flaws in methodology, interpretation, and potential bias.
• Transparency and disclosure: Scientists are expected to be transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, including funding sources and financial relationships. This allows the scientific community and the public to evaluate whether an outside interest may have influenced the research.
• Replication of results: For findings to be widely accepted, other scientists must be able to independently replicate the results. If a finding is based on an individual's bias, it is unlikely to hold up to replication.
• Diverse perspectives: A diverse scientific community with varying backgrounds, beliefs, and viewpoints helps identify and challenge potential biases. It ensures that research questions and interpretations are considered from multiple angles.
• Reflexivity: Scientists are trained to recognize their own biases and actively reflect on how these may be affecting their work. This self-awareness is a key part of maintaining scientific rigor.

While personal agendas and biases are an unavoidable part of human nature, the scientific method and institutional oversight provide a robust framework for minimizing their impact. This process helps ensure that the overall body of scientific knowledge is reliable and objective, even if individual scientists are not always perfectly neutral.

 

[RR7]

yea you did. In the first post i said some scientists CAN have agendas. I didnt know i then Had to specify that again in every following statement. My error for thinking you would follow along. My fault.

No, you said some scientific studies CAN be manipulated, and let's not act like teachers and scientists don't have agendas. My error for thinking you can follow your own posts.

 

[riverman]

I'm really glad they caught this kid. As a 22 year old with no voting record, it's something concerning to us all that that kid would take up arms to voice his political dissatisfaction rather than trust the system to hold corrupt leaders accountable. This is where you need criminal psychologists to study how we got to this point. These recent shooters are young angry males...used to be mostly old angry males.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Ok then. What did you mean by some teachers have agendas like politicians? That very thought process has been used argue children are being indoctrinated by teachers? Trump and the right have used this. You don't agree with that then?

its not about what Chris. Is how i say SOME scientists CAN and its being turned into me saying science has agendas.
That is not the same. You, as an educator, should know this.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No, you said some scientific studies CAN be manipulated, and let's not act like teachers and scientists don't have agendas. My error for thinking you can follow your own posts.

but is that what you said I said? Nope.

 

[Chris Craig]

es, legitimate scientists, being human, can and do have personal agendas and biases that can influence their work
. A personal agenda isn't always negative or malicious; however, a robust scientific process is designed with safeguards to mitigate its effects and ensure the reliability of research.
What are a scientist's personal agendas and motivations?
Scientists are motivated by a complex mix of professional and personal factors, which can sometimes create biases or conflicts of interest. These motivations include:

• Career advancement: Scientists may focus on topics that are likely to attract funding, gain recognition, and lead to prestigious publications in high-impact journals, which are often necessary for career progression.
• Desire for fame and prestige: Similar to other professionals, a scientist's desire for recognition and legacy can influence their choice of research subjects and the way they present their findings.
• Passion and curiosity: Many scientists are driven by a genuine passion for their field and a desire to solve puzzles and make discoveries. This intrinsic motivation is central to scientific progress.
• Political or ideological beliefs: A researcher's personal views on political, social, or religious issues can consciously or unconsciously influence their research. This can affect the questions they ask, the data they emphasize, and how they interpret results.
• Financial gain: A scientist's financial interests, such as stock ownership in a company that sponsors their research, can create a conflict of interest.
• Desire to help society: Many scientists are motivated by a sense of duty to improve human health or protect the environment, driving them to pursue research with practical applications.

How does science account for personal agendas?
Scientific integrity relies on a system of checks and balances designed to combat personal bias and agendas. These include:

• Peer review: Before publication, research papers are scrutinized by other experts in the field. The peer-review process is designed to catch flaws in methodology, interpretation, and potential bias.
• Transparency and disclosure: Scientists are expected to be transparent about any potential conflicts of interest, including funding sources and financial relationships. This allows the scientific community and the public to evaluate whether an outside interest may have influenced the research.
• Replication of results: For findings to be widely accepted, other scientists must be able to independently replicate the results. If a finding is based on an individual's bias, it is unlikely to hold up to replication.
• Diverse perspectives: A diverse scientific community with varying backgrounds, beliefs, and viewpoints helps identify and challenge potential biases. It ensures that research questions and interpretations are considered from multiple angles.
• Reflexivity: Scientists are trained to recognize their own biases and actively reflect on how these may be affecting their work. This self-awareness is a key part of maintaining scientific rigor.

While personal agendas and biases are an unavoidable part of human nature, the scientific method and institutional oversight provide a robust framework for minimizing their impact. This process helps ensure that the overall body of scientific knowledge is reliable and objective, even if individual scientists are not always perfectly neutral.

Ok, but what are you getting at? The point you are making is scientists can have agendas. And? What does this mean?

 

[Chris Craig]

its not about what Chris. Is how i say SOME scientists CAN and its being turned into me saying science has agendas.
That is not the same. You, as an educator, should know this.

It's called inference. Maybe elucidate a bit further on what you are trying to say.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[kjironman1]

He changed his position on the Epstein files. Once Trump decided it was time, Kirk said he would no longer discuss the Epstein files.

Yeah that was he story but he was starting a nationwide tour. How long do you think that was going to last?

 

[julius]

Looney left - blows up army recruiting station
Looney right - blows up abortion clinics

Crazies on both ends

I still have Loonies frommy travels in Canada

How frequent is the LL blowing up an army recruiting office?

 

[RR7]

but is that what you said I said? Nope.

I directly quoted you twice.

 

[julius]

How the hell did the thread about Kirk turn into covid talk?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yeah that was he story but he was starting a nationwide tour. How long do you think that was going to last?

I honestly think he would just have avoided it constantly. He would say he trusts the president to make the right decision.

That's what I fully expected from watching several of his other "debates".

 

[Phatguysrule]

How the hell did the thread about Kirk turn into covid talk?

The discussion became how do we improve things.

One suggestion was that we need honest and open dialogue.

My claim was that you it's difficult to have honest and open dialogue with people who don't respect academia and science.

COVID was using as an example.

Voila!

I'm sorry.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Ok, but what are you getting at? The point you are making is scientists can have agendas. And? What does this mean?

the point originated from the conflicting reports of covid and how to handle it. Whether intentional malicious agendas or not there was disagreement. But that isn't my point. My point is the public reaction. How we react and interact. In the beginning it was not clear the best course but people were vilified for not agreeing with others on how to handle things.
My whole point has been how we communicate with one another regarding what is going on.
This whole conversation has done nothing but prove my point. There is little open and honest dialogue. Just a bunch of finger pointing to anyone who disagrees and claiming they are evil or the problem.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I directly quoted you twice.

and i explained those quotes and referred to my original statement.

 

[riverman]

Teachers hopefully do have an effect on students..the idea is to teach them independent thinking and how to learn and solve problems or access information. If that's grooming a child, then the world needs a hell of a lot more of them. A few teachers I was lucky to have changed my life and way of seeing the world. Legitimate science requires leaving all dogma, bias and personal agendas outside the lab. Science is not about what kind of person you are...it's neutral to that.

 

[wizenheimer]

How the hell did the thread about Kirk turn into covid talk?

by advocating for open and honest dialog without practicing open and honest dialog?

 

[Hoopguru]

How frequent is the LL blowing up an army recruiting office?

Just an example of crazies on both ends of extremism.

Im 75 years old and do remember days when that happened and righty exre,eisr bowing up abortion clinics.

 

[Phatguysrule]

the point originated from the conflicting reports of covid and how to handle it. Whether intentional malicious agendas or not there was disagreement. But that isn't my point. My point is the public reaction. How we react and interact. In the beginning it was not clear the best course but people were vilified for not agreeing with others on how to handle things.
My whole point has been how we communicate with one another regarding what is going on.
This whole conversation has done nothing but prove my point. There is little open and honest dialogue. Just a bunch of finger pointing to anyone who disagrees and claiming they are evil or the problem.

But there were clear suggestions from epidemiologists.

The people who followed those suggestions (even as more information became available and the recommendations changed and loosened) had better results than the people who didn't (on average, by far).

The reluctance to listen to those epidemiologists and eagerness to fight their recommendations are what divided everyone.

 

[Chris Craig]

the point originated from the conflicting reports of covid and how to handle it. Whether intentional malicious agendas or not there was disagreement. But that isn't my point. My point is the public reaction. How we react and interact. In the beginning it was not clear the best course but people were vilified for not agreeing with others on how to handle things.
My whole point has been how we communicate with one another regarding what is going on.
This whole conversation has done nothing but prove my point. There is little open and honest dialogue. Just a bunch of finger pointing to anyone who disagrees and claiming they are evil or the problem.

I get this point. I responded to it an earlier post.

But, you aren't answering my question.