Civil Disobediance. by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Civil Disobediance.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Thursday, June 5, 2008 21:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3587
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And then again there's Sarge's unwarranted arrogance. He has all the subtlety of a newly converted Xtian fundamentalist because, by god, he has THE TRUTH on his side.

Coming at people that way guarantees rejection.
.

I think that's more than a little harsh. Sarge has always elloquently defended his position. It might not be something you agree with but he has presented it honestly and without gimmickry and name calling.

Men have tunnel vision, we get fixated on something we are subject to confirmation bias, we become just a little too obcessive.

Case in point. At DragonCon last year I went to a workshop on resin casting props. Now I haven't complely given up on making a Firefly fan film and being able to cast resin would make building "Vera" and several other props easier. Three weeks ago I found a local supplier of materials and I've been working on it since then. On Saturday I was in the car with the Missus and my Spidey sense finally registered she was annoyed. I asked what was wrong and she said "I know you're pleased with this stuff and I am usually interested but it is the ONLY thing you have talked about this week."

So there... simple subject not likely to change the human race, one dumb male... obscession...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:27 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080523162916.htm

Public Schools As Good As Private Schools In Raising Math Scores, Study Says

ScienceDaily (May 27, 2008) — Students in public schools learn as much or more math between kindergarten and fifth grade as similar students in private schools, according to a new University of Illinois study of multi-year, longitudinal data on nearly 10,000 students.

It's a much longer article which explains and supports previous studies that show the same thing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:31 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

So there... simple subject not likely to change the human race, one dumb male... obscession...

Stole it from another thread but thought it was appropriateisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think that's more than a little harsh. Sarge has always elloquently defended his position. It might not be something you agree with but he has presented it honestly and without gimmickry and name calling.

He thinks that his girlfriend's reaction is because he "pointed out" that the emperor has no clothes. The whole problem is encapsulated in that exchange: He's convinced that there is an emperor, he knows who it is, the emperor has no clothes... and everyone else who believes otherwise is a deluded fool.

It's the "deluded fool" part she was reacting to.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:15 AM

CHRISISALL

Hey- I'M the insufferable prig here...don't go giving away my hard-earned title Signy!!!

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Original Post of Citizen.

Quote:
It seemed earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences, which simply isn't true.

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

Who said this ?
Frem or Citizen ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA

the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

Who said THIS ?
Frem or Citizen ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CHRISISALL If a personal relationship isn't based on mutal respect then in my book it's exploitative.

But I w/draw the personal comment and will edit my previous post to suit.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:30 AM

CHRISISALL

Just hate family feuds is all.
The show, I mean. Fight hereabouts are common.

In the war zoneisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem- I think I understand why Cit's is frustrated. Here's the point (I think). You said

Quote:
the idea of the style I propose is doing away with structures that nearly everybody wants gone with the full understanding of how that would limit your technology and production base

I believe Cit's point is that nobody has a "full undestanding" ,and that furthermore nobody CAN can have a "full understanding". What he is concerned about is unintended consequences... the point being that unintended consequences are, by defintion, those that you didn't/ couldn't foresee. Now maybe there are smarter people out there who really DO know which technological/ social pieces are linchpins and which ones aren't. Are you one of them? Because I know I'm not and personally, I think some of that information is in the realm of "can't be fully known". At least not on the timeframe that will do any good.

But if we can agree that some of that information is unknowable, perahps we can get to discussing the things that seem relatively clear-cut.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:18 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences

And now your lying again, trying to deflect the criticism. You said, flatly said, that the quote I gave from YOUR post was not something you said, then inferred I was a liar, and went on to blame me for a conversation you had with Rue.

Beyond that you further LIE about what I said by cutting out the most important part of the sentence. The part where I said SEEMED, clearly stating that it's my interpretation of your words, how it reads to me. The only person lying about what people said here is still YOU.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 30, 2008 12:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

No, what is setting my teeth on edge is simple.

I never once asserted we could reduce the industrial base without consequences, and that was never my point - I was speaking of wasteful and counterproductive branches and agencies of Govt, which is a whole different point.

But no matter what I say, almost every single time the assertion that I stated we could remove large parts of the industrial base WITHOUT consquence gets trotted out, over and over again, in spite of the fact that I never said it, in spite of the fact that I disagree, and have done so repeatedly.

And then when I point out that I never said that, never held that belief and in fact argued against it - it doesn't seem to stick, no matter how many times I have corrected that.

This time around I pointed out both that it isn't POSSIBLE to reduce an industrial base without loss of technologies and product, AND that if you were GOING to do so, then it would be wise to do so in small increments so that should unexpected consequences crop up, they can be corrected.

Which somehow got ONCE AGAIN distorted to, somehow "Frem thinks we can remove whole sections of the industrial base without any consequences."

When in fact I am arguing AGAINST that position, AGAIN, and being accused of holding it, AGAIN - in spite of every word I just uttered against it.

As if it never happened.

This has gone on long enough, I don't think the folks involved are so stupid they don't get it, I think it's just a case of malicious nastiness and sophistry.

If folks are gonna be as iron-headed as bush-bots, and refuse to even acknowledge what I am saying, then there's just no point in saying anything at all, and the fact that I have a lot of other crap to do and trouble accessing this site as of late means I don't really have the time and patience to sit there and camp a thread endlessly correcting intentional and malicious distortions instead of discussing a useful topic.

Which means, there's really no further goddamn point to even trying to discuss anything at all when no matter what the original topic is, this is what it comes to - thus why the hell should I bother, when it's going to be ignored, again, and any other further post, it's gonna get dragged out, again ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:27 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, what is setting my teeth on edge is simple.

Yeah, you're not listening to what other people are saying, assuming they're conforming to your messiah image of yourself, and getting up on your cross ready for your crucifixion. The fact that it's all bollocks doesn't seem to slow you down any, but what sets my 'teeth on edge', is when you accuse me of lying about what you said, when I'm not, and back up that assertion with lies about what I said.

Quote:
I never once asserted we could reduce the industrial base without consequences, and that was never my point

And I never once said you did, not that that'll stop you.

Quote:
I was speaking of wasteful and counterproductive branches and agencies of Govt, which is a whole different point.

You also spoke about technology and manufacturing basis, which is what I responded to. It's also the quote I took direct from your quote that you accused me of getting from someone else.

Quote:
But no matter what I say, almost every single time the assertion that I stated we could remove large parts of the industrial base WITHOUT consquence gets trotted out, over and over again, in spite of the fact that I never said it, in spite of the fact that I disagree, and have done so repeatedly.

That would be because you're making it up. I never said you didn't acknowledge the consequences, I said that the consequences of removing industrial structures wouldn't be the clearly delineated set of consequences that you seem to suggest. I didn't say you didn't acknowledge there would be consequences, I said the consequences would be more extensive than you suggest. What I said is that it wouldn't be as simple as 'removing structure A leads to consequence of losing technology B' which was what you said. In fact with the interconnected nature of modern technology I doubt you could remove any industrial structure without collapsing the whole, or nearly all, of the technological fabric.

At the end of the day I never said that you didn't acknowledge there would be consequences, that's your fabrication, I questioned what those consequences would be.

Quote:
[B}And then when I point out that I never said that, never held that belief and in fact argued against it - it doesn't seem to stick, no matter how many times I have corrected that.

Probably because you're the one making up what people are saying, and your messiah complex requires you to be put upon so that's what you're making up.

Quote:
This time around I pointed out both that it isn't POSSIBLE to reduce an industrial base without loss of technologies and product, AND that if you were GOING to do so, then it would be wise to do so in small increments so that should unexpected consequences crop up, they can be corrected.

Yeah, and my point, the one you're ignoring in favour of your 'poor frem' fabrication, is that because of the interconnectedness of technology, removing one, even in a small step, will have large far reaching ripple effects, and that you may not be able to just undo them as easily as pressing ctrl-z at your computer. If you have no argument against that I suppose you can accuse people of saying something else entirely...

Quote:
Which somehow got ONCE AGAIN distorted to, somehow "Frem thinks we can remove whole sections of the industrial base without any consequences."

It still amazes me that you can become so indignant about people lying about what you said, when the only person lying about what people said is you. No one said the above, and saying they did while accusing them of lying about what you said is colossally hypocritical.

Quote:
This has gone on long enough, I don't think the folks involved are so stupid they don't get it, I think it's just a case of malicious nastiness and sophistry.

Yes I agree, it could well be that you're just being malicious and nasty, its plain you're just using sophistry. My girlfriend thinks I'm crazy for replying, because she thinks you're just trying to wind me up, she may be right.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 30, 2008 6:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
And I never once said you did

Then what the hell was this ?

Quote:
It seemed earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences, which simply isn't true.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 30, 2008 11:18 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
And I never once said you did

Then what the hell was this ?
Quote:
It seemed earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we didn't want them, without causing 'unintended' consequences, which simply isn't true.

Exactly what it says. It SEEMED earlier you suggested that whole reams of society, including technological base, could be removed if we don't want them, without causing UNINTENDED consequences, which simply isn't true.

You can't just pluck out and ignore the words I highlighted. Seemed at the start of the sentence, indicates that's how I read what you wrote, that I'm also open to being corrected, though not if I'm corrected by being called a liar, and told the quote I'm basing what I said on is made up.

The other important word you seem to have missed, is unintended. Saying 'unintended consequences' is completely different to saying 'consequences' alone. As I've explained half a dozen times already, I know you said there would be consequences, but you also seemed to suggest that those consequences would be easily knowable, or at least clearly delineated, and that pulling one strand won't effect the others. My point was that removing one industrial base would likely effect ALL technologies, not just the ones that particular industrial base is directly involved in producing.

Modern technology is to big, and too interconnected to really predict how changes will propagate. Just take a look at how adding the computer has changed our technological world. The director of IBM said there would be a market for maybe four or five computers in the world, I've got more than that in various stages of deconstruction in my house right now. Computers are now embedded into everything in our lives as well, Cars, Planes, Toasters, everything. They're used to design just about everything as well, including modern computers. Obviously if you were to stop making computers, you'd lose a lot more besides, and much of that would simply be beyond human prediction. I realise you may not have had computers on your potential chopping block, but they're just one of the more obvious examples of what I'm talking about.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:16 PM

EMMAZULE

"So, are they diagnostic tests or practice tests? Hmmm... It seems that the students can't tell the difference. In addition, a lot of school boards (and students) hate the standardized testing because it points up their failure versus other schools. They would like to go back to the the diploma based on school grades because it is less rigorous. But in point of fact, in CA you can't graduate from HS with a diploma unless you pass that standardized state test. "

Fun fact: I got all D's and F's in seventh grade. I was still promoted to eighth grade. Why?

Because I passed the FCAT with flying colors, of course!

In Florida, at least, standardized testing does nothing that proves useful to the students themselves. I won't discipline them like normal coursework, it's not teaching them anything new like normal classtime, it won't teach them how to do a proper research paper (fun fact: I was a Gifted kid, high IQ and everything, went through "Advanced" classes in high school, passed all my FCATs, which are required to graduate, and when I entered college? I virtually failed my first semester, because I didn't know how to format or research a damn paper! That's right: I learned how to test well, but never learned the one basic thing that 90% or so of my college courses would require me to know how to do properly!). For god's sake, even socializing is more useful than these tests to the students... think about it, and think for a moment how much our quality and even occasionally quantity of life depends on our ability to interact well with other people. "Wasting time" is literally wasting less time than these tests!

I recall even being forced to take a practice Science FCAT.... AFTER I had passed it with flying colors the previous YEAR. Why? Because I was in a class that had juniors in it at that time of day! And the test had ridiculously easy questions, too, that any ten year old could answer correctly, far below ACTUAL supposed high school level stuff. Bah! Tell me THAT's a sensible system, and I'll tell you you've gone bibbledy.

~Emma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE