> Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit. Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present. If you would have read my post in full, and not just the first sentence that you love so much, you would see that I don't think he's retarded because of the opinion itself, I think he's retarded because the points he make are awful. The author was correct in that the subject isn't that simple, and that educators should make an effort to get their students to critically think about the world around them. I believe that philosophical debate should be integrated into high school curriculum. However, sitting down a group of seven year olds, lecturing them about morality and relativism, then telling them to engage in ethical discourse and debate over the concepts of moral realism versus antirealism would come to a grinding halt very quickly. Ok, I admit that my scenario was a bit extreme, but I stand by the fact that these things come in steps. These kids can barely write their entire name, and their brains' are just now becoming physically capable of complex thoughts. Have you talked to a 2nd grader recently? It's not very stimulating. The human mind is very malleable until the early 20's, so this process neither should be nor needs to be rushed. Let the kid live a little before he contemplates the abstract thoughts and questions about life. > And I don't know what you mean by "Plus those are the actual definitions" of fact and opinion. Whose definitions? Who's the authority on this? Maybe they're accepted definitions in US educational institutions, but the point of the article is to question them. I stated in my reply that they were simplified. Most definitions for kids that age are pretty simple as well, they don't have full their full cognitive processing abilities yet. The definition was written for a premature mind, it was written so that the children would be able to relate to it and then understand the meaning. Like nearly all subjects, the concept was planted so that they would be able to later build on that concept. I'll elaborate on my math analogy. First you learn addition: 3+2=4. Then you learn multiplication: 3x2=6. Then you learn algebraic substitution: 3xA=6, therefore A=2. If before he was taught any of the steps, the kid was thrown 3xA=6, A=_?, it would confuse the hell out of him. Just because I point out awful supporting points, don't assume that I'll write off an entire debate, and don't assume I'll write anyone with an opposing mindset off as an idiot. You present any position that I agree with, but if it's poorly thought out and full of holes, expect it to be written off.
MrDr, rrrrr: Could you both sit down for a moment and think about how both of your messages affect the value of the conversation? There is no benefit to anger or making your partner into an adversary. What is the point of these both comments?Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit.
Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present.
Because of the nature of rrrrr's rebuttal, it's safe to assume he started reading the comment, didn't care to finish, and jumped to the conclusion that I'm some asshole who hates anyone that doesn't have the same opinion as me. So I decided to put something that might make him take a second look at my comment. But there's no point in doing that if he's just going to ignore that too, so I formatted the first line identical to his in an attempt to catch his attention. Granted, calling the author of the link retarded isn't the best way to open an honest critique of his argument, but high profile bloggers who post flawed arguments with long words and sensationalized phrases irk me.
Whatever you call it, it is overly harsh. It puts any person on the other side at unease.
I do not have the ability to speak for rrrrr, but I assume that an apology would be good enough. Frankly I am very happy with a cessation of the argument.
Fair enough, I was a little hasty to jump on that. I had been primed by coming from a discussion on reddit where they were calling the writer similar things because he is a moral realist. I was expecting another "moral realism is obviously stupid" response and that coloured my reading of your post. Yes, you have a fair point that these definitions have to be simplified as a teaching tool for young kids, so perhaps we shouldn't be taking them quite as an expression of the educators' deeply held philosophy. But it is so easy to tilt people's thinking by the way we frame the debate through terminology that I'm still a little wary of these definitions and of the exercise that requires children to decide whether something is an opinion or a fact. Such an exercise could be valuable as a way of starting a discussion but if it suggests to kids that this is a judgement we should be able to make just by looking at the statement, before engaging in debate about the statement's content, then that's an insidious pernicious effect.
3 things: 1) I moderate a default on Reddit. It has a long and contentious queue of reported comments. One of the words we auto-report is "retarded." Most comments involving the word "retarded" add nothing to the general discourse. Not true for all comments, but most. I say this not to scold, but to give the perspective of one who reads "never go full retard" and "you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded" 7-10 times a day. Suffice it to say - starting an argument with the word "retarded" is kind of like stepping to the podium and picking your nose. Doesn't mean you're an idiot, but it mostly scores points with nose-pickers. I too am often guilty but if you're wondering where the tenor went sideways, there it is. 2) Until Hubski rolls out the new version of the site, we use a semi-peculiar implementation of markup. The upper-right corner of the comment window will tell you just how semi-peculiar. I actually didn't read your comment until now because I didn't recognize your name and you were using Reddit markup. And because it's been a busy day and I likes me some whitespace. 3) But holy shit you managed to get a plus sign in there without breaking things which I'm incapable of doing so I guess I shouldn't say boo about markup. That said, 3 plus 2 only equals 4 in Indiana. I really have no substantive arguments with your point. However, it's apparently my job to "give you the business." Consider the business given. Welcome.quotes, for example, are surrounded by pipes.
Oh, yeah! Getting Kleinbl00ed isn't inherently a negative thing. It's like hunting a Tigrex in MHFU2 - everything's been smooth sailing up to this point, you have to change your thought process to understand the game, and even if it's eye-opening/embarrassing, finally understanding the "rules" is what makes the experience (Hubski/the topic at hand) enjoyable.