RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
skeptica's comments:
on Not At School
I was refering the permission that one gives oneself, rather than the permission that the government gives one.
Why would you come to a discussion board, not make an effort to understand what people are saying, give no one the benefit of the doubt, and then insult them for having an opinion that differs from your own? Sure you're free to insult people but I don't see how it's anything but destructive, and it undermines the premise that your argument is based on logic.
posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Taking Care of Bias?
There is no clear-cut (sorry) consensus on logging - environmentalists think it's bad, loggers think it's good. Cutting down trees hurts our environment but gives people homes. I think what we tell our children depends on our philosophy.
If we want our children to think the same things as us, the school should ignore all controversial topics and leave them to the parents. If we want our children to think for themselves then we should teach them that it is a controversial issue and not bias them one way or another.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
uncommonsense - it seemed clear to me that the lack of respect in this conversation, the defensiveness, the name calling, the jumping to conclusions, the arguing over the definition of words - it seemed clear that these things had nothing to do with understanding each other.
It seems strange to give your life to your country to protect them, but when they say something that you don't agree with, or bothers you, or you don't understand, you give little of yourself and only demand that the other person listens to you.
I am just so sick of everyone being so oppionated, so arrogant as to think they know the answer to everything that they don't even llisten to each other. Everyone is so high and mighty about right and wrong, what this country stands for and on and on. They feel like they have the right to insult each other and disrespect each other. If we really cared about each other why wouldn't we try to understand before assuming that the other person is an idiot, that the other person is attacking our identity rather than an idea?
I guess part of the problem is that people so often get their identity wrapped up with ideas - Im a conservative, or a lieberal, or belief in god, or I believe anything at all and that is me, then someone disagrees with an idea and I feel they are attacking them so I fight back and say they can't even spell, so what do they know about me?
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
Interestingly uncommonsense seems to actually try to get a decent conversation going again. He states that he doesn't understand how you can compare the military recruiters to the play, giving scottmil an oportunity to explain the link. he also asks a question about recruiter censorship. If he'd ended the paragraph there, maybe there would have been some constructive dialogue, but then uncommonsense goes on to explain that he's been protecting scottmils rights, in a condescending tone.
scottmill then responds to cubilist, and instead of respecting cubilist's confusion, he insults cubilists ability to read (when in any dialogue your just as likely to have sent a message poorly as the receiver is to understand it. In fact both these things are quite common and constant throughout the dialogue).
Then scottmill takes uncommonsense's bait, and attacks him because of the earlier condesending tone. But scottmil also further explains his position.
Cubilist, rather than responding to scottmil's explaination of his position, attacks his writing ability, and doesn't ask any questions that would help him understand scottmills point.
and it goes on and on- when someone says something you don't agree with, why don't you try to understand where the difference arises from? Why is it when there is a difference in thought, people attack each other?
It's as if i said "I like donuts", and then some responded, "that's absurd, donuts are terrible. what an idiot. I like donut holes!" Then I could respond, "comparing donuts to donut holes is rediculus, you're and idiot!"
Know one will ever learn anything and they will all be idiots if they don't try to understand each other.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
To put what I said another way, when someone says something that we disagree with, we automatically challenge it. The problem with this is that it is equally likely that we simply don't understand what their saying.
Some examples in the above argument:
First uncommonsense assumes that he understands scottmill, then asserst that scottmil is wrong. It could be that uncommonsense simply misunderstood scottmils point, but rather then give the benefit of the doubt and assume he missunderstood, or that there is something that he can't see, he asserts that there is simply no way to compare the on campus presence of the military and the play.
Then scottmill further inflames the argument by calling uncommonsense's assertion ridiculous. Again there is no attempt at understanding what uncommonsense means. Does uncommonsense mean that since the military offers to extend education through college, and highschool is about education, that the military presence is relavant and worth while? Then he calls anyone that disagrees with him a barbarian that is 'not worth speaking to'. Then scottmill goes on to interpret just what uncommonsense meant about a debate about taste.
uncommonsense then states that he got an education through the military.
scottmil responds in a condesending way again.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
Why can't people listen and understand each other? The above argument is just a clear example of people ignoring what each other is saying.
Watching the arguments in this post I see reflected the same damn problems we have with every argument - no one really cares about anyone else. Everyone is so intent on their own thoughts and their own perspective that they can't even understand what the other side is saying, never mind trying to see things from their perspective. Then they get so wrapped up in the argument that they stop thinking about the issue at hand and resort to name calling, and especially on the internet insulting each others spelling and grammer.
To the soldier, why would you risk your life to protect your country men when you don't even care to understand them? Or are you only in it to protect people who beleive the things you do?
We are all individuals with our own experience, we have all been given different lessons in life. If we could learn from each other than maybe we could rise above our own simplistic view of life, and stop arguing like little kids. If we have no respect for each other, if we stop listening to each other, if our only desire for communication is to shove our individual thoughts down each others throats, then we only destroy ourselves and our country.
Everyone is so grandiose in these arguments. We act like we know everything and admit no lack of knowledge. People pretend to know each others motives. People outside the military act like they know everything that goes on inside it. People outside of La Grande act like they know the whole story of what happened. But when it comes down to it everyone knows so little cause they don't really care to know. That's why we have such idiotic arguments, instead of learning anything.
Liberals probably listened to this show simply to reenforce their own bias that censorship is a huge problem. Conservatives probably listened to the show to reinforece their bias that the morals of the country are going down hill. This kind of thing is always happening. We listen to what supports our own predispositions and ignore what counters them.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
Seems like you're for knowledge of the technical details of sex, and even maybe the physical mechanical act, but not for addressing how desire and sexuality actually play out in our culture? I think women being used for the production of babies sounds like more of an objectification than when men look at women and are attracted to each other.
Men and women like to look at each others bodies - how can you deny that, or label it as damaging?
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
It's ironic that people came here to discuss a topic and ended up attacking straw men.
It's pretty simple to see the contradiction inherint in allowing the military on campus but not a play that might be for adults. The military is certainly for adults. In the same way that a conservative might not want the state educating their children about sex through a play, a liberal might not want the state educating their children about war through a recruiter.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
so i think the argument is pretty simple here
Highschoolers are not allowed to be exposed to the morally questionable topic of sex because they may be influenced it. But they can be exposed to military recruiters who are not only exposing them to, but also encouraging the moraly questionable act of killing other humans.
So whether you see sex or kiling as right or wrong, there is a double standard over whether a topic can be presented.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
ummm the army only educates people? I think your forgetting the controversial part where they train people to kill.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Not At School
I am surprised this is happening with a high school play!
When I was in elementary school kids were already talking about far worse things amongst themselves. If you want to insulate your children from thoughts and ideas that you don't agree with, you're going to have to homeschool them and not allow them to interact with other children!
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on New Drug Czar
The actress Natasha Richardson was in a terrible ski accident today and they say she received a severe brain injury and is in critical condition.
I guess its time we appoint a ski czar, put criminals to work selling and distributing skis for us, stop the instruction of safe ski techniqes and market dangerous forms of skiing to our rebelious and depressed youth (all in the name of protecting them, of course.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on New Drug Czar
I would also like to add that I have a B.S. in Biochemistry (GPA of 3.7), and am now a graduate student working 70 hours a week doing research in neuroscience, and I also smoke pot and have been fascinated with psychedelics since I saw a drug awareness poster in the fourth grade.
Had I been caught smoking pot in college, I would have lost my financial aid (due to federal law) and been forced to drop out. Then instead of going to work to advance biomedical science, I would have ended up either in some kind of unskilled job or used my chemistry knowledge to become a clandestine chemist. Fortunately I no longer have to rely on financial aid, and so I can now be judged by my performance in school and in the lab, rather then by my drug use.
I do feel bad that the money I spend on drugs ends up in the hands of criminals, and would much rather give it to honest business people and the government. Unfortunatly if I risked growing/making my own drugs I could be arrested go to jail, and lose my more important dreams in life. My money thus goes to the black market. Yes I bear responsibilty for some of the terrible things that happen in the black market, but so does our drug policy which helps divert billions of dollars to drug gangs and terrorists around the world. The UN says that the taliban have made hundreds of millions of dollars from the Heroin trade:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29099&Cr=Afghan&Cr1=UNODC
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on New Drug Czar
Why do people use drugs? For nearly every drug there are four basic ways it's used:
1. Use- the drug is simply used to facilitate some goal. Cafeine or the coca leaf are used to be alert and have energy. Opiates are used for pain, even psychedelics have been used by computer programers who have said that low doses have helped their process.
2. Recreation- the drug is used for fun. Alcohol is our main drug for this one, but of course nearly every other drug is used this way.
3. Spiritual/religious use- japanese tea ceremonies, wine use durring communion, rastas smoking ganja, shamans using psychedelics.
4. Abuse- this one doesn't need any eplanation, since it is the only category our government admits exists (except when it comes to our exceptions of alcohol, nicotine and caffeine).
What I find really it intersting is that nearly every psychoactive drug is used in all four ways! This makes perfect sense because psychoactive drugs interact with our mind and minds are complex and diverse.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on New Drug Czar
If I wanted to climb Mount Hood, officials at the Forest Service would tell me to get training and recommend guide services to help me get to the top and back down safely. If I wanted to use a drug, the czar would say there is no safe use, and he would use scare tactics to discourage me. Mountaineers have organizations that train them to be safe, but each individual who chooses to use drugs must reinvent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what is safe and what isn't.
I doubt Kerlikowske will do anything to help educate people how to safely use drugs, and will only perpetuate the myth that drug use has no value and cannot be done safely.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context
