yhwx

He lives!

TV’s Frink said:

TV’s Frink said:

Well I never.

Reported for lying.

I should try it some time. People are always talking about it, so it must be good.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Having police officers in schools not only doesn’t work. It’s a negative to students, especially minority ones.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp

The fate of school discipline and security in America is at a crucial turning point. While the “school-to-prison pipeline” has recently received an increased amount of attention from policy makers interested in improving public education, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut led to renewed calls for the heightened security measures that helped give rise to the pipeline. This article provides clear evidence that heightened disciplinary and security measures in schools are faulty policy responses, as they have adverse impacts on the students they intend to protect and siphon resources away from policies that more effectively ensure student safety and success.

A relatively small number of the students arrested in Delaware were charged with felony offenses (approximately 9%), while the overwhelming majority of students were charged with misdemeanors and violations (approximately 91%). Moreover, students rarely faced high-level felony charges.

Although the Delaware student population is evenly split between genders, 65% of the arrested students were male, and 35% were female. Black students comprised 67% of the arrested students while only accounting for 32% of the student body. Meanwhile, white students accounted for 31% of those arrested in school, but half of the student body. Black students, therefore, were approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested than white students.

Yeah, I know, all cops are bigoted gun crazy a-holes who will shoot black kids because they hate them and shoot others for talking back. What horrible monsters cops are. I know.

That article wasn’t an opinion. It was hard, factual data.

So we can protect our kids, we can’t get the guns off the streets and nothing will get done. See you at the next school shooting. Have a nice day.

I try to.

Warbler said:

WIR?

What I Read

DuracellEnergizer said:

Not sure if serious.

That’s how I like to keep it.

dahmage said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

dahmage said:

dahmage said:

Can an Australian have their world view turned upside down?

Nope, just upside up!

You’re assuming the traditional alignment of Earth as seen in maps and photos is the objectively true one. But look what happens when you do this:

you’re assuming the earth is flat and rectangular.

But there’s no real sense of directionality in space. We only have the notions of upside down and right side up because Earth’s gravity pulls us down. While there is gravity in space, that concept does not exist.

DuracellEnergizer said:

dahmage said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

dahmage said:

dahmage said:

Can an Australian have their world view turned upside down?

Nope, just upside up!

You’re assuming the traditional alignment of Earth as seen in maps and photos is the objectively true one. But look what happens when you do this:

you’re assuming the earth is flat and rectangular.

I assume no such thing.

The Earth is cylindrical.

The Earth is an oblong sphere. C’mon, Duracell.

Sorry that I keep tweet spamming this thread but it’s not my fault nobody writes articles anymore.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663128736940032

After every massacre, there’s inevitable talk about Australian gun laws post-1996 and how successful they’ve been at reducing gun violence, homicides and suicides. Also a lot of misinformation about ‘bans’ and such.

Here’s what actually happened and what it means today:

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663187138359298

Undoubtedly true. But an interesting thing has happened. The bad guys with guns, for the last 20 years, have been using them almost exclusively on one another. No one seriously worries about being shot in public any more. There’s no armed guards in schools.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663198769213441

Oh, almost forgot. Aussies still watch the exact same movies and play the same ‘violent’ video games as the US, yet no more massacres. It was both the guns AND the person holding it that was the cause. But no longer.

Who knows, it could have been a translator error. Those happen all the time. Maybe one of the scribes meant to put in Xe but they made a mistake and wrote He.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

I did think about that, but the word “they” meaning an individual is not clear in and of itself, but more from context. Historically, God has made it clear He is the “one true God”, and the word “they” might be construed polytheistically.

Also, God is and has been portrayed as a “Father” and I’m sure that was intentional on His part. Plus, Jesus was/is male, and Jesus is considered by many as the physical human incarnation of God.

What if I want to believe God’s a Xe? What do you have to say to that?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/entertainment/ted-cruz-the-simpsons/index.html

The senator from Texas ran afoul of the showrunner for “The Simpsons” after he invoked the characters during an appearance Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

“The Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson,” Cruz said of the character who is portrayed on the show as being a bit of a know-it-all. “And Republicans are happily the party of Homer, Bart, Maggie and Marge.”

Al Jean, showrunner for the long-running animated Fox series, struck back on Twitter saying Cruz needed the character of baby Maggie’s pacifier.

“Ted Cruz says Maggie Simpson would vote for him,” Jean tweeted. “I think Ted’s the one who could use a pacifier in his mouth.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

He doesn’t. Our language doesn’t have a gender-neutral pronoun for a single individual and I’m not sure if the Hebrews and Greeks had one either.

We do.

TV’s Frink said:

How does one open something that’s already open?

Good question. Might want to discuss it in the Religion thread.

Having police officers in schools not only doesn’t work. It’s a negative to students, especially minority ones.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp

The fate of school discipline and security in America is at a crucial turning point. While the “school-to-prison pipeline” has recently received an increased amount of attention from policy makers interested in improving public education, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut led to renewed calls for the heightened security measures that helped give rise to the pipeline. This article provides clear evidence that heightened disciplinary and security measures in schools are faulty policy responses, as they have adverse impacts on the students they intend to protect and siphon resources away from policies that more effectively ensure student safety and success.

A relatively small number of the students arrested in Delaware were charged with felony offenses (approximately 9%), while the overwhelming majority of students were charged with misdemeanors and violations (approximately 91%). Moreover, students rarely faced high-level felony charges.

Although the Delaware student population is evenly split between genders, 65% of the arrested students were male, and 35% were female. Black students comprised 67% of the arrested students while only accounting for 32% of the student body. Meanwhile, white students accounted for 31% of those arrested in school, but half of the student body. Black students, therefore, were approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested than white students.

Thread reopened to comments.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

It’s the same thing people say about evolution.

What do people say about evolution?

To say that animals evolve to suit their environment, or that genetic mutations win or lose out over time to the ultimate change of a species or development of new ones…

Nah, people all the time seem to be confused about how a process like evolution could create such complex beings. Things like “how could evolution create something so complex as an eye?” etc.

that’s not the same things as to say that humans evolved from primates.

Do you believe this isn’t so?

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

God literally created time and space.

Citation needed.

Now really. How would he have explained the space-time continuum to people who lived thousands of years ago? And when such an explanation would have been beside the point?

I didn’t ask for a citation on how he created it, I asked for a citation on that he created it.

As opposed to it happening spontaneously?

Yes.

To assume so makes far less sense. The universe is too complex, intricate and balanced to have been completely generated from nothing by nothing for no reason.

Opinion noted.

It’s the same thing people say about evolution.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

It’s the creation of the universe we’re talking about here. It can’t be fact. None of it. Not to us. You know that.

…why?

Because we can not gather the irrefutable data required. We do not have it. We can not get it.

…why?

Never say never, dude.

chyron8472 said:

It’s the creation of the universe we’re talking about here. It can’t be fact. None of it. Not to us. You know that.

…why?

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

You said it’s literally what happened, so don’t be surprised if I take what you say literally.

Yes, I said God literally created time and space. I did not say he did it in seven 24-hour time periods. I did not say it is scientifically provable. I did not say it is fact. I did not say how he did it. And it wasn’t my point.

My point was that the Bible doesn’t say precisely how he did it because the people back then would not understand it and it was not important for them to know.

And you said there was nothing before the creation of the universe, except for God, correct?