Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → A bad history lesson.
12345
A bad history lesson.
2009-11-03, 3:08 PM #81
Originally posted by Vornskr:
Showing a movie is a problem if it wastes a week's worth of class time in which the students could be learning something useful.


lul, history class? Useful?
2009-11-03, 3:08 PM #82
Originally posted by Wookie06:
It's how Rush Limbaugh tells us to write it.

I don't know who that is, but that's silly.
nope.
2009-11-03, 3:28 PM #83
Rush Limbaugh is a pill popping neo-conservative talk radio host.

In other words, he's the kind of idiot people like Wookie06 listen to.
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 4:00 PM #84
every time wookie types "Algore" i can't help but to think of [http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/743/garthalgar32783345.jpg]


getting back on topic i can't remember watching a single hollywood movie in history class... in english class we would occasionally watch film versions of books we were reading at the time
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2009-11-03, 4:59 PM #85
In 9th grade my science teacher had "Movie day" every single Monday. We watched things like Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Multiplicity, etc etc etc. She told the class straight up that she didn't give a "rats ***" what the principle thinks about her.

She was fired after 1 year of teaching, her first year.
2009-11-03, 5:08 PM #86
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Teaching An Inconvenient Truth as fact indoctrinates children by using "flat Earth" type science to influence people to willingly endorse global governance and socialism.


Well yeah... it's inconvenient, not convenient... :P
2009-11-03, 6:08 PM #87
Originally posted by Wookie06:
It's how Rush Limbaugh tells us to write it.


Did you just say that with complete seriousness?
2009-11-03, 6:14 PM #88
No, he's screwing with you. He likes to mock others' opinions of him by throwing those things in every once in a while.
Warhead[97]
2009-11-03, 6:17 PM #89
Poe's law.
2009-11-03, 6:22 PM #90
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
No, he's screwing with you. He likes to mock others' opinions of him by throwing those things in every once in a while.


One one hand that's good, and on another, pathetic. I don't follow wookie threads closely enough to care.
2009-11-03, 6:43 PM #91
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
No, he's screwing with you. He likes to mock others' opinions of him by throwing those things in every once in a while.
Ah, yes. The difference between lynching a black man while wearing a white cloak and lynching a black man while joking about wearing a white cloak. What a wonderful strawman he has built for himself.
2009-11-03, 6:48 PM #92
Why does Wookie06 type it Algore?
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 6:51 PM #93
I already made it clear that it is how Rush Limbaugh says it. It's on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2009-11-03, 6:51 PM #94
Originally posted by Antony:
Why does Wookie06 type it Algore?
Well, since Al Gore's name appears fairly frequently in texts associated with anthropogenic environmental change I don't find it difficult to imagine that Wookie06 has never seen Al Gore's name in print.
2009-11-03, 6:55 PM #95
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I already made it clear that it is how Rush Limbaugh says it. It's on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

That is really ****ing stupid.
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 7:03 PM #96
An opiate addict coming up with something utterly moronic? Why, I've never heard of such a thing!
2009-11-03, 7:03 PM #97
Jesus Christ he wasn't joking.
2009-11-03, 7:07 PM #98
All I have to say is that the way you all are biting on everything Wookie says is hilarious.
Pissed Off?
2009-11-03, 7:15 PM #99
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I would say that Al Gore did when he first used that expression to describe people that don't subscribe to his scientists' views but that's just me (and a large number of people that also disagree, to include those you might describe as "so-called" scientists).


FYI, the scientific consensus on global warming is that it is caused by human activity. And it has been so for years.

If you follow the debate about global warming through the media, it seems like the scientific community is divided. This is because the media always let the skeptics have their say. The reality is that in the scientific community, the skeptics are a very small minority. The politicians are divided, and the people, sure, but the scientific community not in the slightest.

Also, for those of you who want to post 'RESEARCH HAS PROVEN THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING DOWN LOLZORS', this was proven false in very recent research. In fact the earth is warming up faster than they thought it was.

[/derail]
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2009-11-03, 7:18 PM #100
Yeah, because the media can't just come out and say "Here's a guy that's telling you the truth, and here's some jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about, but we have to televise the devil's advocate as well."

Oh wait, fox news does do that.
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 7:19 PM #101
:v:
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2009-11-03, 7:20 PM #102
Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:
The reality is that in the scientific community, the skeptics are a very small minority.


The "small minority" of the scientific community, of course, consists of fringe scientists (i.e. Creation science,) people speaking outside of their area of expertise and social scientists.
I have never heard of a geologist or atmospheric scientist who disagrees.
2009-11-03, 7:21 PM #103
I've heard "experts" say that sort of stuff lots of times!!
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 7:22 PM #104
Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:
FYI, the scientific consensus on global warming is that it is caused by human activity. And it has been so for years.


Yeah, because "consensus" is obviously part of the scientific method that I clearly know nothing about.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2009-11-03, 7:43 PM #105
Thank God Wookie has stepped up activity to make up for the absence of Goldie. God bless you, sir.
2009-11-03, 7:48 PM #106
Jesus Christ, guys.
2009-11-03, 8:00 PM #107
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Yeah, because "consensus" is obviously part of the scientific method that I clearly know nothing about.


Quote:
Fancy that? An artificially maintained scientific controversy to favor a "brown backlash" as Paul Ehrlich would say.3 Do you see why I am worried? [...] dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant? Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can't I simply say that the argument is closed for good?


Of course I don't think you will read this article, but it is an interesting statement for a rather famous postmodernist critic of the "scientific agenda."

However, I would like very much to understand why you believe we are not experiencing anthropogenic climate change. Did you conduct independent research? Which experts, if any, do you defer to? If your opinion is derived from popular media, how does the level of oil firm investments in news companies affect your opinion (i.e. Kingdom Holding Company's 7% stake in News Corporation?)
2009-11-03, 8:01 PM #108
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The "small minority" of the scientific community, of course, consists of fringe scientists (i.e. Creation science,) people speaking outside of their area of expertise and social scientists.
I have never heard of a geologist or atmospheric scientist who disagrees.


I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, since I know that I don't know enough about global warming to comment one way or another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming
Warhead[97]
2009-11-03, 8:04 PM #109
Global Warming is (at least partly (Likely mostly) ) caused by us.

A better question : Why do we assume that climate change is BAD? We know that the sun's output has dropped recently (That is what caused the little ice age - incidentally, something we survived by burning most of Europe) and will again soon. So is global warming that bad, when the alternative is an ice age?
2009-11-03, 8:09 PM #110
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, since I know that I don't know enough about global warming to comment one way or another:

Fair enough. I haven't heard of an atmospheric scientist etc. :P

I'll say, though, that David Deming's Wikipedia article opens with a pretty scary example of the man's interdisciplinary rhetorical skill...

Quote:
Deming considers the "fundamental flaw" in Malthusian theory to be that "it fails to take into account the exponential growth in resources that occurs through technological advances."

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to spot what's wrong with this claim.
2009-11-03, 8:14 PM #111
guys we are getting off topic here... this isn't a thread about global warming or a thread about wookie06 having some of the dumbest arguements or that he fails at spelling wookiee

it's about teaching history with hollywood movies... next thing you know that history teacher will use apocalypse now and full metal jacket to teach about vietnam, M*A*S*H (the movie and perhaps a few episodes of the show) to teach about Korea... i could keep listing movies but you get the idea
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2009-11-03, 8:26 PM #112
Don't advances of any kind more or less have to deplete resources? I don't see how technological advances could cause an exponential growth in coal supply...
>>untie shoes
2009-11-03, 8:30 PM #113
I'm a very firm believer in the FACTS of history being less important than the IMPLICATIONS of history, so I can understand using hollywood movies to teach history...however, that has to be with a disclaimer (which is automatically applied in MY mind, but I know a lot of people don't even think about it) that what you are seeing is not exactly how it really happened. I think showing Braveheart to a group of people and then allowing them to go research the true history of it would be a much more effective way of teaching than reciting the events and people involved step by step and then moving on to the next time period.

To me, you should not just learn history, but learn FROM history, or else it's worthless information. Unfortunately, the public school system rarely agrees with me...
Warhead[97]
2009-11-03, 8:34 PM #114
Quote:
Don't advances of any kind more or less have to deplete resources? I don't see how technological advances could cause an exponential growth in coal supply...
New resources become available and viable.
2009-11-03, 8:35 PM #115
Originally posted by Antony:
Don't advances of any kind more or less have to deplete resources? I don't see how technological advances could cause an exponential growth in coal supply...


They can provide exponential growth in immediate coal supply, but not TOTAL coal supply. Advances in technology have allowed us to find and retrieve more and more oil, but in the end, there's only so much oil in the planet that it is possible to retrieve. So, barring a technological advance that allows us to CREATE oil cheaply, or find....ummm...space oil from the planet grebulon 8 or whatever, there WILL be an end to the oil. Coal, too...more in the short run, same amount in the long run.

I do agree with the guy sort of...I mean, I do think it's kind of jumping the gun to move to energy sources that completely suck compared to oil BEFORE we have made them not suck and WHILE we still have plenty of oil...but we've certainly got to get there somehow, and we certainly can't wait until we run completely out, so the research has to happen, and therefore we have to START transitioning.
Warhead[97]
2009-11-03, 9:03 PM #116
Originally posted by JM:
New resources become available and viable.
Deming states there is an "exponential growth in resources" which is false. The resources always existed. Technology leads to productive efficiency, which means the finite resources (overall) are consumed less wastefully. For example, this includes the ability to extract previously-uneconomical sources of coal.

This is mainly a semantic argument. The advances of technology may indeed mean we have exponentially greater availability of certain resources, although it's a rather difficult argument to prove. What's important is that his comments make no sense in the terms of economics. It's difficult to trust what he's saying when he obviously has little or no knowledge of the field he is attempting to contribute to.
2009-11-03, 9:46 PM #117
Originally posted by Jon`C:
exponential growth in access to resources


Some time judicious wording can save you a lot of trouble.
2009-11-03, 10:09 PM #118
But... do we have exponential growth in access to resources?

Did you know that aluminum was once more valuable than gold? The useful form of aluminum doesn't exist in nature. It has to be processed and extracted, which is a very expensive process with a high energy cost. Aluminum was still available, it just wasn't economical. There are a lot of untapped coal deposits we are perfectly capable of accessing, although at our current level of technology it would be very wasteful. We are still able to access these resources.

Is it also as important, or as provable, that we can access more resources than use them more efficiently? That's why I was pretty careful to say 'greater availability' instead of 'more.' But even then I don't believe it. There are a lot of resources that we can't simply procure more of, like land (in the non-economic sense.)
2009-11-03, 10:11 PM #119
Napoleon was rumored to have a set of aluminum plates for his finest guests.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2009-11-03, 11:15 PM #120
This thread makes me think about this comic:

[http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/romjae/PBF209-Now_Showing.jpg]
"You were probably a result of sabotage."
12345

↑ Up to the top!