doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

Seriously. Take a class in basic reasoning. Justifying lying to students by the fact that students have been lied to before is a non sequitur. It's also a symptom of a broken moral compass. The political debate over gun laws is a red herring -- it is irrelevant to your proposal to lie to parents about the risks of social exclusion.

And you should take a class in basic understanding. You and many others here have the habit of misunderstanding my points. Your brain seems to be wired to misunderstand my points and find mistakes.

I asked you, why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression? Why can't there be Parent-teacher conferences to discuss papers like the one I shared here?

Politicians blame evil and the devil, why can't school educate parents about what the actual research says?

You carry the burden of proof to show that the change would be not only effective, but the best method of achieving the desired goal. To this point, you haven't even defined the goal.

I have to show that educating parents is going to be effective? Well, shouldn't we try the experiment first? I never suggested that children should be afraid of each other, that's a straw man you created, but I think children should be afraid of bullying and socially excluding others.

You are the person that proposed the use of a fear based strategy to get students to be more accepting of the students that you've worked to make them afraid of. It's your burden to show why that would be an effective strategy.

I am proposing that schools should educate parents, that's it. There are many reasons to suspect that social exclusion can lead to violence or aggression, the paper I shared is perfectly consistent with that theory..

Again

I never suggested that children should be afraid of each other, that's a straw man you created

[Marcus]

I am proposing that schools should educate parents, that's it. There are many reasons to suspect that social exclusion can lead to violence or aggression, the paper I shared is perfectly consistent with that theory..

Again

I never suggested that children should be afraid of each other, that's a straw man you created

No, it's not. You suggested fearmongering as a solution. That's not "education."

Fearmongering, or scaremongering, is a form of manipulation that causes fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger.[1]

Wiki

[Res Ipsa]

Seriously. Take a class in basic reasoning. Justifying lying to students by the fact that students have been lied to before is a non sequitur. It's also a symptom of a broken moral compass. The political debate over gun laws is a red herring -- it is irrelevant to your proposal to lie to parents about the risks of social exclusion.

And you should take a class in basic understanding. You and many others here have the habit of misunderstanding my points. Your brain seems to be wired to misunderstand my points and find mistakes.

I asked you, why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression? Why can't there be Parent-teacher conferences to discuss papers like the one I shared here?

Politicians blame evil and the devil, why can't schools educate parents about what the actual research says?

You carry the burden of proof to show that the change would be not only effective, but the best method of achieving the desired goal. To this point, you haven't even defined the goal.

I have to show that educating parents is going to be effective? Well, shouldn't we try the experiment first? I never suggested that children should be afraid of each other, that's a straw man you created, but I do think children should be afraid of bullying and socially excluding others.

You are the person that proposed the use of a fear based strategy to get students to be more accepting of the students that you've worked to make them afraid of. It's your burden to show why that would be an effective strategy.

I am proposing that schools should educate parents, that's it. There are many reasons to suspect that social exclusion can lead to violence or aggression, the paper I shared is perfectly consistent with that theory..

When many different people "misunderstand" you, it's a good sign that either you're making an incoherent argument or you have a problem expressing an idea clearly. I think the problem here is that you are doing your usual lazy shooting from the hip based on a couple of snippets from papers and are so result oriented that you can't articulate a coherent, valid argument for the position you are taking.

What is your goal?

[doubtingthomas]

Parents, policymakers, and community members should learn more about what kind of sexuality education is being taught in local schools, and if scare tactics are used, assess whether they may be more harmful than helpful.

Stop wasting time with your randomly googled nonsense.

And please stop cherry-picking my comments.

Here's what I said, "I didn't share that article to prove that scare tactics are working, I shared it to prove that schools are using scare tactics."

No, it's not. You suggested fearmongering as a solution. That's not "education."

In the context of exaggerating the problem. However, I also said, "there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?"

[Marcus]

Stop wasting time with your randomly googled nonsense.

And please stop cherry-picking my comments.

Here's what I said, "I didn't share that article to prove that scare tactics are working, I shared it to prove that schools are using scare tactics."

Cite the study that supports your claim that making children afraid of each other will result in increased inclusion.

Here's what I said, "Fearmongering. Tell the parents that bullying and social exclusion increases the chances that a kid brings a weapon to school."

Fearmongering - the act of spreading needless fear; exaggerating purported threats in order to incite fear.

It works. Better to be safe than sorry.

Which is why I said:

No, it's not. You suggested fearmongering as a solution. That's not "education."

In the context of exaggerating the problem. However, I also said, "there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?"

Make up your mind. At the moment, I am agreeing with Morley:

Did you learn something?

I learned to not give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, I learned that you don't tell the truth. I learned that when you misrepresent what a study or article says, you euphemistically call it "imprecise wording." I learned that you will do almost anything for a little attention.

[doubtingthomas]

When many different people "misunderstand" you, it's a good sign that either you're making an incoherent argument or you have a problem expressing an idea clearly.

I do admit I have a problem expressing my ideas clearly. I am lazy and always assume people will understand my points. Another problem is that many of the things I say are very unpopular and people dislike the things I say.

Also, what many people think here is completely irrelevant. These types of message boards tend to attract extremists.

I think the problem here is that you are doing your usual lazy shooting from the hip based on a couple of snippets from papers

You have accused me of that before, but it's hard to get a couple of snippets from the actual conclusion.

Many theorists have concluded, very plausibly,that aggressive behavior leads to social exclusion, because people dislike associating with someone whose behavior is harmful or disruptive. Our findings do not prove that theory wrong, but they do support the opposite direction of causality. Exclusion from social groups and relationships—even just hearing a forecast about being alone during the distant future—appears to produce a strong tendency toward aggressive behavior

How am I misrepresenting that?

What is your goal?

To get people to acknowledge that there is a correlation between social exclusion and aggression. It may be the case that under certain circumstances (genetics and brain disorders), some young men could violently respond to social exclusion.

We can know for sure that nothing good comes from social exclusion.

Your “I’m not precise” excuse has worn out its welcome. You weren’t imprecise. Everything in your description was flat out false.

Loneliness and social exclusion are identical. Same for violence and aggression. You know damned well that aggression is just as meaningful as violence, and could be a lot worse sometimes.

There's no need to punish me for the wrong wording, call it a mistake if you like, but don't call it flat out false.

[doubtingthomas]

Make up your mind. At the moment, I am agreeing with Morley:

That's what I did here, "there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?"

Stop spamming this trash can thread you created with personal attacks. Your only purpose is to attack me, you are no interested in real discussion.

[Marcus]

When many different people "misunderstand" you, it's a good sign that either you're making an incoherent argument or you have a problem expressing an idea clearly.

I do admit I have a problem expressing my ideas clearly. I am lazy and always assume people will understand my points. Another problem is that many of the things I say are very unpopular and people dislike the things I say.

I think the problem here is that you are doing your usual lazy shooting from the hip based on a couple of snippets from papers

You have accused me of that before, but it's hard to get a couple of snippets from the actual conclusion.

Many theorists have concluded, very plausibly,that aggressive behavior leads to social exclusion, because people dislike associating with someone whose behavior is harmful or disruptive. Our findings do not prove that theory wrong, but they do support the opposite direction of causality. Exclusion from social groups and relationships—even just hearing a forecast about being alone during the distant future—appears to produce a strong tendency toward aggressive behavior

How am I misrepresenting that?

What is your goal?

To get people to acknowledge that there is a correlation between social exclusion and aggression. It may be the case that under certain circumstances (genetics and brain disorders), some young men could violently respond to social exclusion.

We can know for sure that nothing good comes from social exclusion.

Your “I’m not precise” excuse has worn out its welcome. You weren’t imprecise. Everything in your description was flat out false.

Loneliness and social exclusion are identical. Same for violence and aggression. You know damned well that aggression is just as meaningful as violence, and could be a lot worse sometimes.

There's no need to punish me for the wrong wording, call it a mistake if you like, but don't call it flat out false.

And we have come full circle, back to your execrable starting position:

…if you want violence to decrease, give the lonely guys some friends.

[Res Ipsa]

What is your goal?

To get people to acknowledge that there is a correlation between social exclusion and aggression. It may be the case that under certain circumstances (genetics and brain disorders), some young men could violently respond to social exclusion.

We can know for sure that nothing good comes from social exclusion.

So, your goal isn’t to reduce social exclusion? It’s just to have “people” acknowledge a correlation?

Which people?

[doubtingthomas]

So, your goal isn’t to reduce social exclusion? It’s just to have “people” acknowledge a correlation?

Which people?

Wouldn't that be the first step?

Everyone. You in this case because it's impossible to reason with certain people here.