What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[SystemShock]

Do I have to explain to you the difference in knowing what stealing is, or teaching somebody how to be good at it?

What? LOL. Calm down.

 

[SystemShock]

I never said one shouldn't borrow from others. I have a teenage neighbor whose father passed away.

I gladly loan him tools anytime he needs them, and I am more happy to teach him how to use them properly.

If he couldn't borrow them, he wouldn't learn basic skills.

But he also returns them as soon as he finishes with them. That may be the more valuable lesson. It's not only the right thing to do, but who knows maybe someday someone will observe that and give him a job/promotion/their daughter.

And here I thought a good father teaches his son to be self sufficient, and never borrow stuff from others; or to expect anything borrowed to be returned.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with religious morality, which is what prompted the tangent to begin with. And believe it or not, religion doesn't have a monopoly in defining what is right or wrong.

 

[Intensesaint]

What? LOL. Calm down.

You originally said "Really? A student old enough to be in shop class doesn't know what stealing is? "

When you knew I was talking about teaching students how to steal on the topic of morality.

Now you are trying to claim you didn't do that by telling me to calm down? I don't see anything emphatic in my verbiage. I simply made a statement. No exclamations or hyperbole.

At this point you're not interested in debate at all. No longer going to respond in this topic.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am saying it is being taught because it fits into someone moral code - just like any other subjects that are being taught.

Now there may be some general agreement on morality - teen pregnancy is bad, for instance. But disagreement on how to reduce teen pregnancy: sex ed or not sex ed; types of sex ed; providing free prophylactics; etc. That is what I took Ayo's point to be. But the idea that one side comes from a morality free point of view while the other does not is wrong.

And I am saying that it's not an issue of morality vs morality free. I am saying that the individual person's morality is irrelevant.

I am going to use comprehensive sex ed for this example. Let's say that you and I disagree completely on whether or not it should be taught. We can look at statistics to see if comprehensive sex ed offers positive benefits to both the student body and society as a whole. If it does, it should be taught no matter how you and I view the subject through our own moral lenses. Its effectiveness (or lack thereof) exists outside of our moral views.

 

[JimEverett]

I am going to use comprehensive sex ed for this example. Let's say that you and I disagree completely on whether or not it should be taught. We can look at statistics to see if comprehensive sex ed offers positive benefits to both the student body and society as a whole. If it does, it should be taught no matter how you and I view the subject through our own moral lenses. Its effectiveness (or lack thereof) exists outside of our moral views.

Hw you judge the effectiveness is based on your morality, right? What "positive benefits" are you talking about? Is it, that you think lower teen pregnancy rates are good? That is a moral statement. Some may disagree. Some may place a higher value on something else, say feeling sexual pleasure or having as many babies as possible . . . .

There is no "existing outside our moral views" - it determines what is effective, for instance.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Hw you judge the effectiveness is based on your morality, right? What "positive benefits" are you talking about? Is it, that you think lower teen pregnancy rates are good? That is a moral statement. Some may disagree. Some may place a higher value on something else, say feeling sexual pleasure or having as many babies as possible . . . .

How I judge the effectiveness of something is by looking at results and data from instances where the thing being judged for effectiveness has been implemented. If I am morally opposed to something but the data shows that the thing to which I am morally opposed has a positive impact on society as a whole without hurting anyone in the process, then I am standing in opposition to something that is beneficial to society. Should we then cater to my morality or ignore it because of the benefits?

There is no "existing outside our moral views" - it determines what is effective, for instance.

Blood transfusions are effective. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on religious moral objections. Their morality does not determine the effectiveness of the procedure.

 

[SystemShock]

You originally said "Really? A student old enough to be in shop class doesn't know what stealing is? "

When you knew I was talking about teaching students how to steal on the topic of morality.

Now you are trying to claim you didn't do that by telling me to calm down? I don't see anything emphatic in my verbiage. I simply made a statement. No exclamations or hyperbole.

At this point you're not interested in debate at all. No longer going to respond in this topic.

I don't know if you added the following to the post I replied to after I replied. It may very well be that I missed it.

If we didn't have morality in our schools then we would be teaching students how to rob banks, steal cars, and other criminal activities along with the sciences and arts. Morality tells us we don't teach our children how to steal or commit other criminal acts.

But even if I did miss it, as I said before, this is an asinine argument. This is the same silly, tired argument that says that, without religion, everyone be out there killing and raping and whatnot.

And I'll reiterate, the original tangent in the conversation referred to religious morality in schools, and religious morality doesn't have a monopoly on what's right and wrong.

 

[JimEverett]

How I judge the effectiveness of something is by looking at results and data from instances where the thing being judged for effectiveness has been implemented.

Effective as to what? If I am buying a car, it is a fact that car x is the fastest street-legal car. It is effective in that sense. But that does not mean that car will necessarily be effective for me. It may be a 2 seater when I want something large and can seat 6 or more, etc.
The data you are talking about are facts - but those facts do not determine the effectiveness because the effectiveness is relative to what I think is good and bad.

If I am morally opposed to something but the data shows that the thing to which I am morally opposed has a positive impact

stop right there, what makes the impact "positive" - whatever that is is where the morality begins.

Blood transfusions are effective. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on religious moral objections. Their morality does not determine the effectiveness of the procedure.

For such a person that refuses blood transfusions, don't you think they would disagree as to how you judge the effectiveness of a transfusion? It is not enough to say "blood transfusions are effective." You have to say the criteria for judging its effectiveness.
So, you or I will say transfusions are effective for keeping a person alive and helping a person feel better.
But someone opposed to transfusions are not going to have the same value placed on our reasons for finding the procedure effective.

"effectiveness" just like "practical" is a value-laden term and depends on the instrumentality or goal desired, which in turn is going to be some sort of moral concept.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Effective as to what? If I am buying a car, it is a fact that car x is the fastest street-legal car. It is effective in that sense. But that does not mean that car will necessarily be effective for me. It may be a 2 seater when I want something large and can seat 6 or more, etc.
The data you are talking about are facts - but those facts do not determine the effectiveness because the effectiveness is relative to what I think is good and bad.

You are not talking about morality anymore, though. You are in the realm of opinion and common sense decision making.

stop right there, what makes the impact "positive" - whatever that is is where the morality begins.

And I am saying that it doesn't matter because I am not advocating for this thing based on a moral code. The positive impact on society- reduced teen pregnancy rates mean less teenagers having to drop out of school to support infants, less people seeking abortions, less people that could potentially need to apply for social support programs, etc- are real and can be measured. This data does not change based on whether I find the thing (in this case, comprehensive sex ed) to be moral or immoral.

For such a person that refuses blood transfusions, don't you think they would disagree as to how you judge the effectiveness of a transfusion? It is not enough to say "blood transfusions are effective." You have to say the criteria for judging its effectiveness.
So, you or I will say transfusions are effective for keeping a person alive and helping a person feel better.
But someone opposed to transfusions are not going to have the same value placed on our reasons for finding the procedure effective.

"effectiveness" just like "practical" is a value-laden term and depends on the instrumentality or goal desired, which in turn is going to be some sort of moral concept.

Blood transfusions are a medical procedure. We judge their effectiveness by whether or not lives are saved (or the odds of a life being saved are increased due to the transfusion). The moral convictions of a religious group do not change how effective they are, nor do they change how the effectiveness is judged.

 

[JimEverett]

You are not talking about morality anymore, though. You are in the realm of opinion and common sense decision making.

Right, the idea is that the notion of "effectiveness is dependent on something else - what you value, for instance. "Effectiveness" doesn;t stand alone, its dependent on something else.

And I am saying that it doesn't matter because I am not advocating for this thing based on a moral code. The positive impact on society- reduced teen pregnancy rates mean less teenagers having to drop out of school to support infants, less people seeking abortions, less people that could potentially need to apply for social support programs, etc- are real and can be measured. This data does not change based on whether I find the thing (in this case, comprehensive sex ed) to be moral or immoral.

Suppose, for the sake of argument the following: In a school board meeting to determine whether sex education ouse should be implemented in middle school two sides make the following arguments:

1. Sex education courses in middle school reduce (a) teen pregnancy rates, (b) school dropout rates, (c) number of abortions, and (d) young people needing government welfare;

vs.

2. Sex education courses in middle school (a) reduce the birth rate, (b) reduce the marriage rate, (c) result in people staying single longer, (d) increase in kids leaving he area for college and/or jobs


The fact that you think 1 has a positive impact on soiety and 2 a negative one, or that 1 has more of a positive impact than 2 doesn't come from just the facts or data - it comes from the values you have, from what strikes you as a good or bad - i.e. your morality.

 

[Ayo]

Now there may be some general agreement on morality - teen pregnancy is bad, for instance. But disagreement on how to reduce teen pregnancy: sex ed or not sex ed; types of sex ed; providing free prophylactics; etc. That is what I took Ayo's point to be. But the idea that one side comes from a morality free point of view while the other does not is wrong.

I'm not entirely sure what's happened to the thread and I'm a bit lost, but just on this point - yes, you understand correctly. LB suggested that his decision against (some kind of) sex ed curriculum directed toward 12-13 year olds was against his morals. And I was countering that I disagreed, which was also moral, at least in part. That is, I didn't want the discussion to become moral vs. amoral, because I don't think that's an effective way to frame it. And that last part was my intention in a reply to cuddlemonkey.

I think the discussion on curriculum is interesting, and I'd have a lot to say - but I think that would just take the thread further afield and I am genuinely interested in what people's important issues are. And, with the site going live soon, I think this thread's utility is more in line with establishing that for other posters. Fwiw.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Right, the idea is that the notion of "effectiveness is dependent on something else - what you value, for instance. "Effectiveness" doesn;t stand alone, its dependent on something else.

It seems like we agree that this portion of the conversation is no longer about morality, so I see no need continue what we have now managed to spin off into a side discussion, especially since the conversation has already veered way off course.

Suppose, for the sake of argument the following: In a school board meeting to determine whether sex education ouse should be implemented in middle school two sides make the following arguments:

1. Sex education courses in middle school reduce (a) teen pregnancy rates, (b) school dropout rates, (c) number of abortions, and (d) young people needing government welfare;

vs.

2. Sex education courses in middle school (a) reduce the birth rate, (b) reduce the marriage rate, (c) result in people staying single longer, (d) increase in kids leaving he area for college and/or jobs


The fact that you think 1 has a positive impact on soiety and 2 a negative one, or that 1 has more of a positive impact than 2 doesn't come from just the facts or data - it comes from the values you have, from what strikes you as a good or bad - i.e. your morality.

The arguments are useless without actual data to back up the claims. We know that 1a, b, and c are backed up by data. We have none of that for anything in point 2, except for 2a, which is just the creepy flip side of 1a.

When one argument is supported by facts and the other is not, it's not a productive discussion.

 

[JimEverett]

It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, the point is that there is a value judgment to be made in picking the one that is effectice for your purposes, or provides the most positive benefit, etc.

Put it this way: How do you conclude from 200 different studies that say sex ed reduces teen pregnancy that sex ed provides a positive benefit for society?
The "facts" don't say or speak at all to "positive benefits" there is nothing in a study that measures "positive benefit" no scientific study uses "positive benefit" as a primary or secondary endpoint. Why? Because the notion of a "positive benefit" is a value judgment.

 

[Archies Ghost]

It seems like we agree that this portion of the conversation is no longer about morality, so I see no need continue what we have now managed to spin off into a side discussion, especially since the conversation has already veered way off course.



The arguments are useless without actual data to back up the claims. We know that 1a, b, and c are backed up by data. We have none of that for anything in point 2, except for 2a, which is just the creepy flip side of 1a.

When one argument is supported by facts and the other is not, it's not a productive discussion.

"it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations" -Nietzsche

Data without interpretation is meaningless, as JE points out. That interpretation is based upon the moral code of the interpreter and the data becomes opinion when filtered.

 

[Ayo]

Data without interpretation is meaningless, as JE points out. That interpretation is based upon the moral code of the interpreter and the data becomes opinion when filtered.

it's not this easy all the time, though

Example:

Data set: Black kids are 6 times more likely and Hispanic kids are 2 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white kids.

Interpretation 1: Let's say you buy into some racist belief that black kids are more violent or aggressive or just worse generally than brown and white kids. An interpretation is that black kids are simply six times more likely to use drugs as white kids.

That "interpretation" isn't really valid. The interpretation, in this case, is meaningless, because - we know that Interpretation 2 exists. And that interpretation says:

Interpretation 2: Incidence of arrest is not indicative of incidence of use and is more indebted to the surveillance practices, policing procedures, school to prison pipeline racial disparities, and so on. And we know that white, black, and brown kids are within about 5% of one another to use drugs as teens. There is no 600% increase of use of black kids relative to white kids.

Both 'interpreters' are dealing with the same data set. I would say that the data is not meaningless, but it has been de-contextualized.

It reminds me of what Bill James, father of sabermetrics in baseball talked about - in Moneyball. He says that we've become numbed by the numbers. He wanted to quantify something that had previously eluded people, but as time went on, we became so obsessed with the numbers themselves. We've lost the idea of the pursuit of the greater meaning the numbers were meant to lead to.

So I'm with you on how de-contextualized data isn't all that useful.

But 'morals' or perspectives can twist the data into something that isn't factual in some/many cases and render it just as "meaningless" as those de-contextualized numbers. And maybe even more harmful.

Additionally, "data" doesn't really become opinion. Maybe you man that the conclusions drawn from data can become opinion. I would agree that this can be the case. But not always. And even then, competing conclusions aren't necessarily as credible as the other.

That sort of approach leads to people with malformed opinions feeling validated because their "opinion" is an opinion just like someone else's "opinion" is an opinion and, therefore, equal.

And I think that's a key contributor to how we get into contrary and non-constructive discussions.

 

[Archies Ghost]

it's not this easy all the time, though

Example:

Data set: Black kids are 6 times more likely and Hispanic kids are 2 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white kids.

Interpretation 1: Let's say you buy into some racist belief that black kids are more violent or aggressive or just worse generally than brown and white kids. An interpretation is that black kids are simply six times more likely to use drugs as white kids.

That "interpretation" isn't really valid. The interpretation, in this case, is meaningless, because - we know that Interpretation 2 exists. And that interpretation says:

Interpretation 2: Incidence of arrest is not indicative of incidence of use and is more indebted to the surveillance practices, policing procedures, school to prison pipeline racial disparities, and so on. And we know that white, black, and brown kids are within about 5% of one another to use drugs as teens. There is no 600% increase of use of black kids relative to white kids.

Both 'interpreters' are dealing with the same data set. I would say that the data is not meaningless, but it has been de-contextualized.

It reminds me of what Bill James, father of sabermetrics in baseball talked about - in Moneyball. He says that we've become numbed by the numbers. He wanted to quantify something that had previously eluded people, but as time went on, we became so obsessed with the numbers themselves. We've lost the idea of the pursuit of the greater meaning the numbers were meant to lead to.

So I'm with you on how de-contextualized data isn't all that useful.

But 'morals' or perspectives can twist the data into something that isn't factual in some/many cases and render it just as "meaningless" as those de-contextualized numbers. And maybe even more harmful.

Additionally, "data" doesn't really become opinion. Maybe you man that the conclusions drawn from data can become opinion. I would agree that this can be the case. But not always. And even then, competing conclusions aren't necessarily as credible as the other.

That sort of approach leads to people with malformed opinions feeling validated because their "opinion" is an opinion just like someone else's "opinion" is an opinion and, therefore, equal.

And I think that's a key contributor to how we get into contrary and non-constructive discussions.

Who is the arbiter of "malformed opinion"?

Your statement that a particular interpretation of a set of facts is not valid is wholly based upon your particular moral code driving you to more readily accept a particular interpretation that fits your morality.

One could just as easily argue that the frequency of arrest is not directly related to the use of drugs but more upon the circumstances surrounding the use. Or any of a half dozen more variations that will vary by the perspective of the observer.

Data, in its collection, will be biased by the collector and the interpretation of that data is further biased.

No one has the "facts". They have assertions that fit their experiences and personal morality.

The abortion question is an excellent illustration. One side posits as fact that the fetus is not a human being and not deserving of the right to life. The other side posits as fact that the fetus is a human being and deserving of the protections afforded in the Constitution.

Those positions cannot be reconciled unless one accepts that the determination of "fact" is wholly based upon the perspective of the observer of the data. With that acceptance comes the realization that argument is pointless as the participants do not have the same frame of reference.

 

[MT15]

Archie, I think you are painting with a really broad brush, in fact, according to what you just said facts don’t really exist, and it’s fruitless to try to determine what is factual because it is entirely relative to your observing bias. Am I understanding your point, or not so much?

What science is all about is distinguishing what are facts by excluding or allowing for perceived bias. It can be done, and it can be demonstrated, that what Ayo said had been shown by studies is true or factual. It’s actually done by painstaking research and a lot of math to exclude biases from observation. Believe me, it’s way too much math for me, I’ve read some of these scientific papers.

And no scientist worth their salt takes the results of one paper as proof of anything. Results have to be reproducible, and replicated, before they reach the point where they are taken as factual.

 

[wardorican]

This is why we can't have nice things.

I can tell you exactly when this thread went off the rails. It is sad and predictable.

It's when people start using short one or two word answers, that can be loaded, and then people ask loaded questions, or answer for others, or just start to argue, vs try to understand.

I'm tired of the blatant agendas people have. Is open, honest, and thoughtful dialogue impossible?