Yes... that we agree that I am correct.
no! we are agreeing that
I am correct!
yes, it does. How you say something is often nearly or just as important as what you say. This was beaten into me for three months straight when I was in training (my job involves briefing senior commanders) - words matter, including the ones not spoken, and your presentation will often stick more than your words do.
so, in the world of immediately available results (operations are performed based off of intel briefings - the slogan for counterinsurgency is "intel drives ops"), what we have consistently found to be the ground truth of the matter is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming here.
And everything you just said proves my point. The pronoun you used was "YOU". What is perceived is MY perception and how I evaluate and judge the information.
exactly. and that is precisely the same thing that
anyone -
including a student - will do. they will perceive a particular way in which you judge the relative weight of what you are discussing.
If all that is provided is information, what values judgments come from it are MINE
you cannot provide information free of context - literally, communication does not work like that. that is (for example) why we have emoticons here - to make up for the lack of
context that we use our facial expressions or tone inflection to provide in RW communications.
Of course it does. That is why it is important to present it, informationally.
the trick being that information always comes in the context of it's presentation.
No, it is not. It is a list with no values presented. The "equivelency" is on YOU, the receiver.
no, the equivalency is in the presentation - because that is how the "information" is presented.
As a lst. The judgments that the student places on that list are his/hers.
they may choose to
impose their own values over those implied by the competing lists - but that changes the fact that the lists came with their own presumptions not at all.
Sure... here you presented a value judgment, presenting a right/wrong dichotomy to the student. In the other situation, you left the value to the student themselves.
wrong, all i did was provide a list, remember?
in the instances, by the process of presenting multiple forms of sexuality in connection with particular others, I was able to change the presumed moral equivalency of homosexuality from a neutral to a negative. simply in an informational here-is-the-list-style manner; about as dry as you can get.
you can't split information from presentation. not for humans. computers, perhaps, yes. but not people - we're not built that way.
Information is information. One can present it objectively or subjectively.
no, one cannot. to even begin to
give information is to immediately filter out all the information that
isnt worth giving, which is to instantly translate a judgement value into communication.
I would think that anyone would know the difference between these two.
:roll: And I would think that you were at least smart enough to get the difference between saying jokingly saying "F you
" and angrily screaming "F YOU!!!"
now, see how that works? by describing your failure as a matter of intelligence, beginning with an eye-roll, and then giving a simplistic example, my
presentation implied (full disclosure, i think you're one of the smarter posters on the board) dismissal on my part and a very low level of intelligence indeed on yours. The thrust is: how can you be so stupid as to not grasp such a basic alteration in interactions that even a baby can understand?
had i instead argued:
And I would have thought that to someone of the level of intelligence I have come to expect from you that the different information that is passed with raw data - what many call the "metadata" - would be obvious.
the tone is quite different. not just are the words larger, but the concepts called into question are more complex. the assumption here is that you are indeed intelligent, that you are fully capable of grasping what is going on, of dealing with in-depth subject matter, but for some reason just haven't yet with regards to this particular facet of communication.
but both pieces of information are arguing the exact same thing - that you are apparently don't get it something that you should. but the
context of
how I say it dramatically shifts the
actual meaning of the response.
Ah... a straw man argument. Never said it wasn't a moral issue. What I have said is that it isn't ALWAYS a moral issue. Some folks seem to erroneously think it ALWAYS is.
just as some folks seem to erroneously think that it doesn't have to be.
but now we're just repeating ourselves.
Actually, I think there is. A school sets a curriculum. You don't agree with it, you don't send your child to that school. Seems pretty simple to me.
agreed! I have no problem with schools teaching sex ed the way that they find best
if that is what the parents want as expressed by those parents choosing to send their children there. one of the many reasons why school choice is a big deal with me - not only do i think it will improve our educational system, but i strongly suspect it will reduce conflict in society by not forcing a one-size-fits-all solution upon disparate and deeply held belief systems.