Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: At least we're not IIDB

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sea Star

1
Quote from: fredbear
You seem to think that repeating it without addressing the objections is 'teaching'. It's not
This, Dave. This exactly.
2
"I'm not interested in indulging you."

Yeah I figured you wouldn't be.
Are you interested in varves or C14? Pick one of those and we'll see who learns what.
3
I want to teach you about my beliefs relative to Item 1 on my list.  You don't have to accept them.  And yes of course you can object to anything just like any student sitting in a college classroom.  But by the end of the teaching session (a day? a week?) you will at least know in greater detail what my beliefs actually are regarding Item 1.  And hopefully you will be convinced that I am capable of "teaching" ... not just "preaching."

I'm not that into 'beliefs', I prefer facts and knowledge. So maybe that is the difference - preaching is sharing beliefs, teaching is sharing knowledge.

and ninja'd.
Well I would submit that you ARE in fact "into beliefs" ... everyone is.  Question is ... how much evidence supports your beliefs?  I would say that my beliefs are well supported by evidence and that most people's beliefs here are NOT well supported by evidence.
Them I would say you are either delusional or in terminal denial.
Say whatever you want to day.  Believe whatever you want to believe.  Meanwhile ... if you ever want me to "teach" you about my beliefs regarding Item 1 in my list, let me know.  If you agree to it, you will have ample opportunity to point out how I am preaching instead of teaching.
Glad to see you put teach in scare quotes, Dave. I'm not interested in indulging you.
I would be interested in revisiting either varves or C14,  though. I'd love to learn more about that. You know I got a discarded high school geology text and I've read it twice now.
4
To me preaching is more of an oration designed to remind people of things they already know and challenge them to take action based upon these things that they already know.

To me, teaching involves things that people don't know where the teacher takes people from ignorance to knowledge in gradual steps.
Dave, wgen you define "preaching" that way, you cannot "preach" to Sea Star by definition, since he does not share your beliefs and therefore you do not (supposedly) share things "you already know".

So how the hell do you expect him to 'prove' to you that you're not preaching to him? How do you ecpect him to to this:
Quote
You say that I preach, not teach.  So ... I want to put your theory to the test with my Item #1.  Meet me over in the Saving Ag thread and I'll start "teaching" you about Item #1.  If it seems I'm starting to preach instead of teach, stop me and explain why you think that.  Simple really.
That statement is meaningless under your 'davinition'.
Just for the record, I'm not a 'He', I'm a manipulative bitch.  :stuckup:
5
I want to teach you about my beliefs relative to Item 1 on my list.  You don't have to accept them.  And yes of course you can object to anything just like any student sitting in a college classroom.  But by the end of the teaching session (a day? a week?) you will at least know in greater detail what my beliefs actually are regarding Item 1.  And hopefully you will be convinced that I am capable of "teaching" ... not just "preaching."

I'm not that into 'beliefs', I prefer facts and knowledge. So maybe that is the difference - preaching is sharing beliefs, teaching is sharing knowledge.

and ninja'd.
Well I would submit that you ARE in fact "into beliefs" ... everyone is. Question is ... how much evidence supports your beliefs?  I would say that my beliefs are well supported by evidence and that most people's beliefs here are NOT well supported by evidence.
The bolded bit? That's preaching (or gaslighting) - you want me to just accept that. I don't, so back up to there and justify it with evidence.
6
I want to teach you about my beliefs relative to Item 1 on my list.  You don't have to accept them.  And yes of course you can object to anything just like any student sitting in a college classroom.  But by the end of the teaching session (a day? a week?) you will at least know in greater detail what my beliefs actually are regarding Item 1.  And hopefully you will be convinced that I am capable of "teaching" ... not just "preaching."

I'm not that into 'beliefs', I prefer facts and knowledge. So maybe that is the difference - preaching is sharing beliefs, teaching is sharing knowledge.

and ninja'd.
7
Again, the truthiness or lack thereof doesn't matter.  You can teach anything no matter how preposterous.  I for one think that the idea that the earth is billions of years old is complete bunk.  But I agree that teachers that teach that are actually teaching.  They are teaching bunk in my opinion, but they are still teaching.
So you want me to passively take in the information you 'gradually' - give? Reveal? 
Why gradually? The effective teacher allows the student to set the pace of learning.
Am I correct in understanding that you think the information conferred doesn't need to be factual, that is, comporting with reality?
Why would the intelligent student, in search of usable knowledge, unquestioningly listen to you pontificate when the contradictions are easily and reliably obtainable? And you won't address those objections?
8
Well try me. I'm waiting.
Waiting?
For what? 

:dunno:
He wants to have me 'prove' that he preaches, not teaches.
9
I wonder if we all agree on what is the essential difference between teaching and preaching.
To me, the accuser (gasp), preaching is a one way communication with no substantial response to objections raised including refusal to consider various sources.
Teaching is providing accurate information and guiding the learner to understanding, being responsive to their questions to their satisfaction.
10
No the most likely scenario is that he lied. And the reason I say that is because I see so many lies from so many people every day here. It's just simple probability.
Simple probability? Why, that's SCIENCE!
11
No I Don't Preach. I teach. But your mind has to be open in order to learn. If you want to hear preaching, listen to Pingu. She's a master. Anyway I have no idea why this thing capitalizes randomly like this.
No Dave, you don't teach. You write as though you want to sound like you are lecturing. But it's just pompous nonsense.
You don't address any objections to what you present.
You think an anecdote is evidence. It's not.
You are incapable of teaching because you are incapable of learning.
if you really believe what you are saying, then prove it to me with item number one on the saving agriculture thread. I'm calling your bluff.
Bluff? Wtf are you on about? You want me to prove that you are preaching? That doesn't make sense.
12
No I Don't Preach. I teach. But your mind has to be open in order to learn. If you want to hear preaching, listen to Pingu. She's a master. Anyway I have no idea why this thing capitalizes randomly like this.
No Dave, you don't teach. You write as though you want to sound like you are lecturing. But it's just pompous nonsense.
You don't address any objections to what you present.
You think an anecdote is evidence. It's not.
You are incapable of teaching because you are incapable of learning.
13
How did the self-control part evolve?
Like vox said, not a simple explanation, and one you have failed to honestly engage in in the past.
If you really wanted to learn, there are folks here far more qualified than I to explain it and, gosh, they've tried.
I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.
You're wrong, though.
I have learned so much on these threads - not from you, but from all the cool, interesting science posted in rebuttal to you.
It's painfully obvious that you disregard anything that conflicts with what you want to believe, so you will never understand what they have been trying to teach you.
And it's sad, because you really do want to know this stuff. And you would enjoy knowing it!
I hear this off and on from various people here. Let me list some of the things that I think you should have learned from me... Some of the most important things...

1) how to maintain healthy, food-producing farm animals with no medications whatsoever while at the same time improving and restoring your ecosystem.

2) RM + NS is being rejected by more and more scientists within the life sciences as a creative force in nature

3) many indigenous groups around the world had near Perfect Teeth and near-perfect health back in the 1930s.

4) most viruses are not bad, contrary to popular opinion. In fact life on Earth would not be possible without them. One of their key functions is to "pollinate" bacteria with needed genes.

5) Nuking bacteria with antibiotics is a dead end Street and will not result in the long-term health of humanity.

6) vaccinations are only a good thing in very specific, unnatural contacts.

7) the fact of continent-sized sheets of sandstone which are extremely flat and extremely thin Force us to conclude that there must have been a giant cataclysm in the past.

There's more, but that's a start.
Why should I learn anything from you?  You preach, you don't teach.

You have nothing to teach about those subjects because you refuse to rely on credible sources to learn about them yourself.

What I have learned about those subjects here has come from the reality-based (''science'') community, not your incoherent, error-riddled attempts to apologize and harmonize your muddled beliefs.
14
How did the self-control part evolve?
Like vox said, not a simple explanation, and one you have failed to honestly engage in in the past.
If you really wanted to learn, there are folks here far more qualified than I to explain it and, gosh, they've tried.
I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.
You're wrong, though.
I have learned so much on these threads - not from you, but from all the cool, interesting science posted in rebuttal to you.
It's painfully obvious that you disregard anything that conflicts with what you want to believe, so you will never understand what they have been trying to teach you.
And it's sad, because you really do want to know this stuff. And you would enjoy knowing it!
15
How did the self-control part evolve?
Like vox said, not a simple explanation, and one you have failed to honestly engage in in the past.
If you really wanted to learn, there are folks here far more qualified than I to explain it and, gosh, they've tried.
16
humans and horses are different to be sure. But again the interesting thing to me is that humans have some degree of self-control. I think horses do not.
What is interesting to you about that?

Perhaps, and I'm just suggesting the possibility here, in true animal husbandry fashion, that since horses often require <ahem> assistance in their breeding endeavours, that Dave simply enjoys the texture and breadth of a furtively thrusting, pulsing horse cock in his hands.
Yes, perhaps.

 This gal looked like all she needed was a gate or two opened.
17
One thing that is worth noting and I'm surprised it doesn't come up more often with this crowd is comparison of human sexuality with other animals sexuality. And I use the word other for your benefit, not mine. If it was up to me I would not use that word because I don't think that humans are just another animal.

Anyway I deal with farm animals and if you put a bull in with a bunch of cows guess what's going to happen? Pretty much the same thing is going to happen that most college freshmen boys would like to have happen at a frat party where the sister sorority is invited. My point is... Biology is what it is. But there's an interesting difference between cows and humans , namely, humans have some degree of self-control whereas bulls do not. Does  anyone else find this interesting?
Many female mammals, but not humans, have a recognizable estrus period when they are receptive to mating. The males can sense this and that's when they are interested.
I once drove into a ranch yard with corrals on either side of the drive. So I got to drive between a rather interested stud, and a mare with her tail up and her backside shoved against the fence as hard as she could.
What does that say about humans?
humans and horses are different to be sure. But again the interesting thing to me is that humans have some degree of self-control. I think horses do not.
What is interesting to you about that?
18
One thing that is worth noting and I'm surprised it doesn't come up more often with this crowd is comparison of human sexuality with other animals sexuality. And I use the word other for your benefit, not mine. If it was up to me I would not use that word because I don't think that humans are just another animal.

Anyway I deal with farm animals and if you put a bull in with a bunch of cows guess what's going to happen? Pretty much the same thing is going to happen that most college freshmen boys would like to have happen at a frat party where the sister sorority is invited. My point is... Biology is what it is. But there's an interesting difference between cows and humans , namely, humans have some degree of self-control whereas bulls do not. Does  anyone else find this interesting?
Many female mammals, but not humans, have a recognizable estrus period when they are receptive to mating. The males can sense this and that's when they are interested.
I once drove into a ranch yard with corrals on either side of the drive. So I got to drive between a rather interested stud, and a mare with her tail up and her backside shoved against the fence as hard as she could.
What does that say about humans?
19
I do see some evidence of that.
Maybe keep it in mind when you post stuff here, that some\most of us will not blindly accept it, and perhaps review it yourself to find possible arguments against it. You won't look so ignorant and could focus on facts, not defending bullshit.
20
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ...
You make it sound like 'people' passively accept whatever info that is fed to them. While that may be true of some folks, a lot of us are capable of, and interested in, understanding and analyzing 'what is said' and drawing our own conclusions about it.

Ya know, thinking.
21
Read.

Learn.

http://www.acga.org.au/goatnotes/C001.php
Does this apply to the nutritional needs of dairy goats?
What are your goats eating these days?
Quote
While these findings show goats utilise feeds of low digestibility better than sheep it certainly does not mean that the production of goats increases as the quality of grazing or roughage decreases. As feed quality falls the performance of sheep and goats falls. Both species lose liveweight and are less productive on high roughage diets which have low metabolizable energy concentrations. For example the fastest rates of liveweight loss reported for goats are from goats grazing dead summer pasture. The variation in nutritive value of roughages is enormous (from excellent to very poor).
Eta ninja'd on the dairy thing
22
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.


But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?


ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.


First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
Dave, when you write things down, like here for example, you can't effectively reword it later to mean something else. That's not a strong defense of the idea. If you can't defend it, maybe rethink your view and become less wrong than you were before.
23
I have yet to see anybody here except me give a truly honest account of the conversation about the 15 year old Maasai bride marrying the 70 year old man. It's always told in such a way as to try to make me look like some sort of pedophile.

Classic fake news practice.
No one has disputed the veracity of the claim of the 'female English teacher' that the young bride looked happy. However, OTHER accounts from actual community members give a more comprehensive view of the practice that indicates it's not universally welcome in the community.
Your reaction to another, younger, child bride -Woo hoo- can only be interpreted as support for the practice.
There is no spin. We just don't agree with your opinion and condemn it.
24
Okay we should probably get this thread back on topic... My sheep are doing well. I'm always amazed that they can push through snow to eat grass. Also, most of the grass is brown but they managed to find plenty to eat. I got them like a week ago and they appear to be just as fat now as when I got them.

Lol.
Yes, the careful record keeping starts right away.
Dave! what's the protein % of the brown grass? What % of the grass is brown?
Why do you ask?
Why does it matter? Would your answer depend on my interest?
25
Okay we should probably get this thread back on topic... My sheep are doing well. I'm always amazed that they can push through snow to eat grass. Also, most of the grass is brown but they managed to find plenty to eat. I got them like a week ago and they appear to be just as fat now as when I got them.

Lol.
Yes, the careful record keeping starts right away.
Dave! what's the protein % of the brown grass? What % of the grass is brown?