Superthread LXVI: Honouring Whinging Dragons Fans

[Misanthrope]

Religion has huge ties to each of the subjects you mentioned, too.

That's why I mentioned them

 

[Rhino_NQ]

new job, new car, new phone. Been a good week

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm negotiating a threesome with Georgia and one of her Russian dancer friends tomorrow night.

Wish me luck.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Good luck.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Why do ladies keep changing their shoes here at work? So far today, one of them has worm white high heels, black flats and now black boots. This girl is also wearing a blue skirt so it's not like her changes gone unnoticed.

 

[afinalsin666]

Stretching them out a little at a time. New shoes are a bitch and will kill your feet.

 

[Drew-Sta]

I don't think there are many who agree that religion has absolutely no place in school. I know I have no real problem with a religious studies type class. There are people out there who are genuinely interested in the culture of religion without being religious themselves. It's when you have one faith being put forward as the one true faith by some priest/minister for that religion that is completely unacceptable and is really just indoctrination (let's be honest here it's always the Christians :sarcasm.

All religions claim to be the exclusive holder of all truth. Even those claiming universalism are claiming, in essence, that all truth claims are the same and lead to the same destination.

Atheist claims are the same; we believe we hold the truth, which is there is no God. Its an exclusive truth claim.

Even what you're saying here, that classes should be taught objectively, is a secular viewpoint. The dominant worldview held by the population determines the manner in which religion is taught. That doesn't necessarily mean it is the way that religion(s) should be represented.

You can teach religion in an objective way. It's really as simple as prefacing stuff with "Christians believe" vs "And then this happened", i.e making it clear that these are people's beliefs and not factual.

I know you can teach objectively. But it is different being taught by someone who believes. The whole point of religion is that it is more than knowledge; it involves the spiritual. By getting someone to 'teach it objectively', you lose a dramatic part of it.

Its like having someone teach music who can't play an instrument, or teach art by someone who isn't an artist; its kinda important to have someone who is involved in it at the right level.

Well this leads into another problem where you have a bazillion denominations of Christianity because people can't agree on what's right and what's wrong.

You could easily divide that to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Same with Islam though; Sunni or Shia?

Well, why is it the government's job to teach art, drama, or history? It's a dark hole to go down.

I have no objection to the teaching of religion is a study of the concept in a broad sense. I have an issue with government funding for any one religion to recruit, though.

I don't think the role of a chaplain is recruiting, per se.

 

[Misanthrope]

Stretching them out a little at a time. New shoes are a bitch and will kill your feet.

 

[Misanthrope]

I know you can teach objectively. But it is different being taught by someone who believes. The whole point of religion is that it is more than knowledge; it involves the spiritual. By getting someone to 'teach it objectively', you lose a dramatic part of it.

I think that's the argument. I'm a spiritual person, rather than religious. I'd be religious if every organised religion I found didn't preach some form of bigotry.

If religion is to be taught in schools, it should be taught as objectively as any other subject.

Preaching the spiritual side of it, in my opinion, should be done on the church's time and out of their pocket.

Its like having someone teach music who can't play an instrument, or teach art by someone who isn't an artist; its kinda important to have someone who is involved in it at the right level.

They're not really the same thing though, are they?

Art and music are practical skills, that need practical training to teach effectively. Teachers who teach history, maths, geography, science etc don't necessarily need to be fans of the subject - they just need to be able to teach the academic side of it as put forth in the curriculum.

I don't think the role of a chaplain is recruiting, per se.

But can you concede that a chaplain isn't exactly going to be turning people away from adopting his faith?

Even if he doesn't go out of his way to convert people, he's obviously going to be expounding the positive aspects of his religion.

 

[muzby]

I'm curious about letters of reference etc. In the US, I believe, references are not allowed to rubbish you to a potential employer. If they didn't like you, the most they can say is to confirm you did indeed work for them. That lets the potential employer read what they'd like into the lack of praise.

Is this not the case in Oz?

pretty sure you can say what you like, it's just that you can leave yourself open to damages..


but TBH, nobody puts down someone who's going to give a bad reference....

and if you do, then you probably need to review either your work ethic, or find new referees..

 

[Skinner]

new job, new car, new phone. Been a good week

Sounds good to me......well done on the job BTW

 

[Bulldog Force]

:lol: Throppy, you have a filthy mind my friend

 

[Misanthrope]

pretty sure you can say what you like, it's just that you can leave yourself open to damages..


but TBH, nobody puts down someone who's going to give a bad reference....

and if you do, then you probably need to review either your work ethic, or find new referees..

Prior to getting enough experience to have good references, I just had mates from theatre put on airs and graces. Worked a treat.

 

[BunniesMan]

JM aka Mr Libertarian. Do you see any suitable role for government?

Ya'll need to play a bit of Democracy 3. Fun game, if a bit obtuse. There are *cough* ways, to get it. Should add into the budget that game for schools, shows how complex every f**king thing is.

By "ways" I'm sure you mean paying $24.99 on steam...

You really are brainwashed aren't you? Why have you not answered exactly how it's going to cause major issues when five times that fee doesn't in Canberra? Or are you so smug that discovering one free clinic validates your borrowed opinion?

48% of GP appointments in Canberra are bulk billed. Obviously people comfortable enough to pay $35+ for GP visits won't be affected by a $7 gptax. Nobody has ever said they will.

But that doesn't represent everybody. It might be hard for you to imagine but for some people $35 represents 20% of their weekly income. For some people who after the bills are paid have precisely $0 left at the end of the week a new $7 expense is huge.

It is these people that will suffer in the short term, and we'll all suffer in the long term when we pay for somebody's major surgery instead of the skin check/blood pressure test/cholesterol check we could have paid for.

4 Corners hopefully isn't indicative of the wider population. The regular posters there are nut jobs regardless of political persuasion.

BunniesMan you keep going on and on about how John Howard f**ked the Budget with his last year or two of tax cuts. You do realise that if he hadn't we would have been in a worse position because there would have been less money in the economy to stimulate growth. I don't know if you're old enough to remember or receive the $900 stimulus payment which was the cornerstone of their efforts to keep us out of recession. Without the lower tax rates they would have had to do a lot more.

I did receive the $900.

And I fundamentally disagree. If our taxbase was extreme before those taxcuts I'd agree that they were necessary to create a suitable public/private balance.

But those taxcuts meant the government entered the GFC in a weaker position. Our tax base shrunk too much and we became one of the least taxed people in the OECD. Much less taxed than the standout northern european countries. The system was out of balance and we went deeper into debt than we had to.

But more importantly the structural deficits we now have are in large part because of those irresponsible tax cuts.

It is fundamentally awful economics to spend money you don't have. It is irresponsible to spend temporary income on a permanent cost. And that is what those tax cuts were.

The most obvious solution is that the Liberals are just a worse party, and that they piss off a more vocal portion of the population. Labor typically piss off the wealthy, who are less likely to be on forums or participating in marches to voice their displeasure.

They'll just bribe/finance a politician who'll better represent their interests.

Or buy a media company that brainwashes people into being useful idiots.

 

[ek999]

I'm negotiating a threesome with Georgia and one of her Russian dancer friends tomorrow night.

Wish me luck.

High five if you succeed

 

[Drew-Sta]

I think that's the argument. I'm a spiritual person, rather than religious. I'd be religious if every organised religion I found didn't preach some form of bigotry.

I don't think you can divorce religion and spirituality like that. I would also argue the bigotry is human intervention, so to speak. But we can expand on that if you wish.

If religion is to be taught in schools, it should be taught as objectively as any other subject.

Preaching the spiritual side of it, in my opinion, should be done on the church's time and out of their pocket.

I disagree, for the above reason; I don't think the two can be divorced.

They're not really the same thing though, are they?

Art and music are practical skills, that need practical training to teach effectively. Teachers who teach history, maths, geography, science etc don't necessarily need to be fans of the subject - they just need to be able to teach the academic side of it as put forth in the curriculum.

Again, I disagree. Teachers specialise, right? You don't get a maths teacher to teach English, right? They study for the subject. Now, I recognise you can study the subject of religion and teach it objectively (which I am fine with); but I am suggesting religion is best taught by those practicing it. It is more than just an objective subject.

But can you concede that a chaplain isn't exactly going to be turning people away from adopting his faith?

Even if he doesn't go out of his way to convert people, he's obviously going to be expounding the positive aspects of his religion.

I agree, he isn't going to turn them away. Just like an atheist school teacher isn't going to be shy in what he teaches about his belief in the origins of the world. Once again, we have no problem with a science teacher doing that. But when religions request an equal footing, then people get uneasy and point to separation of church and state.

If schools were an entirely neutral environment, where no worldview of any sort was positioned before kids, then sure - I'd say school is a zone where no one worldview is allowed to enter. But its not.

Currently, schools support a secular worldview because, in good sense, it is working and we live in a multicultural environment where plurality of beliefs exist. I'm not upset with the current methodology or approach. But I am saying it isn't fair to now take that a step further and completely divorce any teaching /access of religion from schools as that will be to support secular worldview to the exclusion of religious worldview.

At that point, society has swung to a new spectrum I'm not comfortable with.

 

[afinalsin666]

By "ways" I'm sure you mean paying $24.99 on steam...

Well, that is one way. There are other rather more unscrupulous ways to play it.

 

[muzby]

I'm negotiating a threesome with Georgia and one of her Russian dancer friends tomorrow night.

i heard it was this one:

 

[whall15]

JM aka Mr Libertarian. Do you see any suitable role for government?

[youtube]sy9FRli7ODg[/youtube]

 

[BunniesMan]

Resume references are the biggest joke ever. For most jobs. Obviously I'm not talking about something like applying to be a surgeon or something else high end. But for the vast majority of jobs all references mean is you can find 2 people on the planet who will answer a phone and say nice things when your name is mentioned.

Any moron can find references.

When I got my first paying job I got 2 mates to be my references.

I know somebody who finished uni and got a middle management job when the only thing that was true on his resume was his degree. His 8 years of experience were made up, his references were made up. It's a joke.