Who should set science curriculum ?

[McCulloch]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

[Bust Nak]

Clearly you enjoy this kind of rhetoric for attacking comments but I see through the tactic.

Merely seeing through the tactic doesn't help, you need to beat the tactic. Were you expecting me to take your claims for granted?

What you are doing is just attacking the messenger (myself) instead of addressing the message, as like HERE and this one too, HERE.

I am the messenger but I am not the message...

We expect more than that here, in case it wasn't clear, this is a debate forum. You are expected to defend your message, not merely to deliver the message. Again, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.

[JP Cusick]

Merely seeing through the tactic doesn't help, you need to beat the tactic. Were you expecting me to take your claims for granted?

We expect more than that here, in case it wasn't clear, this is a debate forum. You are expected to defend your message, not merely to deliver the message. Again, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.

All I see is you trying to be a forum-Bully by failing to do your own part and then trying to project your failure onto me.

I do defend my message, but I am not going to defend myself from your personal attacks against me.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 42 by JP Cusick]

Hold on mate, you're taking things a little too far.

Telling someone to demonstrate their case using evidence-based reasoning is not a personal attack. It is not bullying. It is the most basic concept of debate. Calling him a bully is not constructive, it unfairly paints him as somehow behaving in ways that defy forum rules. He has been entirely within the parameters of a debate opponent, and you've been extremely defensive over your obligation to do more than just preach.

Cusick, it's really important that we all understand that simply stating something as fact is not enough. What you are doing is insubstantial.

While I'd rather not move away from the topic itself, I want to make sure that you can make an airtight argument, and that means getting you to realize that your presentation of the argument is full of holes.

I'll ask a simple question: Do you believe, that simply by claiming you are right and honest, that everyone should take you at your word? If not, then for what reason should anyone take your arguments seriously, when all you've done is relied on credibility you've never established to make sweeping assertions? That is what your arguments up to this point have ALL consisted of, man. We can't debate this if you keep on retreating away from even substantiating a single point. Instead, you repeat, ad infinitum, the exact same thing. Cusick, this debate is something I want to see progressed using continued logical arguments, and that is not happening while we keep getting roadblocked by your insistence that everyone critical of you is a bully.

[JP Cusick]

Hold on mate, you're taking things a little too far.

Telling someone to demonstrate their case using evidence-based reasoning is not a personal attack. It is not bullying. It is the most basic concept of debate. Calling him a bully is not constructive, it unfairly paints him as somehow behaving in ways that defy forum rules. He has been entirely within the parameters of a debate opponent, and you've been extremely defensive over your obligation to do more than just preach.

Cusick, it's really important that we all understand that simply stating something as fact is not enough. What you are doing is insubstantial.

While I'd rather not move away from the topic itself, I want to make sure that you can make an airtight argument, and that means getting you to realize that your presentation of the argument is full of holes.

I'll ask a simple question: Do you believe, that simply by claiming you are right and honest, that everyone should take you at your word? If not, then for what reason should anyone take your arguments seriously, when all you've done is relied on credibility you've never established to make sweeping assertions? That is what your arguments up to this point have ALL consisted of, man. We can't debate this if you keep on retreating away from even substantiating a single point. Instead, you repeat, ad infinitum, the exact same thing. Cusick, this debate is something I want to see progressed using continued logical arguments, and that is not happening while we keep getting roadblocked by your insistence that everyone critical of you is a bully.

Well you are doing the same as that other person so I will try again to explain.

As far as I can tell them all of my comments are accurate and true, so I see mine as perfect and my points are made.

Both you and that other person are saying that I am wrong but you do not say what is wrong, but just that I am wrong - and that is a personal attack against me.

You and that person do not give any specific as to what am I wrong about? what do you want explained? what about the thread topic?

You and that other person just repeating that I am wrong is just repeating your personal attack against me.

It is attacking the messenger while avoiding the message - and that is being a Bully.

I do not want for anyone to believe me - as I expect people to believe the message and believe the Bible, believe God, believe truth, believe thy self, but I do not ask anyone to believe me - and yet that is the personal attack in that you and that other person keep trumpeting the personal attack that you do not believe me - and I am not going to try to get any of you to believe me because that would be foolish.

Anyone can go ahead now and make a comment about the topic and then maybe we can discuss the topic, otherwise this thread seems finished and satisfied to me.

[otseng]

Hold on mate, you're taking things a little too far.

Telling someone to demonstrate their case using evidence-based reasoning is not a personal attack. It is not bullying. It is the most basic concept of debate. Calling him a bully is not constructive, it unfairly paints him as somehow behaving in ways that defy forum rules. He has been entirely within the parameters of a debate opponent, and you've been extremely defensive over your obligation to do more than just preach.

Cusick, it's really important that we all understand that simply stating something as fact is not enough. What you are doing is insubstantial.

While I'd rather not move away from the topic itself, I want to make sure that you can make an airtight argument, and that means getting you to realize that your presentation of the argument is full of holes.

I'll ask a simple question: Do you believe, that simply by claiming you are right and honest, that everyone should take you at your word? If not, then for what reason should anyone take your arguments seriously, when all you've done is relied on credibility you've never established to make sweeping assertions? That is what your arguments up to this point have ALL consisted of, man. We can't debate this if you keep on retreating away from even substantiating a single point. Instead, you repeat, ad infinitum, the exact same thing. Cusick, this debate is something I want to see progressed using continued logical arguments, and that is not happening while we keep getting roadblocked by your insistence that everyone critical of you is a bully.

Well you are doing the same as that other person so I will try again to explain.

As far as I can tell them all of my comments are accurate and true, so I see mine as perfect and my points are made.

Both you and that other person are saying that I am wrong but you do not say what is wrong, but just that I am wrong - and that is a personal attack against me.

You and that person do not give any specific as to what am I wrong about? what do you want explained? what about the thread topic?

You and that other person just repeating that I am wrong is just repeating your personal attack against me.

It is attacking the messenger while avoiding the message - and that is being a Bully.

I do not want for anyone to believe me - as I expect people to believe the message and believe the Bible, believe God, believe truth, believe thy self, but I do not ask anyone to believe me - and yet that is the personal attack in that you and that other person keep trumpeting the personal attack that you do not believe me - and I am not going to try to get any of you to believe me because that would be foolish.

Anyone can go ahead now and make a comment about the topic and then maybe we can discuss the topic, otherwise this thread seems finished and satisfied to me.

Moderator Clarification

Neatras is correct. There is a difference between attacking a position and attacking a person. Saying someone is wrong is not a personal attack. It is also not being a bully.

As Neatras pointed out, you need to defend your statements. This requires providing some sort of support and not just saying you believe it is true.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[JP Cusick]

Well I confess that I am wrong, and I never tried to deny that I was not wrong.

In fact I was born wrong, and raised wrong, and as an adult I was wrong, and I am still wrong, and I fully expect to die wrong.

I am not making any excuses for me being wrong, and I accept this as my reality.

Surely I hope that no one gets banned from the forum because of being wrong.

I have no defense to offer.

[Bust Nak]

All I see is you trying to be a forum-Bully by failing to do your own part and then trying to project your failure onto me.

Let go back to the analogy again. There are two cards on the table. One is red, the other blue. After careful examination, Helen, a blind person, conclude that the cards are identical. We tell her, she is wrong, for the cards are different color:

Person A is building a machine that turns visual color into tactile signals that Helen can touch.

Person B is asking Helen Keller to open her eyes and see the color are different for herself.

Some questions for you to consider:

Who is failing to do their part? Helen, person A or person B?

Is Helen projecting her failure to spot the difference onto person 2?

Which of the three people do you think you are analogous to?

I do defend my message...

In the same way person 2 is defending his message that the cards are different. Does that count as a defense in your book?

[Donray]

[Replying to post 46 by JP Cusick]

At least you admit you are wrong about god and evolution.

But, you realize you never answered the OPs question. Tell me who should determine the science subjects taught in a public school. You like preach about your beliefs and don't like to answer questions about your beliefs.

[JP Cusick]

At least you admit you are wrong about god and evolution.

I admitted that I myself am wrong, and that I maintain, but I do not see where I admit that any of my comments or postings were wrong.

In fact now I see that none of my comments were wrong.

So that is a type of miracle - because as I confess myself being wrong - I turned out perfectly.

.... Woo hoo ....

But, you realize you never answered the OPs question. Tell me who should determine the science subjects taught in a public school. You like preach about your beliefs and don't like to answer questions about your beliefs.

Yes I gave an answer as the very first thing in the second (2nd) comment of this thread, so mine was the fastest and the foremost answer to the OP as was possible.

Plus you might take notice that I also answered the survey question for this topic - and so I am the one (1) who checked the one and only best answer and the one correctest answer.

[paarsurrey1]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

I voted for "Subject matter experts".
But I don't understand as to why JP Cusick's name is in the list?
He is a friend, but he is just a person. Why should he set the science curriculum, please?
Regards