Fruit_Inspector

I think SARS-CoV-2 is now officially endemic in human populations. Which means that experts no longer hold out any hope of eradication from the human population given present technology.

Do you have to show a vaccine passport to go into a grocery store right now where you live? I don't. And I live in the tristate. I don't think vaccine passports are going to be required by governments, but by private businesses.

Ah, okay, so the vaccine doesn't work. I guess the point is mass subjugation of society through mystery 5g injection, right. We can all ignore that the dip coincides almost to the day that vaccines became available, plus three weeks. Carry on.

As far as till when, probably forever, and how, you probably will have to show proof of vaccination in schools, otherwise at some point, there will be people who get sick and die by their own choice and people who take the vaccines and don't. 

Obviously, the goal of vaccine mandates is to get everyone vaccinated.

Nope. There are many circumstances in which vaccination is not recommended or appropriate.

"back to normal" probably needs to be be defined to give a good answer. There are many aspects of society that were permanently impacted. For example, the 20 year trends towards working from home and online purchasing were accelerated with no real expectation of a return to baseline.

It's extremely likely that Covid boosters will be required at least annually in order to minimize the effect.

It wasn't mutating relatively quickly. Look at the case trend between January 2021 and September 2021. It was on the way to being eradicated but THEN mutated into strains that were more vaccine resistant because not enough people got the vaccine AND those that didn't get the vaccine chose, in large part, to take no more preventative measures, basically freeloading off the people who did get vaccinated, and the virus used them to reproduce, and boom, Delta variant in September. Omicron in November. By February it's likely there will be another strain. 

The end goal is mandated diets since obesity is the driving factor for Covid deaths over any other factor. It's also more dangerous to the health of people outside of Covid.

Better start hitting the gym before the government starts handing out belly passports

Is the hypothetical other country not at all vaccinated? That seems unlikely.

You have to look at the virus as a fire, and susceptible people as logs. The less logs on the fire, the less intense it is, the faster it dies, and the more difficult it is to spread.

I'm sure you don't need to have the idea that minimization of death, illness, economic interruption, etc., all the shit that made 2020 blow so hard, is better than doing nothing. The end goal is to protect as many citizens as possible from as much negative impact as possible. What are you getting at?

Have you considered who benefits if anti-parasitics are not effective against the virus but a lot of people think they are?

$$$

You know I'm blocked, right?

quite rightly so

Yes, Herd immunity also can be reached when enough people have been vaccinated against a disease and have developed protective antibodies against future infection.

And I ignored it because the sentence makes no sense. Pedagogy is defined as “the method and practice of teaching”, so one could practice CRT by teaching?

Ok I take it back, you love to read, you just also love having a conversation with yourself.

You also stated this in your paragraph explaining why you asked it from post #49:

• "This is why I asked for him to provide one example of it being taught anywhere."
  

Your own interpretation of the question makes clear you were asking for "one example" of a school teaching CRT.

So, did you ask to be shown that a single K-12 school anywhere teaches CRT, yes or no?

Did I provide proof based on your own survey reference that at least one K-12 school teaches CRT, yes or no?

Do you disagree that praxis is a necessary component of CRT?

Yes. CRT is descriptive, not prescriptive. So until you can provide an actual example of how one could practice it within the school system I will continue to disagree.

Wow, you really don’t like to read.

See my paragraph explaining why I asked the question and try again.

• "Can you show me a K-12 school anywhere that teaches CRT?"

• "This is why I asked for him to provide one example of it being taught anywhere."

This was answered in the topic sentence of that paragraph: Critical Pedagogy is just a fancy term for teaching human rights. If you accept that Jesus' sermons advocated human rights, then Jesus was praxising Critical Pedagogy and so, following your equation, teaching CRT and so, following your equation, properly banned in 9 Republican states.

• Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education and social movement that developed and applied concepts from critical theory and related traditions to the field of education and the study of culture. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy)
  

I am not saying CRT and Critical Pedagogy are the same thing.

POST#44:

"Critical Pedagogy should be considered "teaching CRT" "

• "I would actually argue that engaging students in Critical Pedagogy should be considered 'teaching CRT'"
  

Praxis as in "practice." And what is the name of that praxis component? civil rights? Why speak of praxis components at all rather than simply say out loud what Derrick Bell's CRT shares with the practice of teaching human rights?

Praxis just means "practice" as in "practice what you preach." Jesus Christ was praxising Critical Pedagogy at the Sermon on the Mount.

Freire's work in the 60's predates Bell's CRT so it can't be accurate that any Critical Pedagogy is correctly thought to be CRT. 

...

We do not agree that CRT means the same thing as Critical Pedagogy just because they both advocate practicing what ones preaches.

When I say “CRT is not being taught in schools” I mean it in the way the words I’m using to construct that sentence are defined.

You’re talking about vague notions of principals being accepted by educators in ways that are just bound to come out at some point, somehow, while interacting with students.

• Do you disagree that praxis is a necessary component of CRT?
  

My question was to the OP who was laying out a doomsday scenario of a kid being denied high school graduation for not passing a CRT course. That is an implicit claim that CRT being taught in schools is an issue we should be concerned about, so like any claim the burden is on him to prove it. This is why I asked for him to provide one example of it being taught anywhere. If he cannot, it goes to show that he is full of it and has no basis for him claim.

• "Can you show me a K-12 school anywhere that teaches CRT?"
  

You've already been shown evidence of this.

No, I haven’t. Because we both agreed explicitly that CRT is not being taught in schools.

You went on to argue that this is a dishonest talking point because the ‘elements’ of CRT are prevalent within education but that’s not only an absurd thing for a governor to ride to the governorship being that it has nothing to do with actual policy (which was and has been my entire point), but more importantly here… read the OP. He’s not talking about some vague notion of kids being taught about racism. He’s talking specifically about students refusing to take the course in order to graduate.

The ideas go together racism and CRT in my mind. The onus is on u to define how they're different enough to justify distinguishing

Why would someone agree that blacks get disproportionate discriminated and still denounce the theory? Why dispute that discrimination makes life harder for blacks?

Anyone who thinks racism dont exist or that blacks don't get disproportionately discriminated against is ignorant or irrational

At base, I guess the main difference between us is that you’d assume that, based on many of the actors in this case having done terrible things before (won’t challenge that), that they can and will do terrible things any time they get the opportunity...

...whereas I’m looking more at the risk/benefit scenario from their perspective.

I’m not saying that money doesn’t corrupt, but I think the presumption that money is enough by itself to effectively prevent an end to the pandemic doesn’t make sense from the perspective of a president,

especially one who has made ending the pandemic key to their platform,

and even more especially if you have clearly proven evidence of antiviral efficacy in a readily available drug.

• Most, if not all, politicians are lying scumbags who will do anything for money and power.
  
• Pharmaceutical companies are operated by lying scumbags who will do anything for money and power.
  
• Journalists are lying scumbags with no integrity for honest reporting who will do anything for money and power.
  
• Citizens are terrified of COVID-19 and will allow the government to do practically anything, as long as they promise to keep the citizens safe.

I don't see what Biden or his administration stand to gain from pharmaceutical companies that could possibly outstrip ending the pandemic

You can do three things:

- show trees do not have a general upside (which you can’t because they do)

- show trees have a general downside (which you can’t because they don’t)

- explain how your position “that trees cannot be considered generally good” is not a general and broad conclusion (which it clearly is)

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

Boom okay. So - you’re telling me that not offering reasoned response to an analysis is somehow bad, right? Meaning that if you have done just that elsewhere - I can call you out on it: and you would agree that your argument is bad?

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

It is somewhat entertaining to watch you refuse to be wrong and pretending it is me dropping the argument.

I’m basing my analysis that you are dropping arguments on:

- you stopping responding on key salient points.

- have to be constantly reminded of things that I have said that already answer key points that you claim remain unaddressed.

What do you think systemic racism is in it's contemporary meaning if not permanent and perpetual?

I already told you that I would answer your question when you answered mine. Since you don't even understand that systemic racism is permanent and perpetual, then you haven't meaningfully addressed my actual point.

I’ve answered the question: you’ve asked a question about disparities that I answered multiple times, you kept asking, I continued to answer multiple times, you then dropped - then demand I answer again. Note: it was answered in post #29, #31 and a bunch of others that I summarized

The other question you asked was about whether a given policy is racist; to which I answered in post #19, you then told me I didn’t answer, I answered again in post #25, to which you objected with things that I had already covered (see post #29)

It’s like ground hog day, I answer the question - you call it discrimination - I point out why it’s not discrimination using an analogy - you tell me I haven’t answered the question.

This is just plainly absurd. If you’re going to go round in circles and not address any of things I’ve said, at least have the common courtesy to stfu while you do it.

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

I have helpfully bolded the general conclusion you have made. This is the general conclusion you try and support using specific and limited exceptions… which I believe is called “proving too much”

It seems you don’t understand what proving too much is. It’s when you use specific and limited exceptions (like you are) to prove a general conclusion (which you are); that if applies, leads to absurd conclusions (like policies that fund tree planting are bad).

I am not taking specific and limited exceptions, but general properties (trees in general reduce air pollution and reduce temperature), I am using it to show a general conclusion; which leads to reasonable conclusion. Trees are trees; they have limited downsides - it’s not like they’re going out mugging people or stealing cars and given that you’ve been stamping your feed for two pages and haven’t offered any general downside - it appears you agree with me.

Of course - don’t let reality get in the way of this pathological need to offer the first objection you can think of - regardless of how silly.

You did not say that your conclusion was "many things." You said it was a fact.

Yes: and you can reasonably call that statement many things - but a wild assertion is not one of them.

• "And I am saying that your statement that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees [across the entire US] based on the conclusion of a single study examining 37 cities, extrapolating that data across an extremely diverse population and landscape, then stating that your conclusion is an indisputable fact is a wild assertion."
  

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

If you focus on the permanent and perpetual nature of systemic racism, you will understand why I reject that the example of individualized and intentional racism of the boss withholding money is a relevant analogy.

Who said anything about permanent and perpetual?

While it’s nice you’ve gone back to address the argument you dropped, telling me that you definitely have a valid reason for dismissing my analogy is not actually providing a valid reason.

What you’re doing is offering a limited exception : that trees may not always be good in every scenario, they could have a burden in some cases, or not be plantable in some areas - and the using it to try and argue against a general case I’m making - that I can’t call trees good.

By definition, that is proving too much.

In fact: you appear to be saying you’re not proving too much, and then justifying this claim with by offering a clear example of proving too much…

So could you perhaps clarify what you meant now that you are aware of the actual term I used, and be specific about whether you mean minorities have disproportionately less trees throughout the US, or only in the 37 cities mentioned by the study.

Yes - that the idea that drawing the conclusion based upon a wide reaching study of multiple cities is many things, but not - by any means - “wild asserrtion”

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it didn't make a point. I really shouldn't have to explain this one.

Yeah - you’re making a veiled communism reference. Which is dumb because of the bolded part of my post  

You’ve also dropped the remaining parts of my post. Which I will take to mean you have no further ability to argue them. Awesome, I will take your drop as concession.

• But the very concept of systemic racism - a permanent and perpetual reality - assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?
  

Feel free to quote a prior post where you have argued that trees may not be good that is not based on a specific or limited exception - ie: that I can’t call it good because it may not *always* be good. 

This is an example of the proving too much fallacy. Arguing that the whole thing is bad because in some very limited hypothetical scenarios circumstances - it is bad.

That is not what I did. This link explains a proving too much fallacy to be "an argument that reaches a conclusions which contradicts things that are known to be true, or contradicts the premises in that argument." https://www.logicalfallacies.org/proving-too-much.html

There are two examples given:

• All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.
  
• Fire is a bad thing because there are many fires which burn down property and cost lives.
  

Let's compare those examples to your argument:

• Trees are good because they reduce heat, provide shade, reduce pollution.
  

Do you see the similarity between your claim and the examples above? You are drawing the conclusion that trees are good based on a limited list of effects. Trees also kill people and can do severe damage to property. That doesn't mean that trees are bad, but those are also effects of trees.

Contrary to your accusation of committing a fallacy, I did not actually argue that trees are bad or that planting trees is bad. I said that trees are not inherently good. Nor is planting trees inherently good. The goodness or badness is dependent upon the specific situation, not the trees or the planting of trees. So rather than drawing a conclusion about the goodness or badness of trees necessary to commit the proving too much fallacy, I am simply saying that we should do a cost/benefit analysis before reaching such a conclusion. You are the one using a limited list of effects to declare trees as good and a lack of trees as bad.

You have completely lost track of my argument. Do you even know which statement I called a wild assertion?

I remember explicitly. You called my claim based upon the content of peer reviewed research that concluded that minority communities have fewer trees than others - as “wild assertion”.

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

Is your claim that the Nature study from the article factually proved that minorities have disproportionately less trees than white people throughout the entire US? And not just as an extrapolation, but as a statistical reality?

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

The definition of racism offered here is grounded in Critical Race Theory, a movement started in the 1970s by activists and scholars committed to the study and transformation of traditional relationships of race to racism and power. CRT was initially grounded in the law and has since expanded to other fields. CRT also has an activist dimension because it not only tries to understand our situation but to change it.

Ok, let me rephrase… isn’t known to have been taught in one single school anywhere in the state.

Apologies for not making it clear enough to you that I’m not proclaiming to be omniscient.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

This obviously and clearly means in general - not in absolutely all cases, unless you want to build obtuse strawman.

Recall in my last post I demonstrated why this is clearly  why this is “proving too much” - 

I see that you have completely ignored them - again.

Regardless - my original questions - and the follow up (which you ignored), clearly and obviously mean “in most cases”, and given that your objections are based on the premise that there are limited exceptions - that clarification basically undermines the last 4 posts you’ve made arguing for them.

You can now go back and address the original point in the way it was clearly meant.

You’re claiming that the results of peer reviewed study that leads to a specific conclusion is “wild assertion” that’s clearly and definitively nonsense. This is my point. As your argument was clearly about burden shifting, the fact that something you claimed was an assertion is not; is all that is necessary.

You’re really the only one talking about striving for equity of outcomes. The issue is equal access to to opportunity; and to give the same opportunities when one has been denied in the past, or opportunities are unequal in the present - not to enforce the outcomes to be the same.

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

I’m not directly answering it because as I already implied, it’s a terribly worded question.

The issue front and center in these elections was about the teaching of critical race theory in schools, which the republican candidate declared he would ban.

Except that critical race theory isn’t being taught in one single school anywhere in the state and his opponent has never expressed support for teaching it. 

I raised a series of points that any rational person would conclude are an on balance, or general statements.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

Wild assertion - sorry: either way it’s clearly not.

Far be it from me to get in the way of you arguing against the argument you want to oppose - rather than the one I’m making. But the bolded part is pretty key here. There’s a difference between equity of outcome and equity of opportunity.

...

It is particularly difficult to argue someone who deliberately omits key passages that specifically clarify what I mean - only to then completely misrepresent the thing I just clarified. 

If you don’t want an argument - just stfu; don’t chop out responses you don’t like because they don’t gel with the argument you want to make.

The Arbor Day Foundation will send you 10 trees for free just saying.

Chopping out a part of my post that tells you exactly why the remainder of your point is irrelevant; only to reply with the same point - does not exactly encourage me that you’re trying to argue in good faith.

This is an example of the proving too much fallacy. Arguing that the whole thing is bad because in some very limited hypothetical scenarios circumstances - it is bad.

My claim is that the evidence provided by the Nature article renders the premise credible and far exceeds “wild speculation” - as you called it.

can you answer whether or not you believe that systemic racism is a real problem that needs a solution in the US?

Yes I do: but the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism  - not to inherently enforce equality of outcomes. There’s a key difference there.

Actually, if you pay close attention that’s not what I’m doing. What I’m doing is suggesting that the law alone is not sufficient for me to determine whether the law is racist: it all depends on other contingent factors - such as whether black farm owners have been historically disadvantaged by that amount in the past.

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

I agree;

If we can agree that trees are good;

and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good;

and communities not having trees is bad

then you’re agreeing with the problem; the motivation; and the solution.

The “wild assertion”, was actually covered by the Nature study linked in the original story you posted.

Please walk me through the logic of how you got from me believing to “minority communities have fewer trees” to “You believe the government should enforce equality of outcomes.” It’s quite the obnoxious leap there.

I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine:

I did in post #19.

That would depend. If, for example, minority farmers had missed out on $4bn in aid in the past due to various historical policies - I wouldn’t necessarily agree it’s the best approach - but it wouldn't be racist.

Do you that the racial justice materials being promoted and distributed by the NEA are being used in any public K-12 schools?

96% of educators surveyed said CRT was not being taught in their districts, so that’s a no.

The NEA is not in charge of anything, they do not set the curriculum and they do not dictate what any teacher teaches nor can they hold any teacher accountable in any way.

There are two basic types of racism; individualized racism which is about the individuals thoughts and/or feelings towards members of another race, and systemic racism which is about how the system discriminates against minorities. CRT talks mostly about the latter, I tend to use the term to describe the former. To my knowledge there is no difference in the way I’m using the terms vs CRT, it’s just a matter of context.

Does that answer your question?

I doubt you will find a single person who suggests that planting trees in communities where there are no trees is not a good thing. Given that’s what’s happening - it seems inherently reasonable, no? You even implied the same a few posts ago.

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad - then you’re agreeing with the problem; the motivation; and the solution.

...

So given that the problem, the motivation and the solution is largely uncontroversial; the only possibly controversial issue is how much should be spent:

Given health benefits (pollution, encouraging walking, lowering heat), and given the ballpark figure of trees I hear was around 500m trees (everywhere - not just for minorities) - though I am not 100% sure - likely over 10 years - so 400m a year - given Thats about what LA alone spends on park maintenance…

So you’re saying, if your black coworkers don’t get a bonus one year because your boss was racist; if the next boss gives those same coworkers a bigger bonus the next year to make up for missing out; you’d shout at him for being racist?