if you continue in your blatant falsehoods and demagogic smears, I'm afraid I will have to report you. Obviously we are discussing how you agree with me.
These are not demogogic smears. They are omnipotent truisms. Disputing them is in poor taste.
you continue to fail to understand what i am saying. you cannot provide information in any usable matter free of context, and it is next to impossible to provide information in a non-useable matter free of context. you are imparting the values that the recipient will perceive - you seem to be hung up on the fact that the listener is not forced to accept those values; but that is true of anything. we could just as easily justify racist rantings by teachers against the menace of hispanic immigrants polluting american bloodlines by claiming that the value system imparted need not be accepted by the listener. Don't worry if the student internalizes negative attitudes towards people of another race - they didn't get that from the teacher, the teacher was simply imparting information. The student merely perceived a moral value.
No, I completely understand what you are saying. I am disputing it. It is entirely possible to impart information without imparting bias. Context and judgment/values are not equivelent. What you are not recognizing is how in these situations, the internal perceptions of the listener creates the values, not the presenter.
you cannot separate information from format. for crying out loud, there is a multi-billion dollar political campaign industry built around this very basic fact.
Of course you can, but that multi-billion dollar political campaign industry has little to do with actually imparting information. When was the last time you viewed a political ad that presented both candidates, at the same time, in a purely informational way? Probably never, because that is not the purpose of politics.
we seem to be getting repetitious here, so if it's alright with you I'm going to roll these together, and repeat again that format and context carry weight in communication, and pretending that it doesn't will not get us optimal results.
Sure.
presenting items in list format - all other factors being equal - implies equivalency. it is saying "here is a list of things - these things are all 'like', else they would not be on this list together. each of these things shares a fundamental underlying nature that gives each of them a place on this list"
and even then the list format would be the intro into any sexual education curriculum - without description lists are generally useless. So the teacher would have to go in and describe each of the individual sexual expressions, which increases the format and thus increases the error range off of "objectivity". The more discussion there is, the greater the role of value judgements.
that may not be the teachers fault - the teacher could truly be trying their best to remain impartial. but it's just how human language works
And again, I disagree. It presents no moral equivelency... it presents no morality at all, since there is no implication of good/bad. The list is the list, and if each item is described further, if it is described in an informational way, again, there is no moral equivelency. One can do that with just about any list, if it is communicated informationally.
judgement flows from information and context.
Sometimes... and if something is communicated informationally, only, the judgment comes from the listener.
no, my belief system on this matter is different from the presumptions found in both lists i provided.
Irrelevant. You presented a moral position in the example you gave. Whether it is actually your position does not matter.
dude, all those 'value judgments' were comparative numerical weights. in the search for "objectivity", mathematics is about as "objective" as you get. and the "some claim" is the standard for presenting a debatable opinion without value reference - which is why you see it on the news all the time, as reporters and anchors attempt to retain their image of objectivity. It's the closest we have in linguistic format that flows to saying "this is a claim, it exists, it is out there, i do not necessarily agree or disagree with it".
but you are right. the value implications in that presentation are what you described
Ummm... you just contradicted yourself.
you are just now picking up on them because they are not value implications that you agree with.
you are now the fish out of water, and so you instantly pick up on the information being presented that is discordant with your perceptions.
Not at all. I picked up on them because they existed. Wouldn't matter whether I agreed with them or not.
you are correct - both presentations included value judgements
but you only picked up on the one that you disagreed with - now why is that?
Please stop making claims that I said something I did not say. I NEVER said that both presentations included value judgments, and I have been completely clear about that. The former did not. The latter did. The issue is that you believe that there are value judgments in the former where there are not. Why do you think you have erroneously seen that?
no, you can't. information has to be put in a format in order to be communicated.
Of course you can. Context and judgment are not the same.
it certainly is because in order to say anything you have to not say everything. to begin to impart information begins with the step of creating a filtering process to decide which information to impart, and which not to - a value judgement.
Depends on the filtering. One can impart information without presenting a dissertation, and do so without values.You are looking at this completely black or white, and it is not. It is possible to impart information without moral judgments, and it is possible to impart that information WITH judgments. HOW one communicates affects this presentation. If the former is done, the listener can STILL add in their own judgments and alter the message.
this basic fact is responsible for much of our debate over whether and how much and in which direction the media is "biased". supporters of a particular candidate, cause, etc, always feel that the news is leaving out pertinent information; they are picking up on the fact that the filtering mechanism of the news-giver differs from that of themselves. Republicans complain because it seems like Republican Candidate gaffes are picked up on and trumpeted while Democrat gaffes are ignored - that is because republicans are seeing a value judgement in the filtering process that differs from their own and responding to the cognitive dissonance that this produces. Democrats tend not to "see" it because the filtering system of such a format blends more easily with their own, and produces no mental kick of "hey, wait a minute, they aren't giving equivalency to like things".
Politics is a really bad example. By it's very nature, the purpose of political speech is to persuade and to present judgments.
it is, in fact, human to human, impossible
not to do what I am describing.
No, it isn't.
context in presentation is the result of judgement - it is the provision of a set of values that are judged to be relevant by the filtering process of the format decision maker.
No, context provides background information that allows the listener to better understand the information. It is like defining a word. It can easily be done without judgment.
as you are a human being, interpretation on your part is inevitable.
Not necessarily interpretation in a judgmental way. One "translates" information into their own personal "language" so they understand what is being stated better.
I perceive your animosity is merely you acting out your jealousy of my awesomeness.
Which is YOUR perception and not accurate, since the only awesomeness that I am jealous of is my own. :2razz:
no, my words did indeed provide judgement - the context that I provided made several assumptions about you the listener in both cases.
Nope. In the second case, you presented your perceptions, informationally. In the first, you presented them as an attack. These are different types of communications. If I take each as an attack, the former is MY issue, the latter is not entirely. See the difference?
you still do not seem to grasp that receiving something does not make you the creator of it.
Once you reinterpret something with your values, it certainly does. This is one reason we see such a discrepency in the behavior of people from the same religion.
no. you cannot separate information from format. well, unless of course you are omniscient - but given our national test scores i don't see that being much of a worry with our current crop of k-8 students.
And that may be a result of the receiver, not the presenter.
I doubt we are going to agree on this issue.
I dont' see how a bureaucracy captured by the public unions it is supposed to be negotiating with is ever going to give us a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources than the market-based system that utilizes competition to brutally weed out the ineffective allocations of resources in favor of the effective ones. the reduction in social strife as each parent is able to ensure that their child is raised in the kind of social environment they prefer is merely a hefty side-bonus.
There is no question that many of the policies of the unions need to be curtailed or eliminated... and this from someone who's mother was a teacher for 40+ years. However, if this were done, and if funds were allocated intelligently and efficiently, I see little reason why public education could not thrive. I like the idea of school choice, perhaps with different schools having different values systems, but I much prefer a more ecclectic approach. It produces more well-rounded individuals, able to deal with others who may have differences from they.