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.
You CONTINUE to help me prove my point. So, if it is presented entirely in an informational way, what values the receiver perceives is on him or her.
:doh 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.
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.
Nope. One presents information, how the listener evaluates that information is on the listener. This is why it is important to impart the information clearly.
No, that's not precisely what I said. There is no weight presented. Only information. What the student does with that is completely on HIM/HER.
And if that context is to provide information, the value judgments perceived are on the listener.
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.
No, that is not equivelency. It is a list. YOU are assigning morality, NOT the presenter.
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
Context and judgment are not the same concepts.
judgement
flows from information and context.
The implication comes from their own morality and values, not those of the presentation of a list. You are demonstrating this point by how you are posting. You are presenting your own morality from the list that has been presented.
no, my belief system on this matter is different from the presumptions found in both lists i provided.
No, you didn't and you are being dishonest by posting that you did. Your second example was filled with value judgments. Here is your comment and I will, place in bold all of the value judgments:
These are value judgments. Stating "major form" indicates preference. Saying "some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups" presents that this view is carried by a minority, and by using the word "claim" you impress that it is an unsubstantiated minority. Further, your comment is biased because it is fundamentally INACCURATE. By all accounts, your example was a complete failure.
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
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.
Your presentation was by no means equivalent, and certainly biased, and by no means dry.
you are correct - both presentations included value judgements
but you only picked up on the one that you disagreed with - now why is that?
no, you can't. information has to be put in a format in order to be communicated.
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.
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".
Giving information is providing THAT information. Now, it is possible to do what you are claiming, but not necessary.
it is, in fact, human to human, impossible
not to do what I am describing.
Certainly. Context. Not judgment.
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.
See? Your presentation was flawed. If your presentation had been clear, no interpretation on my part would have been necessary
as you are a human being, interpretation on your part is
inevitable.
Here, your presentation is clear. Perhaps I would have been offended. Why? Perhaps I haven't liked some of your positions, so I have built in animosity towards you
I perceive your animosity is merely you acting out your jealousy of my awesomeness.
I don't). See? The presentation is not the issue in this case. You were clear, contextual, and without judgment. The problem was with the listener.
no, my words did indeed provide judgement - the context that I provided made several assumptions about you the listener in both cases.
You are STILL illustrating my point. If your presentation is clear and informational, the judgments that I perceive are on me.
you still do not seem to grasp that
receiving something does not make you the
creator of it.
So, you agree that it is not, always, but could be, correct?
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.
I vacillate with the school choice issue. Personally, I'd rather see an more effective and efficient use of funds in our public schools, but I could see school choice as a viable option.
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.