Thunder Good-Oil
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 46,347
- Likes
- 47,360
The point is parents have many times more hours with their children than do schools.
Plus the first five years are absolutely essential and completely out of the hands of the educational system.
I've taught in four states and my children have been enrolled in schools in three states. I also have a research PhD in education. All this to say you're throwing pearls before swine. The more qualified you are to speak on something, the less likely you are to be listened to on the subject. Especially here.
We missed you too sunshine. Good luck on the job hunt. How’s the leg?I've taught in four states and my children have been enrolled in schools in three states. I also have a research PhD in education. All this to say you're throwing pearls before swine. The more qualified you are to speak on something, the less likely you are to be listened to on the subject. Especially here.
I've taught in four states and my children have been enrolled in schools in three states. I also have a research PhD in education. All this to say you're throwing pearls before swine. The more qualified you are to speak on something, the less likely you are to be listened to on the subject. Especially here.
Very interesting. Especially your second to last sentence. That can definitely be related to the Wu flu. Only the doctors that the left deemed qualified are able to speak and give opinions. Any other doctor or scientist that speaks differently are bashed and said to be quacks. Forget that their qualifications allow them to speak on it.
I see it differently. There are many doctors I respect who are conservative (actually, most of the medical doctors I know are conservative) and they also found the mouthpieces rolled out in front of the cameras to be quacks. Dangerous quacks at that.
Rigorous scientific processes decide who is worth listening to and who isn't, not politics. America's Frontline Doctors were mired too deep in anecdotal information and would not even sniff corroborating their data outside of their small cadre. That's why I wrote them off. Their methodology didn't pass the most basic of sniff tests.
You prove my point. Your bias in this post echoes what’s went on. Stop with the rigorous scientific processes. It doesn’t apply here. Take the vaccine. It went nowhere close to the rigorous testing that all others have. Yet, it’s completely safe.
It’s comical to see that the only ones who are allowed to question science are those who agree with the status quo. Like your assertion that you have a oHd in research. You have shown that you lean left. So your research opinions would be influenced heavily by left leaning ideologies. A person who leans to the right would be the same. However, neither of those facts makes either one wrong or credentials suspect.
Take Dr Scott Atlas. Stanford trained. Well respected. Has the credentials. Yet, he has been painted as a hack. Why? Because he has questioned the status quo.
As far as Frontline doctors, you are not a physician. You haven’t went through the same training as they have. You are saying that because you wrote them off and they didn’t stand up to what you believe, then that means their opinions are invalid. This is just flat out BS. They are much more qualified than you to speak about viruses and the treatment of them.
Well, he could make lives miserable with the AG and justice department, among countless other things. I'm not POTUS and I could figure out ways to **** with somebody. Use your imagination.