What is the cause of kids commiting mass shootings in school ?

[Foxfyre]

Social brainwashing is good.

However it is also bad, but to a lesser degree.

So the ends of this kind of brainwashing justifies the means, at least until the kids grow their own empathy and conscience.

School security is the only practical workable solution.

But until you have Uzi's on every street corner like in Israel you will not stop school shooters.

School mass killings need to be put in perspective. They are terrible but they are rare. Excluding suicides we have averaged only 3 school mass killings a year over the last 10 years out of more than 150,000 schools in the US. The chance of a mass killing occurring in a school is less than 1 in 50,000 and the chance of a student dying in one is less likely than dying in a plane crash.

Look at the things that are being proposed such as arming our teachers, putting metal detectors and armed personnel in every school, spending tens of billions of dollars on mental healthcare for school children, and of course a battery of new gun control laws. How effective any of these proposals might be is unknown. And we talk about the people that perpetrate these terrible crimes being crazy.

On the other hand 17 dead people, mostly kids, and a host of others injured at Parkland didn't have to happen. And if it is your child that is dead or injured or put at risk, the broader statistics don't count for anything.

There have always been instances of violence and some have occurred in the schools, but somebody specific was almost always the target of the violence and/or it was triggered by some offense at the time or in gang activity or mob violence and involved the National Guard or police.

The first instance of a planned and executed indiscrimate mass school shooting with random targets I believe was in 1966 when a sniper on a roof at the University of Texas killed I'm think 17 people and wounded others.

There wasn't another until Columbine in 1999 and since then they have been happening with uncommon frequency.

And as long as school remain extremely soft targets and the media insists on giving exessive coverage to such events--actually suspending regular programming and devoting non stop coverage for hours or day--plus it stirs up a frenzy of national debate on gun control--it is reasonable that those bordering on or who are full fledged sociopathic personalities will be inspired to go after their own time in the spotlight and fame.

That is the root cause I have been encouraging dinq to identify. Our societal decline is due to certain factions promoting nihilism and moral relativism instead of basic universal truths.

So you never paid any attention to the signature under any of my posts?

As an aside, IMO the readership of your signature would be much higher and the impact much more effective if you would condense it into its key message with a notation of the source. I've never read it because the wall of text is offputting.

Boedicca is spot on with her comment.

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that none of the key messages are lost. I believe each and everyone of the key messages are important. I am sorry that it is too long for those who can't be bothered by 20 sentences. All in all, I think this is pretty short considering the number of sources this was condensed from.

I don't want to take the time to rewrite your signature even if I could improve on it. I am just pointing out that it won't have as much impact when you present such a uniform unbroken block of text regardless of the importance of its content. It does not inspire people to take note of it.

And when you show me what standards you are thinking of that have been lowered, I'm pretty sure both Boedicca and I and probably others can show you how that fits into nihilism and/or moral relativism.

I don't care what impact it has. I use it all the time. In fact I could use it right now to describe what Boedicca is doing. I get compliments on my siggie from freedom loving people all the time.

Good for you. But Boedicca is not doing anything here but competently discussing/debating the topic. And if your siggie takes exception to that, I suggest you ditch it entirely regardless of who compliments you.

 

[ding]

On the other hand 17 dead people, mostly kids, and a host of others injured at Parkland didn't have to happen. And if it is your child that is dead or injured or put at risk, the broader statistics don't count for anything.

There have always been instances of violence and some have occurred in the schools, but somebody specific was almost always the target of the violence and/or it was triggered by some offense at the time or in gang activity or mob violence and involved the National Guard or police.

The first instance of a planned and executed indiscrimate mass school shooting with random targets I believe was in 1966 when a sniper on a roof at the University of Texas killed I'm think 17 people and wounded others.

There wasn't another until Columbine in 1999 and since then they have been happening with uncommon frequency.

And as long as school remain extremely soft targets and the media insists on giving exessive coverage to such events--actually suspending regular programming and devoting non stop coverage for hours or day--plus it stirs up a frenzy of national debate on gun control--it is reasonable that those bordering on or who are full fledged sociopathic personalities will be inspired to go after their own time in the spotlight and fame.
As an aside, IMO the readership of your signature would be much higher and the impact much more effective if you would condense it into its key message with a notation of the source. I've never read it because the wall of text is offputting.

Boedicca is spot on with her comment.

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that all of the key messages are not lost.

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?

Because I'm an engineer and one of my functions is to perform root cause analysis. In the course of my work if we discover that a standard or practice was violated and that led to a failure we would list the violation of the standard and not the excuse for why it was violated as the root cause.

Now do you understand?

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand 17 dead people, mostly kids, and a host of others injured at Parkland didn't have to happen. And if it is your child that is dead or injured or put at risk, the broader statistics don't count for anything.

There have always been instances of violence and some have occurred in the schools, but somebody specific was almost always the target of the violence and/or it was triggered by some offense at the time or in gang activity or mob violence and involved the National Guard or police.

The first instance of a planned and executed indiscrimate mass school shooting with random targets I believe was in 1966 when a sniper on a roof at the University of Texas killed I'm think 17 people and wounded others.

There wasn't another until Columbine in 1999 and since then they have been happening with uncommon frequency.

And as long as school remain extremely soft targets and the media insists on giving exessive coverage to such events--actually suspending regular programming and devoting non stop coverage for hours or day--plus it stirs up a frenzy of national debate on gun control--it is reasonable that those bordering on or who are full fledged sociopathic personalities will be inspired to go after their own time in the spotlight and fame.
As an aside, IMO the readership of your signature would be much higher and the impact much more effective if you would condense it into its key message with a notation of the source. I've never read it because the wall of text is offputting.

Boedicca is spot on with her comment.

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that all of the key messages are not lost.

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

 

[ding]

School mass killings need to be put in perspective. They are terrible but they are rare. Excluding suicides we have averaged only 3 school mass killings a year over the last 10 years out of more than 150,000 schools in the US. The chance of a mass killing occurring in a school is less than 1 in 50,000 and the chance of a student dying in one is less likely than dying in a plane crash.

Look at the things that are being proposed such as arming our teachers, putting metal detectors and armed personnel in every school, spending tens of billions of dollars on mental healthcare for school children, and of course a battery of new gun control laws. How effective any of these proposals might be is unknown. And we talk about the people that perpetrate these terrible crimes being crazy.

On the other hand 17 dead people, mostly kids, and a host of others injured at Parkland didn't have to happen. And if it is your child that is dead or injured or put at risk, the broader statistics don't count for anything.

There have always been instances of violence and some have occurred in the schools, but somebody specific was almost always the target of the violence and/or it was triggered by some offense at the time or in gang activity or mob violence and involved the National Guard or police.

The first instance of a planned and executed indiscrimate mass school shooting with random targets I believe was in 1966 when a sniper on a roof at the University of Texas killed I'm think 17 people and wounded others.

There wasn't another until Columbine in 1999 and since then they have been happening with uncommon frequency.

And as long as school remain extremely soft targets and the media insists on giving exessive coverage to such events--actually suspending regular programming and devoting non stop coverage for hours or day--plus it stirs up a frenzy of national debate on gun control--it is reasonable that those bordering on or who are full fledged sociopathic personalities will be inspired to go after their own time in the spotlight and fame.

So you never paid any attention to the signature under any of my posts?

As an aside, IMO the readership of your signature would be much higher and the impact much more effective if you would condense it into its key message with a notation of the source. I've never read it because the wall of text is offputting.

Boedicca is spot on with her comment.

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that none of the key messages are lost. I believe each and everyone of the key messages are important. I am sorry that it is too long for those who can't be bothered by 20 sentences. All in all, I think this is pretty short considering the number of sources this was condensed from.

I don't want to take the time to rewrite your signature even if I could improve on it. I am just pointing out that it won't have as much impact when you present such a uniform unbroken block of text regardless of the importance of its content. It does not inspire people to take note of it.

And when you show me what standards you are thinking of that have been lowered, I'm pretty sure both Boedicca and I and probably others can show you how that fits into nihilism and/or moral relativism.

I don't care what impact it has. I use it all the time. In fact I could use it right now to describe what Boedicca is doing. I get compliments on my siggie from freedom loving people all the time.

Good for you. But Boedicca is not doing anything here but competently discussing/debating the topic. And if your siggie takes exception to that, I suggest you ditch it entirely regardless of who compliments you.

That's exactly what a socialist told me to do two days ago... ditch my siggie.

 

[boedicca]

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that all of the key messages are not lost.

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?

Because I'm an engineer and one of my functions is to perform root cause analysis. In the course of my work if we discover that a standard or practice was violated and that led to a failure we would list the violation of the standard and not the excuse for why it was violated as the root cause.

Now do you understand?

Are you a civil engineer? The worst engineering students go into Civil Engineering from my frequent observations.

I work in high tech in a senior operational role. That's the closest to posting PI that I'm going to get.

 

[ding]

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

Says the person who just told me to ditch this:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[boedicca]

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

Says the person who just told me to ditch this:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Posting it ad nauseum doen't make it anymore convincing when you cannot post anything in your own words regarding the philosophical roots of Socialism.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand 17 dead people, mostly kids, and a host of others injured at Parkland didn't have to happen. And if it is your child that is dead or injured or put at risk, the broader statistics don't count for anything.

There have always been instances of violence and some have occurred in the schools, but somebody specific was almost always the target of the violence and/or it was triggered by some offense at the time or in gang activity or mob violence and involved the National Guard or police.

The first instance of a planned and executed indiscrimate mass school shooting with random targets I believe was in 1966 when a sniper on a roof at the University of Texas killed I'm think 17 people and wounded others.

There wasn't another until Columbine in 1999 and since then they have been happening with uncommon frequency.

And as long as school remain extremely soft targets and the media insists on giving exessive coverage to such events--actually suspending regular programming and devoting non stop coverage for hours or day--plus it stirs up a frenzy of national debate on gun control--it is reasonable that those bordering on or who are full fledged sociopathic personalities will be inspired to go after their own time in the spotlight and fame.
As an aside, IMO the readership of your signature would be much higher and the impact much more effective if you would condense it into its key message with a notation of the source. I've never read it because the wall of text is offputting.

Boedicca is spot on with her comment.

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that all of the key messages are not lost.

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

If the standard is to not steal and SHE personally breaks that standard she has in effect lowered the standard for herself. And if she gets away with it, which is what usually happens, and continues to do it over and over again, then she will have normalized her deviance to the standard and eventually it will lead to the predictable surprise of getting caught and going to jail.

Are you guys always this argumentative?

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard. It actually is an American law and can be traced back to JudeoChristian roots of "Thou shalt not steal." And you have to consider what stealing actually is.

But stealing is either nihilism--it isn't of any importance or it means nothing--or it is moral relativism, i.e. I want and/or need that and I don't want to work for it and buy it so I will just take it which is good for me and that makes it a good thing to do. And it is also nihilistic in that it doesn't matter if it is bad for somebody else.

And yes, I am always argumentative in a thread intended to inspire critical thinking and thoughtful consideration of what dynamics are at play in a given situation.

 

[ding]

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?

Because I'm an engineer and one of my functions is to perform root cause analysis. In the course of my work if we discover that a standard or practice was violated and that led to a failure we would list the violation of the standard and not the excuse for why it was violated as the root cause.

Now do you understand?

Are you a civil engineer? The worst engineering students go into Civil Engineering from my frequent observations.

I work in high tech in a senior operational role. That's the closest to posting PI that I'm going to get.

I'm a Deepwater Completion Engineer. A PE with a BS in Petroleum Engineering.

And no, your "frequent" observation of civil engineers is total horseshit. In fact, civil engineering has a more stringent requirement placed upon it than any other engineering field. You have to become a PE as a CE. They are the only ones. Every other field it is optional.

What is a senior operational role exactly?

Because you don't know jack shit about RCFA's.

What "frequent" observations have you made that would lead you to your faulty conclusion that CE's are the dredges of engineering?

 

[ding]

I appreciate your opinion, Firefox, but I disagree with both points. The root cause of our problem is lowering our standards. Blaming this on an external source such as progressivism transfers our control to progressivism. No one forced us to lower our standards. We did it all on our own as a society.

As for my signature. Tell me what to eliminate. Tell me what is redundant. Show me how to re-write it such that all of the key messages are not lost.

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

If the standard is to not steal and SHE personally breaks that standard she has in effect lowered the standard for herself. And if she gets away with it, which is what usually happens, and continues to do it over and over again, then she will have normalized her deviance to the standard and eventually it will lead to the predictable surprise of getting caught and going to jail.

Are you guys always this argumentative?

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard. It actually is an American law and can be traced back to JudeoChristian roots of "Thou shalt not steal." And you have to consider what stealing actually is.

But stealing is either nihilism--it isn't of any importance or it means nothing--or it is moral relativism, i.e. I want and/or need that and I don't want to work for it and buy it so I will just take it which is good for me and that makes it a good thing to do. And it is also nihilistic in that it doesn't matter if it is bad for somebody else.

And yes, I am always argumentative in a thread intended to inspire critical thinking and thoughtful consideration of what dynamics are at play in a given situation.

No, you are practicing critical theory, my dear. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test its validity. What you are doing is the cultural marxist practice of critical theory.

Did you really just say I have to establish that stealing is wrong?

 

[ding]

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

Says the person who just told me to ditch this:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Posting it ad nauseum doen't make it anymore convincing when you cannot post anything in your own words regarding the philosophical roots of Socialism.

That's exactly what the socialists say.

 

[ding]

So you never paid any attention to the signature under any of my posts?

About as much as you pay to mine, apparently.

Your sig is TLTR. I'd be more impressed if you could explain the root cause in a post in your own words.

I see. Ignorance and apathy. Bravo.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

I don't care if Socialism Denies Examination. That doesn't obligate me not to examine.

You are posting things don't understand. There is a Dogma to Socialism: the primacy of power if you can seize control. Then you can write the Dogma to suit your totalitarian objectives.

Also, when you posted quoted passages, it is bad form not to provide attribution to the source.

Good Lord, now you want me to make it longer?

Says the person who says I have to convince her that stealing is wrong.

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard.

 

[boedicca]

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?

Because I'm an engineer and one of my functions is to perform root cause analysis. In the course of my work if we discover that a standard or practice was violated and that led to a failure we would list the violation of the standard and not the excuse for why it was violated as the root cause.

Now do you understand?

Are you a civil engineer? The worst engineering students go into Civil Engineering from my frequent observations.

I work in high tech in a senior operational role. That's the closest to posting PI that I'm going to get.

I'm a Deepwater Completion Engineer. A PE with a BS in Petroleum Engineering.

And no, your "frequent" observation of civil engineers is total horseshit. In fact, civil engineering has a more stringent requirement placed upon it than any other engineering field. You have to become a PE as a CE. They are the only ones. Every other field it is optional.

What is a senior operational role exactly?

Because you don't know jack shit about RCFA's.

What "frequent" observations have you made that would lead you to your faulty conclusion that CE's are the dredges of engineering?

Blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzz

I don't have to explain my real life to some anonymous jerk on an obscure message board who lacks the intellectual honesty to attribute sources for his copy/paste quotes and who continuously posts symptoms instead of causes despite his self-claimed expertise in analysis.

 

[ding]

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

He's describing symptoms again.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?

Because I'm an engineer and one of my functions is to perform root cause analysis. In the course of my work if we discover that a standard or practice was violated and that led to a failure we would list the violation of the standard and not the excuse for why it was violated as the root cause.

Now do you understand?

Are you a civil engineer? The worst engineering students go into Civil Engineering from my frequent observations.

I work in high tech in a senior operational role. That's the closest to posting PI that I'm going to get.

I'm a Deepwater Completion Engineer. A PE with a BS in Petroleum Engineering.

And no, your "frequent" observation of civil engineers is total horseshit. In fact, civil engineering has a more stringent requirement placed upon it than any other engineering field. You have to become a PE as a CE. They are the only ones. Every other field it is optional.

What is a senior operational role exactly?

Because you don't know jack shit about RCFA's.

What "frequent" observations have you made that would lead you to your faulty conclusion that CE's are the dredges of engineering?

Blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzz

I don't have to explain my real life to some anonymous jerk on an obscure message board who lacks the intellectual honesty to attribute sources for his copy/paste quotes and who continuously posts symptoms instead of causes despite his self-claimed expertise in analysis.

Do I need to convince you that stealing is wrong too?

 

[ding]

Blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzz

I don't have to explain my real life to some anonymous jerk on an obscure message board who lacks the intellectual honesty to attribute sources for his copy/paste quotes and who continuously posts symptoms instead of causes despite his self-claimed expertise in analysis.

^ she mad

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

Says the person who just told me to ditch this:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

I told you to ditch it if it assumes Boedicca is doing anything other than competently discussing the topic. I still haven't read that huge mass of grey text and frankly probably never will. But consider the last sentence:
"Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do."

But when we do it, you take exception to that and call it argumentative. Why is that?

We actually are probably close to being on the same page on this topic, but I won't agree that nihilism and moral relativity are not legitimate factors and probably are the most important factors in why kids are committing mass murders in school. Boedicca just condensed the dynamics involved into their basic components more efficiently than I did.

As a civil engineer, you should have been trained to write in ways that others can comprehend and understand your intent, purpose, and meaning. Vagueness has no place in engineering, nor does disjointed instruction that leaves the reader confused as to what you intended.

 

[ding]

Maybe but I saw it as a deflection and completely changing the subject. That's something the progressives do all the time. I don't expect it for somebody who claims to be right of center.

Says the person who just told me to ditch this:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

I told you to ditch it if it assumes Boedicca is doing anything other than competently discussing the topic. I still haven't read that huge mass of grey text and frankly probably never will. But consider the last sentence:
"Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do."

But when we do it, you take exception to that and call it argumentative. Why is that?

We actually are probably close to being on the same page on this topic, but I won't agree that nihilism and moral relativity are not legitimate factors and probably are the most important factors in why kids are committing mass murders in school. Boedicca just condensed the dynamics involved into their basic components more efficiently than I did.

As a civil engineer, you should have been trained to write in ways that others can comprehend and understand your intent, purpose, and meaning. Vagueness has no place in engineering, nor does disjointed instruction that leaves the reader confused as to what you intended.

Says the person who literally said I needed to convince her that stealing is wrong.

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lowering Standard is a SYMPTOM. People don't just decide to lower standards based on nothing.

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

If the standard is to not steal and SHE personally breaks that standard she has in effect lowered the standard for herself. And if she gets away with it, which is what usually happens, and continues to do it over and over again, then she will have normalized her deviance to the standard and eventually it will lead to the predictable surprise of getting caught and going to jail.

Are you guys always this argumentative?

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard. It actually is an American law and can be traced back to JudeoChristian roots of "Thou shalt not steal." And you have to consider what stealing actually is.

But stealing is either nihilism--it isn't of any importance or it means nothing--or it is moral relativism, i.e. I want and/or need that and I don't want to work for it and buy it so I will just take it which is good for me and that makes it a good thing to do. And it is also nihilistic in that it doesn't matter if it is bad for somebody else.

And yes, I am always argumentative in a thread intended to inspire critical thinking and thoughtful consideration of what dynamics are at play in a given situation.

No, you are practicing critical theory, my dear. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test its validity. What you are doing is the cultural marxist practice of critical theory.

Did you really just say I have to establish that stealing is wrong?

Yup. You do. Not only that stealing is wrong but WHY it is wrong. Otherwise there is no justification for a rule or law against stealing.

The American Indians, for instance, had no legal or moral concept in their culture against stealing. They were not to steal from each other because they needed peace and harmony within their own tribe. But stealing from those outside their tribe? That was not only moral but was expected.

So what was the one unifying factor in anti-theft laws in every U.S. state, county, community? It was a sense of the inviolable aspect of property and the importance to respect that, both arising out of JudeoChristian values brought to the United States by the earliest settlers and adopted by the Founders.

Where moral relativism comes in is that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. And those who would demoralize, destablize, divide, and conquer us will preach that such is okay.

 

[boedicca]

Blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzzz

I don't have to explain my real life to some anonymous jerk on an obscure message board who lacks the intellectual honesty to attribute sources for his copy/paste quotes and who continuously posts symptoms instead of causes despite his self-claimed expertise in analysis.

^ she mad

No, bored. And that is worse.

 

[ding]

If the standard is to not steal and I convince you to steal, and you get caught stealing and go to jail. Am I the root cause of you going to jail or is the root cause of you going to jail the fact that you were caught stealing (i.e. violating the standard)?

What does what you just described have to do with lowering standards?

If the standard is to not steal and SHE personally breaks that standard she has in effect lowered the standard for herself. And if she gets away with it, which is what usually happens, and continues to do it over and over again, then she will have normalized her deviance to the standard and eventually it will lead to the predictable surprise of getting caught and going to jail.

Are you guys always this argumentative?

First you have to establish that not stealing is the standard and why it is the standard. It actually is an American law and can be traced back to JudeoChristian roots of "Thou shalt not steal." And you have to consider what stealing actually is.

But stealing is either nihilism--it isn't of any importance or it means nothing--or it is moral relativism, i.e. I want and/or need that and I don't want to work for it and buy it so I will just take it which is good for me and that makes it a good thing to do. And it is also nihilistic in that it doesn't matter if it is bad for somebody else.

And yes, I am always argumentative in a thread intended to inspire critical thinking and thoughtful consideration of what dynamics are at play in a given situation.

No, you are practicing critical theory, my dear. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test its validity. What you are doing is the cultural marxist practice of critical theory.

Did you really just say I have to establish that stealing is wrong?

Yup. You do. Not only that stealing is wrong but WHY it is wrong. Otherwise there is no justification for a rule or law against stealing.

The American Indians, for instance, had no concept in their culture against stealing. They were not to steal from each other because they needed peace and harmony within their own tribe. But stealing from those outside their tribe? That was not only moral but was expected.

I am more than happy for you to believe that stealing is OK though.

I love it when people experience their own predictable surprises.