You must log in or register to comment.
The sad thing is those people did take those classes.
As a kid I always thought a lot of stuff taught was like, duh, so obvious. It took being thrown in the adult world to see hmm… I guess… not obvious enough???
Vaccines could cause autism since they contain immune system steroids, and should probably not be given to people who haven’t reached adulthood. Anyone who is a decent mother has probably thought about this. GMOs can also be dangerous although not likely, outside of fats, your bodies tends to break down other things. Flat earth is a troll. Climate change is real but the solutions people have for dealing with it are stupid, annoying, intrusive, and impractical. Cars get shittier year after year because of the stupid laws, meanwhile the human population is exploding.
Also don’t tell me I don’t understand the science because I do. I just figure out things myself instead of trusting corporations and social media companies. People who unironicly think that vaccines are safe did not form that conclusion by, “understanding the science”. They came to that conclusion because some other liberal corporatists told them too. It is true vaccines will cause the cow herd to be a bit more resilient, but also if that comes at the cost of the brain and mental health, then no that’s fucking stupid. Sure to corporations having bodies is probably the best thing for them. They need as many workers as possible, but from a human standpoint, there is nothing more valuable than your mind. Don’t waste your children’s minds to make cattle for corporations.
no.
steroids are a specific thing, and are not used in vaccines. steroids can’t cause autism even if that was the case. vaccines can not cause autism at all. vaccines work by incapacitating a viral or bacterial agent, sprinkling some red flag on it and dumping it in your system for the immune system to stumble across
autism is a developmental issue, either selected genes at conception mess with developmental plans, or something interrupts development before birth. vaccines do not have a chance to be administered before that period is over.
also!
GMO’s are a meaningless designation to determine harm in any regard. all it dictates is whether humans have in any fashion altered the organism. you might as well have said “red foods can also be dangerously although not likely”
also,
there are people who do believe in flat earth, because otherwise their religion is false.
I think equally important as teaching these things to begin with is letting students know when they’re being taught a simplified model, and that serious academic discourse of the subject is still evolving and/or involves much more nuance (which is pretty much always). some people who do pay attention in science classes nonetheless think that what they learned is gospel and never re-examine it, or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge when said nuance is relevant because it seems to contradict the simplified model they’ve cemented in their brain as the whole truth. the kind of people who say things like “I know there’s two genders because I learned it in high school biology” and apparently never considered why there would be collegiate and post-graduate studies on biology and gender (or why those are two entirely different fields of study) if we all already learned everything there is to know in high school.
I think chemistry is APPALLINGLY bad at this to be honest.
Real talk: those “boring” science classes aren’t about memorizing facts — they teach you how to spot bad claims and check sources. That skill pays off forever.
Tbf this does kind of imply we are doing something wrong. Maybe instead we should teach people to learn and judge information, rather than train them to take information presented to them at face value.
There are as many irrational science fanatics as there are religious fanatics.
There are as many irrational science fanatics as there are religious fanatics.
I really doubt that.
Also, how are they to judge information presented to them if there is no agreed upon valid source?
Loooooool
To be fair, most schools give those classes only out of obligation. Doing dumb calculations of mols and atomic masses in high school is definitely teaching kids to ask “why the fuck am I even doing this?”
Kids are wired to ask that, so what, basic chemistry knowledge is extremely useful.
Learning some chemistry basics is probably still good though. Not that we’re using it daily but just in the “hey mixing this stuff can kill you” or, in the same vein, seeing how it only requires small amounts to make big changes.
We’re surrounded by chemicals in our everyday lives, learning a healthy fear of them is probably for the best.
Also high school is meant to prepare you for further education, if you want to pursue that, so it really does cover a lot of ground for basic concepts you need to learn to understand and gain further education in whatever field applies.
Yeah, like an German Comedian said, while the Teacher shows how an Morse communication works, the childrens with their Smartphones already are logged in his Pacemaker.
And billionaires love people like that because it keeps the most obsessive of us focused away from the greed.
LOL, school curriculums are part of the “billionaire conspiracy” too?
FFS.
They are saying people who don’t understand high school basics are useful idiots for billionaires because they’re easily manipulated
Nothing about a school curriculum conspiracy was mentioned, so it’s especially weird that you put billionaire conspiracy in quotes
As someone aware of decades of legal battles to prevent the gutting of education systems, usually noticeable around local levels, you almost always end up at corpo think tanks like the heritage foundation.
If you’re familiar with the heritage foundation, they’ve been trying to run a project2025 style playbook for decades, and it is only through their success that current administration is a billionaire playground. Reminder that elon musk could directly choose for hundreds of thousands of children to die this year by taking aware their food and medicine, because he wanted to. Also billionaires got an unimaginably generous treatment at the same time, worth much more than all of the food and medicine.
It’s more an amalgam of cooperatively evil assholes, most of which have an absurd amount of money for some reason, but yeah, billionaires are a good chunk of why there are whole groups being funded to spend all day every day trying to kneecap educational efforts, or painting academics as evil satanists who are corrupting your children with science.
rong? like the estonian word for train?
Internet contains the whole knowledge of humanity… the other 98% are influencers, ChatGPT posts, memes, cat photos, fake news, bots and flat earthers.
I thought Interned contained mostly porn :D
And cat pics.
Similar to memes
Very wise
There is so incredibly much knowledge that isn’t on the internet.
I hated chemistry in school, because it was teaching us irrelevant shit like the electron structure of atoms. But when I’m interested in something, I’ll look it up, and may get lost in a Wikipedia wormhole for hours about the most random topics. (some recent ones were: image file formats, the history of feminism, Serengeti National Park)
Imho the difference all lies in when knowledge is shoved down our throats vs exploring it out of curiosity.
I used to think like this until I found out you can explain a lot of chemical interactions by just knowing how the electron structure of atoms lead to those reactions. Helpful when you try to wonder if anything could be toxic.
I hated chemistry in school, because it was teaching us irrelevant shit like the electron structure of atoms.
It’s only unimportant because you don’t care. Reading random facts on Wikipedia isn’t learning, it’s just reading. You can read the Wikipedia page on juggling, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling) but I wouldn’t expect you to understand (much less, perform) a 3 ball cascade, reverse cascade and waterfall after just reading the page. Those are very basic juggling patterns and fundamentals to more advanced patterns, such as juggler’s tennis, mills mess, boston mess etc… and that’s the difference between learning, and reading.
Not ripping on going on a Wikipedia dive here, it’s one of my favorite things to do, but recognize that it’s not the same as learning
It’s funny how as adults we become interested in elements of stuff we were taught and found boring before. But I’m not sure how you’d teach science without “shoving it down people’s throats” because most teenagers simply don’t give a shit about any of it, so pretty much anything you teach will be shoving it down someone’s throat. The better solution would be explaining why electron structure is important foundational stuff. About 98% of the time, in HS, they didn’t explain why we needed to know it, how it would be contextualized in later life - it was simply “learn this so you can pass next week’s test.” And for me, knowing why is crucial to me caring enough to learn.
The “do your own research” people need to have it explained to them that even experts in their respective fields aren’t automatically capable of parsing scientific literature. A family doctor with 50 years experience who prescribes antidepressants every day will have no deep understanding of what any particular scientific peer reviewed study on SSRIs is telling them. They need a grounding in statistics more than anything else, which most people just don’t have. So the idea that a non-educated, non-scientist can read peer reviewed studies and come away from them with some sort of understanding of the issue is the thing that needs to be highlighted, preferably in high school science class (earlier, frankly). A willingness to slog through scientific papers in pursuit of deeper knowledge is admirable, but is dangerously misguided without proper training. I don’t even mean training in the specific science, but just in how to speak the language of peer reviewed studies more generally. It’s very much its own discipline.
I want someone to ask Joe Rogan what ‘regression to the mean’ means. I want someone to ask him what a ‘standard deviation’ is and how to apply the concept. I don’t want to know what papers he’s read, because you could read 50 true scientific papers a day on one topic and still have no idea what the current scientific consensus is on said topic, absent the requisite training. You’ll almost certainly come away from it with a very wrong but very confident belief. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.
Hard disagree, if research findings were more accessible, NOT PAYWALLED, and published with some degree of intent for a wide audience then WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more people would dabble in reading scientific research and the benefit could have potentially saved science from collapse in my country (the US).
The ‘research’ that the “do your own research” people are referring to isn’t peer reviewed scientific literature.
It’s other fools’ social media rantings.
On a related note having 6 different classes a day 8 hours total times 5 days a week made it impossible to learn properly.
IMO: GMOs are sus. Fuck the rest though.
The problem with GMOs isn’t the GMOs themselves, it’s why they’ve been GM’d. If they’ve been modified to be “roundup resistant” so they can dump a truckload of glyphosate on them, or something similar to that, that might be a problem.
If I’m buying fresh produce it’s not a problem, I can can make double sure to wash it properly. But if it’s processed food, I definitely do not trust food manufacturers to get all that shit off the vegetables.
Looking for GMO free canned fruit/vegetables, frozen fruit/vegetables, or anything with fruit/vegetables in it is, in my opinion, a good idea. But a fresh cucumber? Just wash it.
Most of the foods you eat are GMOs and have been for centuries because that’s another term for selective breeding. Modern GMO tech simply speeds up the process.
selective breeding is not not the same as GMO
By a variety of definitions around the world, yes it is. At least until farmers lobbied to redefine it because they didn’t want to be associated with GMO’s: (emphasis mine)
The definition of a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not clear and varies widely between countries, international bodies, and other communities. At its broadest, the definition of a GMO can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature. Taking a less broad view, it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993, the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as “any of a wide range of techniques … among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., ‘test-tube’ babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation.” The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by “selective breeding and other means of artificial selection” These definitions were promptly adjusted with a number of exceptions added as the result of pressure from scientific and farming communities, as well as developments in science. The EU definition later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutation breeding, and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are genetically modifying a plant when we are selective breeding it for specific genes. The fact that the mutation occurred naturally doesn’t change the the fact that there was human intervention.
GM is just a technology, which can be put to many uses, and there are many methods. All pasta wheats, for example, are derived from radiation mutants.
The risk isn’t derived from the technology but how it is used. The proprietary technology is used to prevent farmers from creating their own seed (including using copy right laws) while increasing their dependency on matching pesticides. Industrial agriculture is not sustainable - insect populations are dwindling because every square foot of landscape is sprayed with poison. GMO is used to further industrialize agriculture, e.g. by making crops resistant to poison, which in turn can (and will) be used more liberally.
Nature does evolve quickly when posed with harsh conditions. Roundup and other poisons used agriculture make the targeted pests resistant quickly.
Some GM features can be fine, but there are no cheats in real life. Constructing an environment that makes resistance and strength the viable strategy for pests will not work. Harmony is the only sustainable choice.
are you seriously defending Roundup?
No, they implied that insects build resistance to it.
It seems they are saying it’s ineffective
Removed by mod
The propagation of these ideas will lead to the maiming and death of children
You’re one of the people the meme is talking about.
If this person takes the risks of sickness and its life destroying consequences over the risks of vaccination, they’re an idiot.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25011399 https://immune.org.nz/factsheets/comparison-of-possible-disease-complications-and-vaccine-responses
Sticking to your opinion without openness to changing them (especially due to fear)… that’s how you become inflexible and risk breaking something (or something breaking you)
It is purely a numbers game. Risk vs Risk. Any meal you eat has the possibility of you ending up in hospital. This happened to me, developing a sudden allergy to food I ate before with no problems. It does not stop me eating though 😉
Allergic reaction is your greatest risk with a vaccine. And even there you will the chances slim for such a reaction. We simply take that risk for the vaccine in question, take its effectiveness into account and compare that to the risks of getting the decease in question.
I would not wish long covid on my worst enemy. The never ending brain fog, the tiredness that simply does not go away, the lack of taste for food. It really sucks the joy out of living. So if a vaccine can prevent that, and help shield those around you, that you may infect, I think the risk of side effects are more than justified and worth taking.
The Chance for a serious side effect is lower vs the permanent damage you could get from covid.
You question vaccines and yet you probably don’t have any problem asking for antibiotic when you get flu, even though antibiotics don’t work on viruses and only kills the healthy bacteria in your gut. Or, taking painkillers for headaches, even though one of its side effects for constant use is eventual hearing loss.
You question vaccines as if they are all the same, but don’t question other medicinal products that are made in the exact same process as vaccines. And all medicines have some side effects nonetheless. Heck, almost anything you consume has side effects. As another person mentioned, we take medicines and they are approved because the benefits outweigh the risks. They are tested first for crying out loud.
Stay curious‼️ 🤔
Real. Curiosity is such a desirable trait in folks.
But not in cats.
That’s why my friends call me Whiskers
“akshully”
