The "up to the person's statement" is basically true.  But if the medical staff wants to challenge the decision in the interest of the health of the child, they will go to court.  At that point, the parents will have to demonstrate their beliefs are part of their lives and not just a convenient exemption they are trying to use that one time.

Ok.  I see what you were getting at.

I always assumed that when it came to medical care, once the patient vocalized that they didn't want treatment, procedure, etc. that the medical staff was essentially powerless to do anything.  There are exceptions for stuff like psychological reasons, like if they believe the person will hurt themselves or someone may not be deemed competent. 

Never considered if the case were to go to court.  Even then, I think it would be an interesting case either way. 

Everything you know is taught.  From either schools, internet, books, parents, etc.  This is a poor excuse.  You could say religious schools are brain washing our young to not believe in science.

I don't believe it said anywhere that it had to be an "established" religion.  You can also believe in a religion and not go to church.

It said "bonafide".

And saying you believe in a religion means you follow its teachings.  There has to be some parts of the religion that you incorporate into your life that tie you to that religion.  Catholics go to mass and confession, other denominations have services, church school and events, .... every bonafide religion has holidays (holy days) they observe according to the religion's teachings.  You can't say I believe in a religion, but then admit you only do so in private and ignore the rest of the religion.  Being a follower means just that.

Everything you know is taught.  From either schools, internet, books, parents, etc.  This is a poor excuse.  You could say religious schools are brain washing our young to not believe in science.

You are changing the meaning of what I said. Please do not do this. I said what I meant and I meant it literally. If you do not understand what I wrote, that is one thing. But do not try and change what I said.

Let me see if I can put this another way. I will guess that almost everyone here that believes in man made climate change learned it in school. NOT any where else. And I will guess that almost everyone here that does not believe in man made climate change and those like myself that believe that man has very little to no effect on the climate was not taught this in school. See the difference in what I said compared to how you completely changed it around. I am making a comparison.

As far as what you said about religious schools you are making my point exactly. Most all of you who believe in man made climate change were brain washed this in school. JMHO 

You are changing the meaning of what I said. Please do not do this. I said what I meant and I meant it literally. If you do not understand what I wrote, that is one thing. But do not try and change what I said.

Let me see if I can put this another way. I will guess that almost everyone here that believes in man made climate change learned it in school. NOT any where else. And I will guess that almost everyone here that does not believe in man made climate change and those like myself that believe that man has very little to no effect on the climate was not taught this in school. See the difference in what I said compared to how you completely changed it around. I am making a comparison.

As far as what you said about religious schools you are making my point exactly. Most all of you who believe in man made climate change were brain washed this in school. JMHO 

Perhaps I am the exception to the rule then? I graduated 2001 so let that be a frame of reference for my comments. Though I think I learned some of climate change (global warming back then) I believe my greatest source was from TV. Ok, now that i think about it we occasionally watched Bill Nye in class. See, unlike other teenagers who would go home and watch MTV, I would watch the Discovery Channel and the History channel. Shows about nature, shows about science, etc.

I don't think brainwashing is an appropriate term. Now while there may have been some incorrect information I think you would be hard pressed to prove that children were intentionally deceived. They were teaching what most of the science told us at that point. Sure, sometimes science can get something wrong and change it later but that is the nature of science. Contrary to skeptics belief, that is not inherently evidence of a big hoax.

Now you might say that just because the majority of scientists say it is real doesn't make it so and you would technically be correct, majority doesn't make it fact. But the thing is that climate science doesn't always leave us with something that is absolutely one way or another. The data can sometimes fit multiple conclusions and require experts to interpret the data. Some will dissent from the majority and the problem is that it leaves us regular folk trying to figure out who is right without the background or time to interpret the data itself. For this reason, we often side with the group that seems to have more of the experts, and that is why, I think, the education system has been teaching what most of the climate scientists are saying.

Now me being more interested in the fact than the politics, as drck1000 has said, try to look at both sides and considered maybe the majority had it wrong but the more I looked the more problems I saw in the arguments of those denying or downplaying global warming. That is how I came to my personal stance on the topic. I am not sure if that is enough to convince you or anyone else without an extremely lengthy analyses, but you can rest assured that it is not brainwashing.

Perhaps I am the exception to the rule then? I graduated 2001 so let that be a frame of reference for my comments. Though I think I learned some of climate change (global warming back then) I believe my greatest source was from TV. Ok, now that i think about it we occasionally watched Bill Nye in class. See, unlike other teenagers who would go home and watch MTV, I would watch the Discovery Channel and the History channel. Shows about nature, shows about science, etc.

I don't think brainwashing is an appropriate term. Now while there may have been some incorrect information I think you would be hard pressed to prove that children were intentionally deceived. They were teaching what most of the science told us at that point. Sure, sometimes science can get something wrong and change it later but that is the nature of science. Contrary to skeptics belief, that is not inherently evidence of a big hoax.

Now you might say that just because the majority of scientists say it is real doesn't make it so and you would technically be correct, majority doesn't make it fact. But the thing is that climate science doesn't always leave us with something that is absolutely one way or another. The data can sometimes fit multiple conclusions and require experts to interpret the data. Some will dissent from the majority and the problem is that it leaves us regular folk trying to figure out who is right without the background or time to interpret the data itself. For this reason, we often side with the group that seems to have more of the experts, and that is why, I think, the education system has been teaching what most of the climate scientists are saying.

Now me being more interested in the fact than the politics, as drck1000 has said, try to look at both sides and considered maybe the majority had it wrong but the more I looked the more problems I saw in the arguments of those denying or downplaying global warming. That is how I came to my personal stance on the topic. I am not sure if that is enough to convince you or anyone else without an extremely lengthy analyses, but you can rest assured that it is not brainwashing.

So we will probably never agree on this subject. What I will say is that it is my opinion and my opinion only that the teaching of man made climate change is being done purposely in order to influence the minds of the children. Maybe I am wrong but I consider that brainwashing.

In doing all of my research I found that there is no proof that man has any effect on the climate at all. But I think I would be stupid to think that man can not have any effect at all on the climate. But to the extent that we actually have some control either way has not been proven. There are no scientific facts to back up that man has any appreciable effect. There is a lot of what some would call "facts" and what some call coincidences and what some call normal and natural changes in the climate over the last 50 years that the people who believe in man made climate change are willing to take that leap of faith to say that man is effecting the climate to such an extent that we have to change what we are doing. But again, there is a "missing link" that connects what is happening in our climate to what man is currently doing. To me, to teach something that you have to take a leap of faith for and try and convince them it is science is reckless and irresponsible. There is a purpose for doing this. It is for another topic as to why. Just suffice for me to say that based on my opinion and my opinion only this recklessness of teaching false science and intentional teaching of something where there is no absolute proof is the same as brainwashing. We need to teach facts not leaps of faith to our children. JMHO

Which school teaches the importance of the 2nd Amendment?

I mean, aside from shooting schools LOL

You are changing the meaning of what I said. Please do not do this. I said what I meant and I meant it literally. If you do not understand what I wrote, that is one thing. But do not try and change what I said.

Let me see if I can put this another way. I will guess that almost everyone here that believes in man made climate change learned it in school. NOT any where else. And I will guess that almost everyone here that does not believe in man made climate change and those like myself that believe that man has very little to no effect on the climate was not taught this in school. See the difference in what I said compared to how you completely changed it around. I am making a comparison.

As far as what you said about religious schools you are making my point exactly. Most all of you who believe in man made climate change were brain washed this in school. JMHO 

Do you believe teaching evolution should take place in school?
Do you believe teaching the earth is round should take place in school?
What exactly do you think should be taught in schools/ what shouldn't?

Personally I think college was the only real place they taught climate change and that was an environmental studies course.

Do you believe teaching evolution should take place in school?
Do you believe teaching the earth is round should take place in school?
What exactly do you think should be taught in schools/ what shouldn't?

Personally I think college was the only real place they taught climate change and that was an environmental studies course.

If the schools are teaching that evolution is a man-made catastrophe that we must raise billions of dollars from tax payers and send to poor countries to help stop the Earth's destruction, then the WAY they are teaching it is wrong. 

Knowledge is great.  Using that knowledge to promote a theory as if it's the only possibility is wrong.

Do you believe teaching evolution should take place in school?
Do you believe teaching the earth is round should take place in school?
What exactly do you think should be taught in schools/ what shouldn't?

Personally I think college was the only real place they taught climate change and that was an environmental studies course.

Look I am a realist. I only believe we should teach evolution in school if we teach the truth. And that is there is a missing link that prevents science from being conclusive about evolution. At the same time I would expect the teacher to present the other argument that some believe God created the earth and man. This way the child can make up their own mind with guidance from their parents. I believe in the PTA and that teaching a child is a combined effort of teacher and parent. Parents should guide their child's learning based on their beliefs.

The earth is round, we know it. Teach it.

Without getting into specifics what I think we should teach is the truth. Fake news/science like man made climate change that has been politicized and is currently being taught in our schools for political reasons should never be taught. It is reckless and irresponsible and is brainwashing IMHO. I believe climate science (Not manmade) can be taught as long as they teach that there are 2 sides to the argument. The side that only has faith that man effects the climate because scientists cannot determine how much man actually does effect climate change and the side that realizes that without any ability to determine how much man actually effects the climate we cannot say for sure that man actually has any meaningful role in climate change. I just want the entire truth taught. Only teach one side and you are effectively attempting to mold the child's opinion.

As always JMHO.

Thus in the end I will find out when I die what happens.

If you believe that you have already made a belief decision.

Which school teaches the importance of the 2nd Amendment?

I mean, aside from shooting schools LOL

When I was in High School I took a political science class. We did debate the 2nd amendment in class. The problem was most of us had shot guns before so there was only one or two that were willing to debate against. It didn't end well for them. The thing I really appreciated about the teacher was he presented both sides always. So it was always interesting to understand what the other side thought about political subjects.

But getting back to your question. I can't say for sure but I would guess any school with an ROTC program might teach some importance about the 2nd amendment. I didn't take ROTC in my school. So I cant say for sure. Just a guess. Maybe someone who took ROTC can chime in.

When I was in High School I took a political science class. We did debate the 2nd amendment in class. The problem was most of us had shot guns before so there was only one or two that were willing to debate against. It didn't end well for them. The thing I really appreciated about the teacher was he presented both sides always. So it was always interesting to understand what the other side thought about political subjects.

But getting back to your question. I can't say for sure but I would guess any school with an ROTC program might teach some importance about the 2nd amendment. I didn't take ROTC in my school. So I cant say for sure. Just a guess. Maybe someone who took ROTC can chime in.

I was half being sarcastic, to address the earlier question that what we know comes from schools.

I was thinking that most modern schools would not teach 2A because pretty much all of them are liberal, due to their teachers all being trained liberal.

If you believe that you have already made a belief decision.

what?

I was half being sarcastic, to address the earlier question that what we know comes from schools.

I was thinking that most modern schools would not teach 2A because pretty much all of them are liberal, due to their teachers all being trained liberal.

Sorry, didn't catch the sarcasm.

I think you are right. Especially in the big cities and the east and west coasts.

I recall learning about the ozone layer, greenhouse gasses, etc.  I think it was in high school, but maybe not.  For frame of reference, I went to a public HS in the "country".  Well, at least that's what the townies called my HS since at one time apparently there used to be some sort of crops cultivated on the land where the house that I grew up in is. . .

2A?  While we probably went over that somewhere in school in the lessons on the Bill of Rights, I don't remember that being something on my radar until I moved back home and got more into guns.  I had been a firearm owner before then, but wasn't aware of 2a and the issues surrounding it like I am now. 

Punxsutawney Phil says 6 more weeks of winter : 100% PROOF GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL.

what?

Really?

You wrote:

Quote from: omnigun on February 01, 2017, 10:17:26 AM

    Thus in the end I will find out when I die what happens.

If you believe that upon termination of the biological functions of the ("your") body that some "I" is going to "find out" something, you've already adopted the belief in some kind of non-biologically-based form of consciousness (aka "religion"). Otherwise you would have to have written: I do not know. I'm "agnostic". If there is such a thing as "life after death" I, or some "soul" version of me, will become aware of that upon my death. If there isn't, I will never know that fact as an "agnostic" because there will be no "I" existent to perceive that it doesn't exist after death.

By the way, "atheist" doesn't mean: a person who believes they can prove the nonexistence of gods. That's absurd. No one can "prove" the nonexistence of anything. Just like you can't prove there isn't a three inch tall gorilla that appears freqeuntly two inches directly behind your head, but disappears when you  turn your head or get in front of any reflective surface. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "A-theist" mean "without" gods, i.e. a person who lives without any belief in any gods, just like your claimed "A-gnostic" doesn't mean that you claim knowledge doesn't exist and you can prove it, it means you live "without knowledge" of certain claims.

I'll toss another one out while I'm here: Do you claim to be "agnostic" about all of the thousands of gods, or only certain particular ones?

Really?

You wrote:

Quote from: omnigun on February 01, 2017, 10:17:26 AM

    Thus in the end I will find out when I die what happens.

If you believe that upon termination of the biological functions of the ("your") body that some "I" is going to "find out" something, you've already adopted the belief in some kind of non-biologically-based form of consciousness (aka "religion"). Otherwise you would have to have written: I do not know. I'm "agnostic". If there is such a thing as "life after death" I, or some "soul" version of me, will become aware of that upon my death. If there isn't, I will never know that fact as an "agnostic" because there will be no "I" existent to perceive that it doesn't exist after death.

By the way, "atheist" doesn't mean: a person who believes they can prove the nonexistence of gods. That's absurd. No one can "prove" the nonexistence of anything. Just like you can't prove there isn't a three inch tall gorilla that appears freqeuntly two inches directly behind your head, but disappears when you  turn your head or get in front of any reflective surface. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "A-theist" mean "without" gods, i.e. a person who lives without any belief in any gods, just like your claimed "A-gnostic" doesn't mean that you claim knowledge doesn't exist and you can prove it, it means you live "without knowledge" of certain claims.

I'll toss another one out while I'm here: Do you claim to be "agnostic" about all of the thousands of gods, or only certain particular ones?

Well, so much for this topic!!

So we will probably never agree on this subject. What I will say is that it is my opinion and my opinion only that the teaching of man made climate change is being done purposely in order to influence the minds of the children. Maybe I am wrong but I consider that brainwashing.

In doing all of my research I found that there is no proof that man has any effect on the climate at all. But I think I would be stupid to think that man can not have any effect at all on the climate. But to the extent that we actually have some control either way has not been proven. There are no scientific facts to back up that man has any appreciable effect. There is a lot of what some would call "facts" and what some call coincidences and what some call normal and natural changes in the climate over the last 50 years that the people who believe in man made climate change are willing to take that leap of faith to say that man is effecting the climate to such an extent that we have to change what we are doing. But again, there is a "missing link" that connects what is happening in our climate to what man is currently doing. To me, to teach something that you have to take a leap of faith for and try and convince them it is science is reckless and irresponsible. There is a purpose for doing this. It is for another topic as to why. Just suffice for me to say that based on my opinion and my opinion only this recklessness of teaching false science and intentional teaching of something where there is no absolute proof is the same as brainwashing. We need to teach facts not leaps of faith to our children. JMHO

Part of what destroyed it for me was the claims that there wasn't any global warming. A while back they denied that the earth was getting warmer despite proof. They eventually had to abandon this stance and took the stance that ok it was warming but that humans had no effect or that greenhouse gases from humans was negligible. Some now say that humans have effect but we don't know how much. Now I would agree that how much humans are effecting it is debatable but the initial claim that it wasn't warming was just denying hard facts. As I pointed out earlier we have idiot congressmen who think snow proves it isn't warming.

As for children in school, we have to decide whether we are going to influence them or not. To me it makes sense that schools are teaching out children to be concerned about the environment. Do you object to civics class, the pledge of allegiance, any hint of right or wrong? See the slippery slope?

I don't think they are teaching false science, I think they are teaching based on what most of the science says. So lets say we take the most responsible skeptical position, that we don't know how much humans are influencing the climate. Doesn't it make sense to teach children about our influence on the climate whether it ends up being 5% or 50% of climate change? Maybe some things need to be tweaked, maybe some teachers make it into too much of a scare the children type lesson, but overall I think they are on the right track. Having said that I don't know what they currently teach. I will have to follow my child's curriculum better, but she is only 7 so might be a while before the reach that subject.

Part of what destroyed it for me was the claims that there wasn't any global warming. A while back they denied that the earth was getting warmer despite proof. They eventually had to abandon this stance and took the stance that ok it was warming but that humans had no effect or that greenhouse gases from humans was negligible. Some now say that humans have effect but we don't know how much. Now I would agree that how much humans are effecting it is debatable but the initial claim that it wasn't warming was just denying hard facts. As I pointed out earlier we have idiot congressmen who think snow proves it isn't warming.

As for children in school, we have to decide whether we are going to influence them or not. To me it makes sense that schools are teaching out children to be concerned about the environment. Do you object to civics class, the pledge of allegiance, any hint of right or wrong? See the slippery slope?
hits us direct.
I don't think they are teaching false science, I think they are teaching based on what most of the science says. So lets say we take the most responsible skeptical position, that we don't know how much humans are influencing the climate. Doesn't it make sense to teach children about our influence on the climate whether it ends up being 5% or 50% of climate change? Maybe some things need to be tweaked, maybe some teachers make it into too much of a scare the children type lesson, but overall I think they are on the right track. Having said that I don't know what they currently teach. I will have to follow my child's curriculum better, but she is only 7 so might be a while before the reach that subject.

My Daughter is 42 years old.  I spent a lot of time and effort helping her to learn think critically.  It pretty much worked,
despite the best efforts of the school systems.  Keep an eye on all kids education.
As for teaching false science, no they do not do that, they teach politically correct science.  The biggest influence on earth's
environment is our star, the sun, and they don't have a clue what it is going to do day to day.
If you want to destroy your economy and give up your freedom to fix an insignificant problem then go ahead, but
don't take me and America's kids down with you. 
That star eight light minutes away from us, can wipe out most our modern electrical and electronic systems with
just one flare if it hits us directly,  It can happen, it is just a matter of when, not if. 
This Climate stuff is all about control and depriving you of liberty because Democrats know what is best for you.
After all you are so much safer having registered all your guns, that you had to get permission to buy.