MSP

Again I will say, its about filtering content, not about the technology of delivery

But you would be dead wrong.

Actually the point made in the book is not about content. It is about delivery. It is the very act of being sat in front of a screen, the 2D nature of what is being seen and the way that screen based images are cut together so jump from one image to another without the infant being able to grasp the context.

Read the book.

Actually the more famous pre-cursor to this book (which I’ve not read but apparently made similar points – purely about TV) is The Plug-In Drug which was written about 25 years ago.

Oh and forget meccano, it falls apart because they were too cheap to use nyloc nuts. Get Knex instead – far more fun.

I think you’ll find it was because nyloc nuts weren’t available at the turn of the last century.

We’ve got Knex, and Lego – but we want to build things like this:

You said “Plenty of scientific research to back up the claims” so I’d like some citations.

Why, do you collect them? Are you actually going to go away and read the original papers, and in turn follow their citations?

Listen, I have no axe to grind, I just try and do the best for my kids. I read the book and found it compelling. I even gave you a link to it on Amazon where you can “look inside”

I don’t think that a lot of screen time will turn your kids into drooling vegetables, but it might move them from above average to average, or from average to slightly dim. It’s not middle-class angst it’s a real phenomenon to which I have given you a pointer. I’m not going to go through the whole bloody thing chapter by chapter.

Source?

The book you asked me to summarise you nitwit.

The OP was talking about 6 year olds not infants.

QED – you do not have the attention span to be able to read and understand my three sentence long post.

Any sort of screen based entertainment is very bad for young people. Kids under two should have zero exposure. Plenty of scientific research to back up the claims.

You should encourage your kids to spend as much time immersed in technology as possible, it will give them a massive advantage over the kids who aren’t technologically literate in the same way that we have a divide between the technology “haves” and “have nots” today.

Wrong.

It will give them the attention span of goldfish.

Here you go. Buy a copy of this book for £3.75 and find out for yourself.

A year or two ago my (now 7 year old) daughter dropped into a conversation that she really wanted a “DS”

“Do you know what a DS is?” I said.

“No”

Needless to say she has not got and won’t be getting a DS.

By coincidence I just went to collect something I bought from the local auction yesterday for £15 – it will be one of my son’s Christmas presents:

A few thousand bits of Meccano!

Had you thought about Playmobile instead?

Has anyone mentioned the missing apostrophe yet?

bullies normally target the different kids, don’t they?

Are you suggesting that the answer to bullying is for the victims to try harder to fit in?

mashie

My thoughts are just that – balanced growth (2% if you want hard numbers), keeping close tabs on inflation and employment.

However, my last two paras looked to the future, natural resources and inflation linked to increase in costs associated with humna consumption of natural resources. Those are my thoughts.

I’m glad you’ve got some awareness of the physical limits that we face BUT, I think that your simultaneous beliefs that we can have 2% GDP growth and a sustainable future are out of whack.

Firstly, one of the reasons that I don’t like to see GDP as a measure of progress is that it makes no judgement about the value of goods and services EXCEPT in financial terms. So the building of sea defences to mitigate climate change is viewed as a +ve thing. As is all packaging. As is the production of virtually disposable electronics gadgets that get replaced every year . As is tobacco production. etc etc.

But secondly, GDP growth expressed as a % is an exponential function (this maybe what THM was on about with his logarithmic scale question above)

If you are worried that we may be approaching (or over) some of the physical limits of our planet (maybe fish, timber, clean water etc etc. are already being used faster than they can be replaced.) Then perhaps you’d like to hazard a guess at how long it will be before a 2% growth rate will take to DOUBLE our GDP (and presumably DOUBLE, or near double our DEMAND on some of these already scarce resources)?

Please make it stop now.

That sounds like some sort of prayer.

divisive- unless everyone at that school follows the same religion those who don’t will be excluded / made to feel different

indoctrinating – teaching children that myths are true – of course its indoctrination.

TJ – prepare for a shock…

… everyone IS different.

Being different in itself is not a bad thing. Schools are used to dealing with difference – they can handle it.

(But BTW, the point you make seems to suggest that you are more concerned about the kids who are not religious? Maybe it should be compulsory, so that everyone does feel included?)

As per my previous post – my daughter goes to a church group to sing once a month – you know what, it’s the singing and the meeting of her friends that she likes, not the feeling of being one of Jesus’ little soldiers.

As for the indoctrination stuff, I’m sure that even my daughter, who actually goes to church from time to time and goes to a Christian VA school hears more stories about fairies presented as fact than she does about Jesus Christ.

what you describe is divisive and indoctrinating

Tell that to my daughter, she likes going to Angel Voices, meeting her friends and singing.

She also thinks the vicar is cool.

Not sure how she feels about God though.

BTW – you’re hysterical (and I don’t mean funny)

like slavery and the abuse of indigenous people

In one sense (the sense that indeed they are part of our history and culture), yes.

TurnerGuy

Favouring any particular religion, including singing hymns, has no place in schools

More silly hysteria.

At the level of understanding of primary school kids, Christianity (or what ever other religion is being taught) is just a vehicle for getting over a few basic lessons in morals + learning a few songs + getting a little bit of a grounding in an important part of our history and culture.

“If you deny the existence of all the others, doesn’t that make you just one god away from being an atheist?”

not sure what your point is?

It might be that Christians don’t have a very well developed sense of humour.

I thought it was funny, but then I’m an athiest.

Out of interest, do the authors show any graphs that use a logrithmic scale? I am naturally suspicious of “growth” charts that miss this point.

What point?

economics can lift the debate away from mere dogma/stupidity

When is this likely to happen?

THM,

The chronology of the BBC stories wasn’t my point (have you actually managed to follow any of my points so far?) Go back and read the post that I started this thread with. What surprised me wasn’t that they covered the story, but the prominence they gave it given the other things that were happening in the world.

Not sure about your next bit though:

…economics gives us tools to answer the questions that you and others raise. Frustratingly though, it doesn’t give us the answers.

So have I got this straight? economics gives us tools to answer the questions, but doesn’t give us the answers?

In the spirit of a shared quest for knowledge though, I’ll read your book if you read mine? Limits to Growth, the 30 Year Update. by Meadows, Randers, Meadows – possibly the most important book for people locked into the belief that past performance of the economy can be sustained into the future.

Like the quote though:

“No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in society. But is does not follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with them. The basic structure of society can be arrange so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate.”

Is the next sentence… “By taxing the f***ers!”

Just got to make the kids’ tea. I’ll be back.

mashie,

I am genuinely interested in what you think. But just cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion, without even attributing it isn’t very interesting. If I wanted to know what some random economists think then I could just stick to Googling and not hang around forums.

I only asked what you thought GDP should be because you said:

We need to boost Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

I was kind of expecting you to have some sort of figure in mind.

With the increase in secularism and an increase in people not indoctrinating their children into faith

Which country are we talking about now then?

The ‘nutters’ in the non-religious population are subject to the same laws as everyone else, the difference being that they do not claim to be following the word of any god

But you were saying that it is their religion that drives them to do “evil” things.

If there are the same proportion of people in the religious and non-religious populations doing “evil” things, then it seems unlikely that religion is the cause.

THM,

That article in itself seems reasonably balanced, but it hardly balances the two headline news articles.

mashie,

nice bit of cutting and pasting, but I asked what you think. Did you not have anything in mind until you found those first couple of paras?

So, awkward question time for theists; how do you deal with religious fundamentalism, the people who actually follow the teachings and laws of a religion to the letter?

There aren’t that many of them. Probably only a similar proportion to the proportion of nutters in the non-religious population. How do you deal with them?

That’s fine, until the logical extension becomes kill the unbeliever because the man who knows about God said so…

That’s not a logical extension. That’s you scaremongering. I don’t think that most of the despots of history who promoted genocide were particularly driven by religion. Some of them might have used that as an excuse, but generally speaking people go to war with people of other races, not people of other religions. It’s not the same thing.

I sense an implied criticism.

OK then, lets look at GDP.

What do you think would be the ideal rate of growth of GDP?

mashie,

I think you have neatly summed up the exact opposite of my POV.

They may not be any happier – that’s true, but I think that’s a point in support of my view, not yours.

Having lots of money in some cases gives one group of people power over others. I think that’s wrong. That doesn’t mean I think there should be a free for all, but I don’t think the amount of cash one has is a very good measure of the amount of influence you should have. That’s one reason that I’d like to see a more even distribution of cash than we currently have.

Personally I’m not terribly driven by money and I’m not particularly after any more for myself, but I do see the hugely corrosive effects that the profligacy of the super rich has on society, particularly amongst those at the less financially well off end of the spectrum who are also sucked in by consumerism.

If you are a person of faith you are culpable to an extent in all of the activities of the faithful bad and good, no matter how limited your involvement in organised faith. By accepting god you are part of the god squad as a whole.

Silly.

If you are a football supporter you are culpable of any football hooliganism?

If you ride a bike you are culpable of red light jumping?

If you have a child you are culpable of playground bullying?

If you vote you are culpable of supporting the system that makes possible the BNP?

THM

I think ultimately we all have the same objective – higher economic growth

No, we don’t.

I don’t want higher economic growth, because I realise that we live on a finite planet.

I know you won’t agree with my point of view, but you seem to have a fundamental inability to grasp this idea even as concept.

GDP as a measurement of progress is a busted flush.

But, all other things being equal, taxation and government spending have a neutral effect on aggregate demand.

Again, you seem to be unable to think in anything other than economic terms. The most important aspect of Government spending isn’t whether or not it creates “demand”, it’s whether people get educated, made well, stopped from starving/rioting etc.

I scratch built my last kitchen and I’m absolutely positive that starting with something second hand would be easier than that. But even if I had to buy some bits new, or buy 2 kitchens and knock them into one it will still be miles cheaper than buying new.

You are correct re’ the high level cabinets. We don’t need them and think the kitchen will look better without them.

Here’s the last kitchen (also without high level cabinets)

BTW, I’m planning on buying my kitchen from ebay.

They seem to be almost free, and even kitchens that are only a few years old and which cost tens of £000’s regularly come up for just a few £00

Whoops.

Here’s my proposed kitchen – ideas/comments wlecome.

Door in long wall is to the outside.

Door in short wall is to dining area.

Fridge is the drawer type unit by the dishwasher/sink.

We’re just about to have our kitchen severely knocked about, aftger which I’ll fit it out. Been messing about with Google Sketchup which is a brilliant free tool for 3D modelling and visualisation – very easy to use.

Anyone see any pitfalls in my design BTW?

Door in long wall is to the outside.

Door in short wall is to dining area.

Fridge is the drawer type unit by the dishwasher/sink.

Putting downlighters in the ceiling below a roof also generally V bad as it means cutting through whatever insulation you’ve got there.

I guess many adopt the concept as ‘security blanket’ due to the stress in life. There might be Abrahamic gods but then to elevate them to one single concept of a creator god I think is simply adding more complication to life.

Surely making life much simpler?

Personally I have no difficulty at all with the “What’s it all for? Why are we here?” kind of question. I’m perfectly content just not thinking about it. My other “insight” into the whole God thing comes in the form of a question – “Why would God have bothered?” – Answer “He wouldn’t” – QED – No God.

However, in my adolescence I thought about that sort of thing quite a lot and found it depressing. So if you’re the sort of person who does dwell on that sort of question then I think that believing in God is quite a handy fix that may well be what you need to let you get on with the rest of your life.