I think you missed something in my last comment. I edited it and highlighted a few lines in bold that you may not have seen. If you revisit them, it might help. I think there may have been a simple misunderstanding, and I tried to clear it up, but somehow that didn’t work.
If you don’t find that helpful, here is my response to your last comment.
I’ll take this one paragraph at a time:
- What you wrote, and I quote is: “Teachers should NOT have run a private fundraiser to pay for educational supplies.” So yes, you said that specifically that teachers should not do that. I already gave you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledged that it was probably a mistake, that you maybe meant to say they shouldn’t have TO raise money, not that they shouldn’t raise money. You can argue all you want, but you said what you said, and I already tried to help you correct the misunderstanding. You could just correct your original statement, and I could say, “oh I see what you meant now, it sounded like you were attacking this poor teacher,” and we could move on with our lives. Instead, we’re doing… whatever this is.
- I don’t know who you’re talking to here. I didn’t say anything about GMOs or make any claims about their safety or lack thereof. Again, I am not here making points, I’m responding to what YOU said in YOUR words. I do not have control of your side of this discussion. You responded to the comment about “anti-science movements” by saying “It’s not “anti-science” to question corporate greed.” I was responding to that. It sounds from your further comments that you believe that some people who question corporate greed are also anti-science, but not everyone who questions corporate greed are automatically anti-science. If so, great, we agree!
- I see here that I wasn’t clear, and I apologize. I wasn’t talking about politicians denying climate change. In the context of my discussion about the notion (which I have seen frequently espoused by people opposed to both GMOs and vaccines, but not ALL of them) that scientific papers and scientific consensus cannot be trusted because of some financial agenda. Some people (again, not all or even most) seem to really think that somehow all scientists are secretly and deliberately publishing fraudulent data to serve corporate or other interests. The climate change parallel I drew was to that specifically — our current president has claimed that the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and harmful is a deliberate ruse perpetuated with the sole aim of taking money from the US. The level of delusion required to think that ALL scientists everywhere (who don’t work for one company, live in one country, or agree on basically anything) are all somehow working together with the specific aim of financial gain is mind-boggling to me. I just mentioned climate change as the most obvious example where you can see powerful people openly repeating this “corrupted science” idea. And I never assumed you weren’t familiar with it, which is why I didn’t provide examples, I just said I *could* provide them if you doubted their existence, because I don’t know you, your life experience, your education, etc, so I wouldn’t presume to dictate what you could or should know. In short, I was trying to be polite, an effort that clearly failed, and I apologize for wasting both our time.
I really don’t think that we actually disagree very much, and I can assure you that the various assumptions you seem to be making about me are not correct. Hope this helps clear things up. Have a great evening!