Study shows detailed, compromising inferences can be readily made with metadata

[Read the post]


Sure, but on the other hand it will make it slightly easier for the State to harass people and groups I fear and hate. Plus, the searchlight will never fall on me, I’m certain.


Reminds me of a certain elegant demonstration of this same idea from three years ago.


Why else would they want it?


and metadata can be alleged to show…anything.
metadata can be alleged !
who will dispute ?
just like the baggie planted on the “suspect”

1 Like

Exactly. With this, I keep running into the same logic thread that I bump into when arguing with gun-fondlers. They make the statement “you can kill people just as effectively with knives, too, you know!” and my reply is “So, if knives are just as effective, then you wouldn’t have any problems with banning guns and switching to knives?”

Essentially, there’s something that offers additional capability and power in the weapon under discussion that renders it attractive and of use, regardless of the protests to the contrary.


Ask them if they support the constitutional right to bear knives and swords in public - they’ll think you’re crazy.


I have. It got entertaining, with the double standards and the special pleading and the unspoken biases…


I never understood why carrying a sword is banned in most states, but a semi-automatic is a-ok. Really puts a damper on certain Halloween costumes.

I can buy an authentic napoleonic infantry musket, but I can’t put the f’ing bayonet on it without dulling the blade because that would be too dangerous!


I would love to see logic and reasoning courses enter the curriculum in grade 9

Grade 9 is too late. Those courses should start in kindergarten.


Agree with the sentiment 100%, but many logical operations are simply unavailable to children of that age regardless of educational support.

It should be a foundational component of the whole system.

Good thinking skills - who would fight against that?

Well, yes. I’m not sure that a kindergartner could grasp, say, the subtleties of an ad hominem fallacy, but basic critical thinking (Mattel says that their toy is the most fun; Fisher Price says that theirs is the most fun; both can’t be right, so why are they saying it?) can be taught from a very young age.

I don’t remember which thread it’s in, but someone posted something earlier today saying that you should never underestimate the intelligence of children, and I agree.

1 Like

No, and we need to offer them a model to strive toward.

No more “because I said so”. Invite them to join us in a rational world.

1 Like

And which world would you be referring to?

Snark aside, I’ve recently rejoined Scouting as a Scouter, and, at least where I am, they’re in the middle of revamping the organization (IMO, for the better). They’re renaming the adults from “Leaders” to “Scouters” because the adults shouldn’t be leading: that should be the youths’ job. At younger ages, they’re going to need more guidance than the older youth will, but the goal is no longer to provide the youth with a program, but rather to provide the youth the tools to build their own program.

As a Scouter, I’m supposed to be there to keep the kids safe from injury and abuse, to provide instruction and advice when asked for, to give them the tools they need to create an enjoyable program for themselves, to help them learn from their failures and from their successes, and to be a good example of what kind of adult they can grow into if they want to.

If, when I have kids, I can live up to that standard as a parent, I think I’ll be doing a pretty good job.

1 Like


My snark-worthy comment was basically suggesting that we challenge the young to use critical thinking. Sounds like you’re already on it :slight_smile:

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.