Just ensuring proper categorization. No joking there.
Of course. We also need to avoid confusing disagreement with skeptical thinking.
OK. I see your point.
You mistake skepticism for being an unfounded lack of a real point of view that differs from yours.
disbelief in authoritative views, sometimes shrouded in claims of "Science" is a difficult position to take. If I adduce facts or expose problems with the authoritative claims, who the hell am I to question authority. You disallow non-establishment information or knowledge claiming it has to be peer-reviewed by established peer authority or you need not consider the information.
When I first encountered this issue in the 1960s, there was a book entitled "The New Brahmins" which I immediately understood on the basis of immediate examples within my own experience.
Government funding has corrupted Science and made a new State Religion bassackwards as the medieval clergy/kings who threw actual scientists in prisons as heretics.
Your whole system of facts is just a stinking pile of poop.
There, is that point of view different enough to challenge your orthodoxy?
I shouldn't have to be the one to challenge it point by point. You have a brain. You can take a new look at things if you want.
No belief or idea can be any better than the supporting observations/information/results/conclusions it is based on. Not even mine.
I consider the appropriation of any normative belief system into a government system requiring compliance the essence of tyranny. If the information or belief is well-founded, nothing more than education is needed. The governance should be light enough to leave it there.
The founders of the US had emerged from/fled from intense deadly religious wars, and found it necessary to agree that their government should not be empowered to impose religious beliefs or any establishment of religion. They lacked imagination to see science coming to be the tool of oppression. We need to get the government out of the belief compliance business.
No more propaganda, period.
You should advocate to privatize all education and let parents make the choice regarding how to educate the rising generation.
You won't be out of work. You just won't be abusing the children you teach with mind-numbing political propaganda.
Agenda wonks of all kinds need to reconsider their objectives, and conclude that education is OK if it is education, if it respects human rights to belief and choice and opportunity. Whatever merits a political agenda may have can be no better than the merits of the underlying beliefs and ideas. Pushing an agenda on another level of discussion is not good enough. If the cause is good, the methods need to be as good.