If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I still fail to see what it all has to do with religious brainwashing and telling lies.
I agree that kids should be taught how to eat well, stay healthy and be given a sound skill set of food prep' skills. However, you've made a bad logical leap taking that to mean you could maintain a state of "perfect health", negating the need for hospital workers - that's just a bit silly.
If you were to draw parallels between this religious "museum" tour and teaching kids about health you'd have to have kids being taught that exclusively eating jars of mayonnaise was a healthy lifestyle choice.
C\'est la vie.
Regardless of what else wants to believe, those are undeniable, proven-beyond-doubt facts.
Therefore to tell children the world is only a few thousand years old or that the T-rex was a herbivore is nothing but brainwashing and lies.
And can't possibly be compared with taking children to see a hospital in action; or a factory, farm or anything else of such nature.
You're just plain wrong, i'm afraid. Teaching kids conclusions, taking Science or Maths as examples, which have been reached through evidence, critical thinking, testing and peer review, isn't the same as teaching kids pseudo-scientific clap-trap through the thin guise of a "museum".
Kids should be taught critical thinking and source evaluation skills at school. Absolutely.
I assume you know that the NUT recently voted against allowing army recruiters in schools for this very reason? And what "product" is this that the hospitals are selling? Presumably any product they are "selling" would be one based on facts and evidence, rather than a bunch of unfounded lies peddled by museums and zoos such as these (actually, I think that the first museum was a genuine one, and it was just the tour guide who makes a living out of lieing to children). I remember having a presentation in primary school about how to brush your teeth correctly. This is a presentation backed up by mountains of peer-reviewed, clinical evidence in the field of dentistry. If it was being run by Listerine, you might have a point. But the NHS has no interest in increasing its burden of future patients. State-funded educational trips should be trips based on the scientific facts available to us at any given time.
Care to back that up with examples of non-factual information being given to kids? But either way, you attitude seems to be "there's already a load of propaganda in schools, so these additional lies should be allowed." Well what a wonderful attitude. I'm sure the next generation of rocket scientists and brain surgeons will be educated with a policy like that. :rolleyes: If that is your attitude, then surely you should be against all forms of propaganda in schools?
I beg to differ. The burden of future patients is increasing all the time, and that is good business. That is what all enterprises desire.
I assume your presentation in primary school included brushing with fluoride toothpaste, which plenty of clinical evidence (WITHOUT a vested interest) has shown to be hazardous to your health. Then again, if you did keep your teeth in good shape that would be bad for the dentistry industry. I can understand why they would not inform you. They probably have bills to pay like everyone else.
Propaganda tends to work better along the lines of economy with the truth , rather than lies.
I do not care what propaganda schools put out. I have no control over (nor wish to have) the contents of products that others are peddling. My suggestion was that if someone does find a product agreeable then do not buy it. It seems to me to be somewhat of a waste of energy to attack.
Taking the kids to a hospital has nothing whatsoever to do with propaganda.
But lying to children during suppossedly science and history lessons with false religious claims certainly is.
As it happens many if not most schoolchildren already get plenty of religious propaganda- at RE lessons.
So there is no argument and no excuse whatsoever for lying to them and trying to pass out superstitions and claptrap as science.
You certainly appear to have a rather weird concept of what propaganda means.
Nope, they didn't specify a type of toothpaste. It was an instruction in how to brush effectively, not what to use. Of course, if you knew anything about insurance, you'd realise that they'd want as many paying customers who don't cash in on their dental plans with expensive surgery as possible, like any other form of insurance. Now again, if you want to point to any evidence for your conspiracy theories, I'm all ears. Until then, like the people who run this zoo, I'll treat your opinion as the rantings of a madman.
It would seem a basic teaching of any business course to show that repeat business is a major ingredient of success. Not many enterprises could survive without it. If you want evidence just look at any commercial activity. Repeat business is HIGHLY desirable.
(If you take the NHS as an example, their repeat business and growth is staggering. That is one hell of a business to be in. In the last decade alone their business has almost tripled).
Science education based on evidence is a vague term. (Then again, so is religious preaching). Quantum physicists have been at each other\'s throats for the past century arguing about what conclusions SHOULD be drawn from evidence gathered.
I doubt that you have evidence of any rantings on my part because there have not been any, so it could be argued that you are adopting faith ahead of the scientific method in the way you treat my opinions.
You also seem to be confusing two different industries: dentistry and insurance. I would agree that the purpose of the insurance business is to collect as high a premium as possible and to pay out as little as possible. They are very successful at that. The dentistry business is a whole different ball game.
The fact that you are willing to assert things without evidence is evidence in itself that you share the same sort of thought processes as people such as the ones running such institutions.
You pay your monthly fee, and if something goes wrong, the dentist will fix it for free. It's exactly the same as insurance, which is why it's called dental insurance.
The fact that you consider it a commercial enterprise is hilarious. Now if it was GlaxoSmithKline doing the hospital tours, you might have a point. But another important point is that even if you did have a tour of the GSK labs, it wouldn't actively be attempting to sabotage an existing school subject. If you had a maths-based tour to a facility that without evidence claimed that 2+2=5. Unless it's used as an example of bad science, and encourages children to see this, then it's a bad idea. And bear in mind that in the case of a lot of American children seen in the first clip, this will be the only thing that they will be taught. That not only destroys their education on the specific topic of education, but it destroys their education in the scientific process (which they use to judge all future scientific claims) because creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it does not follow the scientific method. It certainly has a place in schools as part of cultural and religious study, but to poison science classes with it ruins the education of children.
What have I asserted without evidence ?
What you have described IS the insurance industry. You have contracted with an insurance company, not with a dentist. It could be car insurance, for example. You do not contract with a body repair shop or mechanic. The insurance company contracts with them.(However the body repair shop or mechanic are hoping that there is much amiss with your car whereas the insurance company obviously wishes for the opposite).
What my considerations and your hilarity have to do with it, I do not know. The NHS was created sometime between Nov 1946 and July 1948 as a corporation doing business providing healthcare. The current turnover is in excess of 90 BILLION GBP, the corporation has more than 1.5 million contracted employees. It is one of the biggest corporations in the world, and business is booming by anyone\'s standards.
GSK will do whatever is in the best interests of the GSK corporate charter, in effect maximising shareholder return. But as I said earlier that is life. I am not criticising them for it, nor the NHS corporation. It is merely business.
(And that may be wise for any parent to consider as part of their child\'s education).
And who do you think the dentists work for? They provide dental services to the insurance companies. If the mechanic shops worked exclusively on the back of insurance company business (and a specific insurance company at that), then you would have a point. But that is the key difference between the two. And as such, dentists are under a huge incentive to avoid any expensive medical complaints among their patients.
You can draw all the parallels you want, but there is one huge difference between the two: the NHS has no aims of making a profit. I assume you would draw exactly the same parallels about the government in general. But the fact that none of the people actually running these "corporations" share your anarcho-capitalist view of the aim, mean that they aren't run with the aims of any other coorporation (profit for shareholders). Which is exactly why you can only point to the turnover of the NHS, and not the profits.
Corporation : an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. (from http://dictionary.reference.com )
National Health Service Act 1946.
Propaganda :information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. (from http://dictionary.reference.com )
I never attempted to justify anything, nor do I have any inclination to do so. I was merely reporting the facts, and somewhat curious as to why it made some angry. If other people's children are your concern, does that make you a crusader ? Maybe. If it is your own children then why allow them in an environment that you disagree vehemently with ?
The dentists work for anyone who will contract their services. It could be an insurance company. It could the NHS corporation. It could even be individuals.
It may have a corporate charter stating that, but if you study the small print, you will get words like surplus mentioned. I guess some see profit as a dirty (political) word.
And the surplus never goes into the pocket of the shareholders, like it does in private business. It always get invested in providing a better service. You can't swing this as a profit-making business, no matter how you care to write it. Incidentally, I haven't heard the word surplus being used in reference to the NHS for a hell of a long time. Even if the surplus was used in an area not related to the NHS, it would still be invested in some other area of service to taxpayers. Shell might claim they put a huge amount of their profits into new technologies, but even after that, there is still a profit for the owners. You cannot say that about the NHS orthe wider government. Unless you've been given your share of the government surplus recently?
I'm a teacher and I am VERY careful about how I teach RE so are all of the teachers I know. I never ever teach children that God is the truth and the bible only speaks of the truth in the same way that I don't tell them that they have to wear the five ks. Its very clearly set out in the curriculum that children should learn about religion objectively, I teach using the vocabulary of "Christians believe that....a b and c" or "Muslims believe in....". I don't know any teacher that doesnt do that. RE is a really inportant part of the curriculum as it encourages children to consider their own views and those of the people in their world. I never even discuss my own beliefs with my class because I don't want to encourage them to have the same beliefs as me just for the sake of it.
Its true that there are organisations that are keen to get propaganda into schools but there is no way I'd take children on a trip without checking the place out first. I have about 6 risk assessment forms to fill in for me to legally be allowed to take children out of school anyway, lol. I have known religious groups bring books into school that look harmless enough but on second glance they are full of religious teachings.
Even though I am against religious indoctrination of children, as things stand in this country at least we have a clear separation between science lessons and RE lessons. But some of the things that go on the US and the efforts of fundies here to infiltrate science, history and geology lessons here worry me greatly.