edumication fael

[Barothmuk]

Ah, purchasing power being the sole purpose and meaning compared to having and living with a family, what a foundation of a thriving culture i would say. No, what i am pontificating is in welcoming the family unit once more to be that which is essential, the cornerstone of society. A radical idea i know, but i am dreamer.

Quite radical. You want to purge 50% of the workforce and strip the economic power of 50% of the population.

 

And no, noting the value of said economic power is not reducing people's "purpose" or "meaning" to being their "purchasing power", rather its acknowledging the direct correlation of one's purchasing power with one's freedom in our society. Therefore by completely abolishing the purchasing power of half the population you have effectively halved the population's freedom.

 

But hey, at least some dumbass neet doesn't have to compete with the alleged "20% of guys" who are getting 100% of the women now that his good buddy the state is willing to play wingman.

 

After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically.

Yes, they worked as farmers, seamstresses, brewers, factory workers, midwives and so on. It's almost like, in Western society, they've always been a part of the workforce. Edited February 1, 2017 by Barothmuk

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A recent example is the argument over whether Intelligent Design should have been taught alongside Evolution in Texas public schools. The voters of Texas who pay the taxes wanted it. the Federal Government said no. Whether you agree with ID or not, it's still up to the voters how live in the school districts to say what or how their children are taught IMO.

 

Public education doesn't need to provide free market alternatives to scientific facts. The truth is not a commodity to be swapped out willy-nilly with whatever the consumer desires. If somebody really wants that sort of thing for their children, they can go to a private school.

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had?

Edited February 1, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

[Guard Dog]

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Looking at YOU aluminiumtrioxid!

 

But you are right about your other point. Somehow all our threads end up being derailed into the pros and cons of socialism. It does get tiring.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. 

 

Then either bring up a better example, or accept the fact that a lot of people aren't going to shed any tears over the big bad federal government not letting snake oil salesmen peddle their garbage at public schools.

[Meshugger]

 

Ah, purchasing power being the sole purpose and meaning compared to having and living with a family, what a foundation of a thriving culture i would say. No, what i am pontificating is in welcoming the family unit once more to be that which is essential, the cornerstone of society. A radical idea i know, but i am dreamer.

Quite radical. You want to purge 50% of the workforce and strip the economic power of 50% of the population.

 

And no, noting the value of said economic power is not reducing people's "purpose" or "meaning" to being their "purchasing power", rather its acknowledging the direct correlation of one's purchasing power with one's freedom in our society. Therefore by completely abolishing the purchasing power of half the population you have effectively halved the population's freedom.

 

But hey, at least some dumbass neet doesn't have to compete with the alleged "20% of guys" who are getting 100% of the women now that his good buddy the state is willing to play wingman.

 

After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically.

Yes, they worked as farmers, seamstresses, brewers, factory workers, midwives and so on. It's almost like, in Western society, they've always been a part of the workforce.

 

 

Ah, you're almost there. But you seem still to be confused about the point itself, which is that family is and should be prioritized before work force for a stable and growing society. As already mentioned, it is not about forbidding anyone from doing labor, it's about priority.

 

Treating purchasing power as freedom just shows how the problem cuts deeper, right into the philosophical realm (materialism).

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had?

 

I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family?

[213374U]

And that's how you save western civilization.

 

So, if being all about "saving women" makes one a White Knight, what does wanting to "save western civilization" make you? A Teutonic Knight? A Knight Templar?

 

#importantquestions

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had?

 

I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family?

 

 

Clearly your inability to understand what I meant must be the result of a lack of traditional upbringing and consequent failure of education.

[Meshugger]

 

Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact.

 

You version of marxism is a thought experiment conjured for chits & giggles when you live in affluence while the nuclear family has been proven to work since civilizations started to occur, it's simply reality. It has happened in cultures who has had no communication with each other and will continue to happen in the future, just as your ideas of breaking them up are (just look at Sparta or Plato's republic). It is rather you who should bring a strong case on why break something that already works and replace it with something else.

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

Where to start?

 

First of all, you should understand that not everyone who likes gender equality is a Marxist, and gender equality is nothing inherent to Marxism.

 

Now, your argument boils down to: "it has always been this way, why change a running system, everything else would be worse anyway."

 

You see, there are problems with this mindset.

 

The rules of the systems we create are just that: they are created, not given. And because we created them, we can change them, thus far the theory.

Now, of course there is truth to that... There are countless examples of how the people radically changed the society they lived in. They did so whenever they realised that the system they lived under was inherently unfair and/or oppressive, and they seemed to resolve these issues.

 

We saw this with the feudal system: its unfairness and the oppression seems obvious to us now, it created a society in which most people were essentially slaves. And in retrospective, we'd all agree on how problematic such a society is. Yet it lasted for centuries. So, how could. It sustain itself for such a long time without triggering rightful outrage and anger?

The answer really is quite simple: systems have a tendency to be all consuming, meaning that they affect every part of the people's lives. If that happens, the people lack the basis to recognise the problems a society has, and thus never seek to change it in the first place.

 

In the high times of feudalism, we can see this in th close tie between the feudal society and Christianity: the system gave everyone a fixed spot in society, and the church teached everyone to be happy and with that spot. Because Christianity was such a central part of life, very few would ever come to question the system they live under. Your argument, "it has always been like this and it works" is the only mindset people can develop under conditions in which the system they live under consumed everything INCLUDING culture. In the case of feudalism, it wasn't until the faith in the church crumbled that people started to question the system they lived under.

 

What I'm trying to show here is that the argument of tradition isn't an argument at all. Rather, it is the very limitation that stops us from having actual discussion.

 

 

 

So, let's move on to actual arguments, shall we?

 

You bring up the successful separation of genders in older societies. I say that argument is completely useless for two reasons: firstly, we do not know how these societies would've been had the genders been judged equally, and secondly those societies are so radically different from ours that an examination of their ideology may be interesting for an historian, but it will help us very little if we wish to understand OUR world. So let's look at today's society, shall we?

 

What does our society promise? That all men are created equal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Liberté, égalité et fraternité?

 

Whatever it is, most people would agree that freedom is a central promise of our society. Freedom, and freedom for all.

 

Here's the thing about freedom: freedom requires equality. If we are not equal, those who have more worth will always seek to oppress those with less.

In theory, we already understood this as self evident.

 

Compare our laws to that of a feudal society. While the feudal society judged the individual's worth (his freedom, his value before court,...) by his place in society (a noble would always be worth more than a peasant), we hold everyone to be endowed to the same rights, and every voice to be equally valuable before court.

 

But while our legal equality is at an all time high, our practical equality is at an all time low. A noble and a peasant had much more equal lives than a billionaire and a beggar. These vast differences steal what we hold so precious: our freedom. And we must fight these differences until we are truly free.

 

So, if you tell me that "Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact", I say that you are mistaken. Hierarchy is our reality, yes, but hierarchy is not a fact as in an unchangeable fact of life.

 

Your view is corrupted, your system broken, your society failed.

Hierarchy is not a fact, hierarchy is man made, and we can change it. But as long as you defend the hierarchy that costs us all our freedom, nothing will change.

 

So tell me, Meshugger, what arguments aside from "it's always been this way, it has been this way for a reason, that's just how it works" do you have? What rational reason can you give me as to why a woman should be worth less than a man, why a woman shouldn't be able to decide over her own fait.

The truth is, there is non. No argument that isn't tradition or one of its forms. So instead of telling me that mothers should look after the children "because that's what they should do", I recommend you take a very close look at your own set of values and start to solve the contradiction between freedom and a hierarchical society.

 

 

No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed.

 

It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.   

[Meshugger]

 

And that's how you save western civilization.

 

So, if being all about "saving women" makes one a White Knight, what does wanting to "save western civilization" make you? A Teutonic Knight? A Knight Templar?

 

#importantquestions

 

 

I am the guy who likes to argue. It's fun.

 

 

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had?

 

I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family?

 

 

Clearly your inability to understand what I meant must be the result of a lack of traditional upbringing and consequent failure of education.

 

 

Tee-hee, feisty.

[213374U]

No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed.

 

It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.

Hmm, not buying it. The gravitational constant expressed in Planck units (1) is "reality". The nuclear family is, perhaps, and at most, an evolutionarily stable strategy. Meaning, subject to change as (socioeconomic) conditions change, and it is no longer inherently disadvantageous to adopt other approaches. Society will be destroyed only when people are destroyed. We are gregarious beings. Change does not imply destruction in absolute terms, even if the process is sometimes destructive.

 

Here's the thing: men and men have simply different interests at heart. Male nurses, ever heard of them?

 

And the "winner takes all" explanation wrt human mating is... incredibly simplistic. You mean only the CEOs and MVPs are getting some? If it's so simple, why don't you just find uglier friends?

[Amentep]

 

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Looking at YOU aluminiumtrioxid!

 

But you are right about your other point. Somehow all our threads end up being derailed into the pros and cons of socialism. It does get tiring.

 

 

While I understand your point regarding the Federal government, it was pretty messed up (IMO) to have the content of education be up for a popular vote in the first place.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Thanks. So in this case, your point is that state run schools have proven able to take on good ideas and stay on top of the latest education strategies, while federal involvement hasn't done much for actual teaching quality since it got hands dirty in the 70s? It's good to get the specific reasons, because they are certainly more substantial than a blanket wish for local government in any subject.

 

That plus the expansion of Federal Government control over what is or isn't taught in schools means a total loss of local and state control. If there is something your local government is doing that you don't like or want to see done better it is easy to reach out to the people who can make a change. If the Federal Government is doing something you don't like, tough luck. A recent example is the argument over whether Intelligent Design should have been taught alongside Evolution in Texas public schools. The voters of Texas who pay the taxes wanted it. the Federal Government said no. Whether you agree with ID or not, it's still up to the voters how live in the school districts to say what or how their children are taught IMO. That is lost once Big Brother is involved.

 

Do you have a link to that? I have a hard time believing we let feds tell us what to teach. Not that I support teaching ID.

 

 

 

You can name a communist state without cult of personality?

Of course.

 

Since a state can't be communist by definition, I'll refer to socialist states. I will also only imclude states that have socialism in their constitution up until today, and I will site the part of the constitution I'm referring to. I'll also include their form of government.

 

I didn't ask you about socialism, I asked you about states commonly referred to as "communist" not for your own definition. The rest of your post is complete bullcrap as usual.

[Hurlshort]

Actually Texas has made it illegal to teach some of the Federally mandated curriculum, like Common Core. But then again, they adopted new standards that are very similar. I don't know, Texas is pretty crazy when it comes to education. But none of this matters all that much, because content is nowhere near as important as skill development, which thankfully no one political pays that close attention to and any decent teacher knows that should be the primary focus of education.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Looking at YOU aluminiumtrioxid!

 

But you are right about your other point. Somehow all our threads end up being derailed into the pros and cons of socialism. It does get tiring.

 

 

While I understand your point regarding the Federal government, it was pretty messed up (IMO) to have the content of education be up for a popular vote in the first place.

 

That wasn't really how it worked. Texas has a commission of the State Government that reviews text books and other class material. It works with local school boards and other groups to approve what is taught and used. One of the books included ID as a subject to be discussed in addition to evolution. Not to exclude it it. The federal government wen high and to the right over that and threatened to withhold funding if the material was used.  That money was tax dollars collected from Texas taxpayers. Now THAT is intrusion.

 

You know come to that I remember a similar row, I think it was also in Texas (not sure) about how State history was being taught. In that instance too the Federal Government intervened in a very heavy handed way.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Actually Texas has made it illegal to teach some of the Federally mandated curriculum, like Common Core. But then again, they adopted new standards that are very similar. I don't know, Texas is pretty crazy when it comes to education. But none of this matters all that much, because content is nowhere near as important as skill development, which thankfully no one political pays that close attention to and any decent teacher knows that should be the primary focus of education.

I had a teacher in 10th grade that I credit to this day for kindling a love of history that I still have today. His class emphasized critical thinking over rote memorization. It was a European History class and he focused his entire lesson plans on cause and effect rather than facts and dates. And I was fascinated. Of course back in those days teachers had a lot more latitude that I expect you do now.

[Hurlshort]

 

Let's clear up some terminology here... what do you think "communism" is?

 

 

A Utopian ideal that young people tend to cling to?

[Malcador]

The best government system in Civ 2?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Let's clear up some terminology here... what do you think "communism" is?

 

 

A Utopian ideal that young people tend to cling to?

 

[Guard Dog]

Yes yes communism is an unrealistic utopia, but so is capitalism, so what is defining for communism?

Mass graves? Draconian prison sentences for speaking out? Labor camps? Should I go on?

[Hurlshort]

 

I had a teacher in 10th grade that I credit to this day for kindling a love of history that I still have today. His class emphasized critical thinking over rote memorization. It was a European History class and he focused his entire lesson plans on cause and effect rather than facts and dates. And I was fascinated. Of course back in those days teachers had a lot more latitude that I expect you do now.

 

 

I have that same latitude and that is the way I run my classroom. I'm telling you, the classroom experience and the job of the teacher has not changed that much in the last century. Good teachers are going to ignore all the noise that parents, politicians, and administrators throw around, and good students are going to take advantage of those lessons. 

 

Although let me clarify when I say good teacher. This isn't a simple label. Almost every teacher is going to have good days, students they connect with, moments of inspiration that capture the imagination. As you gain experience you can collect those moments and hopefully recapture them regularly. But at the same time every teacher will also have bad days, students who hate them, and lessons that flop. A good teacher to me is the one that can ride out the storms, stay enthusiastic, tune in for the students and tune out the bad stuff. 

 

The teachers in Texas and the teachers in California are all fundamentally the same.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Amentep]

 

 

 

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Looking at YOU aluminiumtrioxid!

 

But you are right about your other point. Somehow all our threads end up being derailed into the pros and cons of socialism. It does get tiring.

 

 

While I understand your point regarding the Federal government, it was pretty messed up (IMO) to have the content of education be up for a popular vote in the first place.

 

That wasn't really how it worked. Texas has a commission of the State Government that reviews text books and other class material. It works with local school boards and other groups to approve what is taught and used. One of the books included ID as a subject to be discussed in addition to evolution. Not to exclude it it. The federal government wen high and to the right over that and threatened to withhold funding if the material was used.  That money was tax dollars collected from Texas taxpayers. Now THAT is intrusion.

 

You know come to that I remember a similar row, I think it was also in Texas (not sure) about how State history was being taught. In that instance too the Federal Government intervened in a very heavy handed way.

 

 

Okay, I rolled with your description even though I couldn't find an instance of a popular vote in Texas on the topic.  Regarding withholding funding that's the lasso the national government uses (if you don't adopt this thing, you don't get this funding).  Comes up here every few years when people argue the state is 'losing' money by not requiring farmers to buckle up when they're in their pickups and farm equipment because there's certain federal funds the state doesn't get by not passing that law as a requirement (which they don't do because the farmers believe it'll add extra time to their work schedules, etc).  Of course its not really 'losing' money if you never had it to begin with.

 

Anyhow, the federal dollars withheld wouldn't have been exclusively collected from Texas, would it?

 

Changes that happen with Texas and California text books tend to be popular national topics because, generally speaking, the text book companies, to maximize profits, tailor books to the standard of one of those two states and all the other states have to pick which one they'd rather have.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

India and all these countries are socialist

I think KP is going to have an aneurysm.

Arguing with Bruce and socdems has immunized me.

[Meshugger]

 

No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed.

 

It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.

Hmm, not buying it. The gravitational constant expressed in Planck units (1) is "reality". The nuclear family is, perhaps, and at most, an evolutionarily stable strategy. Meaning, subject to change as (socioeconomic) conditions change, and it is no longer inherently disadvantageous to adopt other approaches. Society will be destroyed only when people are destroyed. We are gregarious beings. Change does not imply destruction in absolute terms, even if the process is sometimes destructive.

 

Here's the thing: men and men have simply different interests at heart. Male nurses, ever heard of them?

 

And the "winner takes all" explanation wrt human mating is... incredibly simplistic. You mean only the CEOs and MVPs are getting some? If it's so simple, why don't you just find uglier friends?

 

 

Nah, looks will do silch alone. More like people on  top of hierarchies have more oppurtunities opened up for them than for others. People like winners in general after all. It's not a rigid if-else scenario. As for exceptions from the norm, that's what makes makes life so fun and unpredictable, much to the worries of all these busybodies who try plan society like a game of civilization.

 

 

 

So tell me, Meshugger, what arguments aside from "it's always been this way, it has been this way for a reason, that's just how it works" do you have? What rational reason can you give me as to why a woman should be worth less than a man, why a woman shouldn't be able to decide over her own fait.

 

No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed.

 

It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.

Did I just write half an essay on why the argument "that's just a way it is" is both false and worthless just so you responded basically saying "that's just the way it is"?

 

 

We aren't even equal in length of text, let that be a lesson for you.

 

Joking aside, i made the argument that no one is less worth as a human being in themselves compared to another, followed how human societies work in reality. My point had little to do with wealth accumulation, which you seemed to have missed.

 

I have derailed this long enough. Back to debating within the system of productivity, consumerism and the distributions of these, as that seems to be more essential for human progress for most of you guys. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Meshugger

[Wrath of Dagon]

Calling states socialism because they refer to themselves as socialist is wrong?

 

Alright, let's see... we agree that Lenin was a communist? Lenin didn't care about persona cult.

 

The Problem is that you think communism=dictatorship, and almost all dictatorships rely on personality cult. So the comparison would be, according to your rules, quite unfair.

 

Let's clear up some terminology here... what do you think "communism" is?

You implied because NK is a cult of personality dictatorship, it's not communist. I pointed out that all communist countries are cult of personality dictatorships. They're commonly referred to as "communist" because they are ruled by the communist party, not because they actually achieved communism. No state could call itself "communist" because there are no states under communism.