EPT$15 minimum wage passed in Seattle... pretty awesome. Though I know I'll probably get flamed by capitalists for saying so lol.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/seattle-approves-countrys-highest-minimum-wage-15-n120511
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1085
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
$15 minimum wage passed in Seattle... pretty awesome. Though I know I'll probably get flamed by capitalists for saying so lol. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/seattle-approves-countrys-highest-minimum-wage-15-n120511 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2014 08:58 Nyxisto wrote: So why is it okay to lock people up in prison then if they commit a crime? After all that would impair someones individual freedom just for the benefit of society? And why don't have children freedom? Many extreme religious communities and families in the US seem to be run by males that rule over their children in patriarchal and totalitarian fashion. Why is that an okay form of totalitarianism? Because it's religious? Edit: the ideology behind your argumentation is ridiculous. Every single action of the state is a trade-off between individual interests and the interests of society. By denying the state the right to interfere with personal freedom means to deny the state the right to exist at all. It's anarcho nonsense. Do yourself a favor and read Yoder v. Wisconsin. You clearly don't understand issues or the argument. | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1935 Posts
On June 03 2014 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote: Or maybe this is an example of a totalitarian government infringing on the traditional parent child relationship too? Is this bad form too? Source That's horrifying, but please keep in mind the scale of the problem you're dealing with vs the scale of the solution. Parents letting kids die due to absurd beliefs is (should be?) certainly criminal, but how does your plan even solve that case? That child wasn't even in school yet. That's not indoctrination, simply child abuse. and holy crap at the person who managed to joke like white privilege isn't a real thing and in the same sentence describe black people and wealthy people as two separate groups. We may not have public lynchings but we are definitely still dealing with racism and generations worth of systematic oppression. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 03 2014 09:32 xDaunt wrote: Do yourself a favor and read Yoder v. Wisconsin. You clearly don't understand issues or the argument. So what exactly is your point? How I understand it they based their decision on two things. 1. "Because the law says so". Which isn't really an argument in itself, but just interpretation of the law, which I never disputed. and 2. "Because they can function well in the Amish society". Which is true, but the important part is, they won't be able to live outside their weird community. Kids growing up in these groups will never have a realistic chance of leaving the community. What has that to do with individual freedom? If these Amish kids had a highschool degree they still could choose to stay in their community if they wanted. No one forces them out. The only real reason religious people are opposing compulsory secondary education is that they know exactly that their communities would dwindle away if they don't have the chance to indoctrinate their children from an early age on. You also failed to address the points of my last post. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 03 2014 09:55 Nyxisto wrote: So what exactly is your point? How I understand it they based their decision on two things. 1. "Because the law says so". Which isn't really an argument in itself, but just interpretation of the law, which I never disputed. and 2. "Because they can function well in the Amish society". Which is true, but the important part is, they won't be able to live outside their weird community. Kids growing up in these groups will never have a realistic chance of leaving the community. What has that to do with individual freedom? If these Amish kids had a highschool degree they still could choose to stay in their community if they wanted. No one forces them out. The only real reason religious people are opposing compulsory secondary education is that they know exactly that their communities would dwindle away if they don't have the chance to indoctrinate their children from an early age on. You also failed to address the points of my last post. I guess you haven't seen the hit reality tv show, "Breaking Amish" on TLC. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:08 screamingpalm wrote: The alternative being, sending kids to be indoctrinated in the corporate culture of secondary education? Who is meant to determine what is weird? Six one, half dozen the other if you ask me. have I now angered the Amish subculture of teamliquid? I take it back, living like 17th century farmers is totally normal,you have opened my eyes! ...Are you serious? | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:11 Nyxisto wrote: have I now angered the Amish subculture of teamliquid? I take it back, living like 17th century farmers is totally normal,you have opened my eyes! ...Are you serious? I'm sure it is quite normal for some, who am I to judge? Personally, I try to live as modestly and as far off the grid as I possibly can. It takes a lot of courage and willpower, and much more than I can muster, but yes, there are people who are quite happy to live free from the contraptions of society. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:11 Nyxisto wrote: have I now angered the Amish subculture of teamliquid? I take it back, living like 17th century farmers is totally normal,you have opened my eyes! ...Are you serious? Yeah the only alternative to the meat factory that is our secondary and university system is 17th century farming with iron plows and oxen. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:15 screamingpalm wrote: I'm sure it is quite normal for some, who am I to judge? Personally, I try to live as modestly and as far off the grid as I possibly can. It takes a lot of courage and willpower, and much more than I can muster, but yes, there are people who are quite happy to live free from the contraptions of society. yeah sure, and to come back to the topic of compulsory education, why would it be impossible to live such a life if you have a basic education that also would give you the option to choose otherwise? | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:22 Nyxisto wrote: yeah sure, and to come back to the topic of compulsory education, why would it be impossible to live such a life if you have a basic education that also would give you the option to choose otherwise? Some cultures compare corporate society to addiction. This is evident in some Native American beliefs as well- the Tiyoshpaye Way of the Lakota tribes, for example. I believe it is instinctual for a parent to look out for their child's best interest, whether one believes it to be misguided or not. It would be like feeding heroin to your kids in a way. Compulsory education guarantees nothing after all. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Certainly some people think they're looking out for their child while they commit seriously abusive acts. One use of compulsory education is a monitoring tool. It makes sure other people are in contact with the child from outside their family that can look for signs of abuse. Of course the family can also look for signs of abuse coming from outside. The point being that a child that doesn't go out regularly may have no outside monitoring, so if the parents are abusive, there's no one to notice/report it because no one sees enough of the child. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2014 09:55 Nyxisto wrote: So what exactly is your point? How I understand it they based their decision on two things. 1. "Because the law says so". Which isn't really an argument in itself, but just interpretation of the law, which I never disputed. and 2. "Because they can function well in the Amish society". Which is true, but the important part is, they won't be able to live outside their weird community. Kids growing up in these groups will never have a realistic chance of leaving the community. What has that to do with individual freedom? If these Amish kids had a highschool degree they still could choose to stay in their community if they wanted. No one forces them out. The only real reason religious people are opposing compulsory secondary education is that they know exactly that their communities would dwindle away if they don't have the chance to indoctrinate their children from an early age on. You also failed to address the points of my last post. I ignored your last post because it's not germane to the argument. I'm not interested in rehashing out social contract theory. Here's the key point from Yoder: Thus, a State's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, 'prepare [them] for additional obligations. I left out "religious" because -- and this is clear in the rest of the jurisprudence -- the parental interest in upbringing their children clearly isn't limited to matters of religion. The family is the nuclear unit of society, and in general, the state should not be interfering with its function unless it has a compelling reason. The competing state interest is in ensuring that the children become productive members of society. Obviously, the Amish present the extreme case, but the framework is the same. Looking at the case of the religious right, you simply can't fairly say that their children are unproductive members of society. They may be misguided. They may be wrong. But they are still good citizens. There is no compelling state reason to interfere with it. Just bigotry. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Allowing parents to keep their children away from even that very basic amount of education (I'm not talking about homeschoolers here which actually learn the same stuff, although that may be problematic for practical reasons) is simply abusive and impairs the intellectual development of the child. Sometimes I don't understand you , this isn't rocket science. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 03 2014 10:56 screamingpalm wrote: I'm not saying that there aren't benefits to compulsory education, only that some cultures see it as the abuse itself. If I was reincarnated as an American Indian living on a reservation, I'd probably think twice about sending my kids to the lottery of corporate life if my family was self-sufficient and free from such things. Corporatism is not very different to organized religion really. Depends on perspective I suppose. Short of abuse and harm to a child, I don't think anyone should be placed in a position to judge, however. relativism at this coarse level is meaningless. look at the quality of the curriculum in both public schools and the private alternative, and if there is a significant and problematic difference then there is a problem, culture be damned. i don't care if you are a martian but if you homeschool your martian kid and tell him the earth is 6000 years old then that is still bad. some of these recent posts are just lurid. 'traditional parent-child' relationship? what the fuck does this even mean and how does it run above actual child welfare? yes, public schooling is a militarized, modern corporate world invention. but this is an empty crusade against a social form that can be used for good. at the public high school i went to they actually had pretty liberal teachers who used a text heavy on civil rights and labor movements etc, and that was a pretty good experience for me, who was rather conservative back then. perhaps strictly enforcing exclusive public education is not the right way to go when dealing with fundie parents fucking up their children's lives, but there is a clear and legitmate welfare argument here in favor of protecting the children. the crux is whether education content is objectively ordered in some relevant sense as to rule out the fundie content. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 03 2014 11:22 oneofthem wrote: relativism at this coarse level is meaningless. look at the quality of the curriculum in both public schools and the private alternative, and if there is a significant and problematic difference then there is a problem, culture be damned. i don't care if you are a martian but if you homeschool your martian kid and tell him the earth is 6000 years old then that is still bad. The quality is bad because of the very monetized nature of curriculum itself. People are paid to make sure vocationalized curriculum is upheld in standardized testing. The main issue I have with homeschooling, is social development for kids (I want mine to learn how shitty people are on their own lol). But who is to determine what is good or bad? Even as an atheist, I have a keen interest in Native American lore and culture... just recently enjoyed an Aztec Snake Dance performance the other day.  (Doesn't mean I believe that Tecuciztecatl leaped into the fire and became the moon). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Or rather... CONTROL | ||
| ||
