|
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. |
On June 03 2014 23:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:
However the main focus should be the needs and interests of the individual not that of society as a whole. That's the 19th century view where we educated people so that they could serve in the army and die for their country more effectively. Yes, but that's a weird caricature of public education that probably isn't even happening in China anymore, yet alone France, the UK or Australia. It's tilting at windmills. No one here in Germany is being indoctrinated in school or taught wrong history. This isn't Prussia, no ones trying to build a country of obedient super educated state loyal soldiers.
How about Japan? FWIW, you are almost certainly wrong about China and your standard for "wrong" is probably different from mine WRT France.
I've seen posters from UK say stuff about British colonial history that was extremely biased. Of course it's hard to know if they were taught wrong or they just developed these misconceptions on their own.
|
On June 03 2014 23:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:17 farvacola wrote:
Indoctrination is impossible to avoid, so considering it "bad" is rather counterproductive. Even the brightest, most self-aware person on Earth still fits into a pointed system of knowledge. That's how learning and information work. By that definition everything is 'indoctrination', which renders the term completely useless.
Criticizing systems of education due to their propensity to indoctrinate is useless, so I agree and that's my point. Better to compare systems of indoctrination outright.
|
On June 03 2014 23:15 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 22:55 Nyxisto wrote:
edit: I don't know what schools you've been to but I'm pretty sure I have not been indoctrinated.
Let's just say I've had the privilege of learning about the same historical events in different countries.
It can be very funny even from one teacher to another here :p
French Revolution and Napoleon are two parts of history that are a bit hard to teach here...
|
On June 03 2014 23:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 23:17 farvacola wrote:
Indoctrination is impossible to avoid, so considering it "bad" is rather counterproductive. Even the brightest, most self-aware person on Earth still fits into a pointed system of knowledge. That's how learning and information work. By that definition everything is 'indoctrination', which renders the term completely useless. Criticizing systems of education due to their propensity to indoctrinate is useless, so I agree and that's my point. Better to compare systems of indoctrination outright.
That makes about as much sense as saying that science is a religion too.
Sure, any system of knowledge (or values) contain arbitrary premisses. But some arbitrary premisses are better than others. For example "treat everyone with respect" is better than "we are the greatest nation (optional: under God)"
|
On June 03 2014 23:16 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 22:57 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:37 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. Homeschooling does not solve it really, it just makes it possible also in countries where the school system is working properly and parents actually want the child indoctrinated. EDIT: And of course not all indoctrination is bad as I pointed out in the post you reacted to. I agree that not all indoctrination bad. However, I think you agree that the example I gave is. I mean it fosters group solidarity (which is good) but at the price of resentment towards people from other countries. The point is that society is just plain wrong sometimes. Which is why in liberal democracies society is often discouraged from meddling in the life of the individual. In the sphere of ideas the individual is considered to be almost completely free, at least as an adult. Children don't have the same freedom, neither from their parents nor from society. That's unavoidable to some extent but I do think that most societies (and very many parents) go way too far in trying to mold them. Homeschooling can be a tool to let parents indoctrinate more effectively, when they are unhappy with the type indoctrination schools do. But it could also let children develop more freely, away from some of the negative influences that are perpetuated through the public education systems. Both can happen, one is just much more common (nearly exclusively so) in practice. And the whole distinction does not make much sense in liberal countries unless you are afraid that they are on brink of sliding towards nationalism and xenophobia on a great scale. Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:55 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. So someone who grows up in a group of religious fundamentalists (remember,the homeschooling criticism was not primarily directed at people who just want to give their kids the best education) are less indoctrinated than people who go to a public school? Honestly? I was trying to make the distinction that homeschooling can be great. Obviously it can be bad too. I'm kinda agnostic on the debate on whether kids should be indoctrinated by their parents or by society. I think both is wrong. In modern liberal countries one is statistically much better. When society is ok, the bigger problem are bad parents. When society is fucked up, bad parents are irrelevant problem. In countries we are talking about society is mostly ok or even good, and since school system is somewhat a mirror of society, it will be better than bad parents.
Maybe. I think even in "good" societies there's a willingness to fuck over others for little or no reason. I'm reminded of the debate the UK had over some parents taking their kids out of school for a few weeks to go on holidays. I think it was either one or two weeks. They got fined over it and most parents supported the decision and the rules that it was based on. I don't think these rules reflected the interests of the kids at all.
|
On June 03 2014 23:27 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:23 farvacola wrote:On June 03 2014 23:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 23:17 farvacola wrote:
Indoctrination is impossible to avoid, so considering it "bad" is rather counterproductive. Even the brightest, most self-aware person on Earth still fits into a pointed system of knowledge. That's how learning and information work. By that definition everything is 'indoctrination', which renders the term completely useless. Criticizing systems of education due to their propensity to indoctrinate is useless, so I agree and that's my point. Better to compare systems of indoctrination outright. That makes about as much sense as saying that science is a religion too. Sure, any system of knowledge (or values) contain arbitrary premisses. But some arbitrary premisses are better than others. For example "treat everyone with respect" is better than "we are the greatest nation (optional: under God)"
Science doesn't have to be a religion in order for both approaches to knowledge to share some aspects, most notably their inextricable tie to the humans who practice them.
And yes, your latter statement is what I was aiming at. I only think that you vastly underestimate the utility that comes with learning from those that are not your family while at the same undercut the potential damage in having children grow up not knowing what its like for their parents to be wrong or fallible.
|
On June 03 2014 23:40 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:16 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 22:57 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:37 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. Homeschooling does not solve it really, it just makes it possible also in countries where the school system is working properly and parents actually want the child indoctrinated. EDIT: And of course not all indoctrination is bad as I pointed out in the post you reacted to. I agree that not all indoctrination bad. However, I think you agree that the example I gave is. I mean it fosters group solidarity (which is good) but at the price of resentment towards people from other countries. The point is that society is just plain wrong sometimes. Which is why in liberal democracies society is often discouraged from meddling in the life of the individual. In the sphere of ideas the individual is considered to be almost completely free, at least as an adult. Children don't have the same freedom, neither from their parents nor from society. That's unavoidable to some extent but I do think that most societies (and very many parents) go way too far in trying to mold them. Homeschooling can be a tool to let parents indoctrinate more effectively, when they are unhappy with the type indoctrination schools do. But it could also let children develop more freely, away from some of the negative influences that are perpetuated through the public education systems. Both can happen, one is just much more common (nearly exclusively so) in practice. And the whole distinction does not make much sense in liberal countries unless you are afraid that they are on brink of sliding towards nationalism and xenophobia on a great scale. On June 03 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:55 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. So someone who grows up in a group of religious fundamentalists (remember,the homeschooling criticism was not primarily directed at people who just want to give their kids the best education) are less indoctrinated than people who go to a public school? Honestly? I was trying to make the distinction that homeschooling can be great. Obviously it can be bad too. I'm kinda agnostic on the debate on whether kids should be indoctrinated by their parents or by society. I think both is wrong. In modern liberal countries one is statistically much better. When society is ok, the bigger problem are bad parents. When society is fucked up, bad parents are irrelevant problem. In countries we are talking about society is mostly ok or even good, and since school system is somewhat a mirror of society, it will be better than bad parents. Maybe. I think even in "good" societies there's a willingness to fuck over others for little or no reason. I'm reminded of the debate the UK had over some parents taking their kids out of school for a few weeks to go on holidays. I think it was either one or two weeks. They got fined over it and most parents supported the decision and the rules that it was based on. I don't think these rules reflected the interests of the kids at all.
Rules need to be practical and clear. The school vacation are there for a reason and I do not find it too problematic for the parents to just adjust to that. So while the outcome might not be ideal in this singular case the rules actually reflect the interests of the kids as a group. Personally I am ok with kids being excused from school even for trivial things as going on vacation as I do not think it is a problem, but it might be organizational issue (or the rules are stupid, I am not saying it is not possibly a case, but this story is such an non-issue).
|
On June 03 2014 23:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:27 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 23:23 farvacola wrote:On June 03 2014 23:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 23:17 farvacola wrote:
Indoctrination is impossible to avoid, so considering it "bad" is rather counterproductive. Even the brightest, most self-aware person on Earth still fits into a pointed system of knowledge. That's how learning and information work. By that definition everything is 'indoctrination', which renders the term completely useless. Criticizing systems of education due to their propensity to indoctrinate is useless, so I agree and that's my point. Better to compare systems of indoctrination outright. That makes about as much sense as saying that science is a religion too. Sure, any system of knowledge (or values) contain arbitrary premisses. But some arbitrary premisses are better than others. For example "treat everyone with respect" is better than "we are the greatest nation (optional: under God)" Science doesn't have to be a religion in order for both approaches to knowledge to share some aspects, most notably their inextricable tie to the humans who practice them.
My point was that religion is made up and science has basis in reality, but I guess your point of view is valid too.
And yes, your latter statement is what I was aiming at. I only think that you vastly underestimate the utility that comes with learning from those that are not your family while at the same undercutting the potential damage in having children grow up not knowing what its like for their parents to be wrong or fallible.
Honestly, it depends on the family. If your parents are certifiable loonies the more time you spend away from them the better.
|
Indeed, and therein lies the justification behind mandatory, non-familial education; the odds that more people enter adulthood with a balanced and differentiated take on knowledge are greater when they are required to learn from both their parents and their teachers.
|
On June 03 2014 23:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 23:40 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 23:16 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 22:57 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:37 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:
[quote]
Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. Homeschooling does not solve it really, it just makes it possible also in countries where the school system is working properly and parents actually want the child indoctrinated. EDIT: And of course not all indoctrination is bad as I pointed out in the post you reacted to. I agree that not all indoctrination bad. However, I think you agree that the example I gave is. I mean it fosters group solidarity (which is good) but at the price of resentment towards people from other countries. The point is that society is just plain wrong sometimes. Which is why in liberal democracies society is often discouraged from meddling in the life of the individual. In the sphere of ideas the individual is considered to be almost completely free, at least as an adult. Children don't have the same freedom, neither from their parents nor from society. That's unavoidable to some extent but I do think that most societies (and very many parents) go way too far in trying to mold them. Homeschooling can be a tool to let parents indoctrinate more effectively, when they are unhappy with the type indoctrination schools do. But it could also let children develop more freely, away from some of the negative influences that are perpetuated through the public education systems. Both can happen, one is just much more common (nearly exclusively so) in practice. And the whole distinction does not make much sense in liberal countries unless you are afraid that they are on brink of sliding towards nationalism and xenophobia on a great scale. On June 03 2014 23:10 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 22:55 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:
[quote]
Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. So someone who grows up in a group of religious fundamentalists (remember,the homeschooling criticism was not primarily directed at people who just want to give their kids the best education) are less indoctrinated than people who go to a public school? Honestly? I was trying to make the distinction that homeschooling can be great. Obviously it can be bad too. I'm kinda agnostic on the debate on whether kids should be indoctrinated by their parents or by society. I think both is wrong. In modern liberal countries one is statistically much better. When society is ok, the bigger problem are bad parents. When society is fucked up, bad parents are irrelevant problem. In countries we are talking about society is mostly ok or even good, and since school system is somewhat a mirror of society, it will be better than bad parents. Maybe. I think even in "good" societies there's a willingness to fuck over others for little or no reason. I'm reminded of the debate the UK had over some parents taking their kids out of school for a few weeks to go on holidays. I think it was either one or two weeks. They got fined over it and most parents supported the decision and the rules that it was based on. I don't think these rules reflected the interests of the kids at all. Rules need to be practical and clear. The school vacation are there for a reason and I do not find it too problematic for the parents to just adjust to that. So while the outcome might not be ideal in this singular case the rules actually reflect the interests of the kids as a group. Personally I am ok with kids being excused from school even for trivial things as going on vacation as I do not think it is a problem, but it might be organizational issue (or the rules are stupid, I am not saying it is not possibly a case, but this story is such an non-issue).
Except the education system is riddled with small issues like this. Kids being taught slightly wrong, having to conform to rules that are inconvenient but not quite draconic, being given tasks that are pointless and teach nothing, etc.. Or issues that individually only affect a tiny minority like certain special needs kids or exceptionally talented students. But the end result is that the school system doesn't work great for anyone except a very small segment, although it works adequately for most kids.
In a situation like this getting rid of homeschooling altogether seems like a very high price. Maybe it's justified given the benefits, but I don't think so.
|
On June 03 2014 22:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2014 22:34 hypercube wrote:On June 03 2014 21:38 mcc wrote:On June 03 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On June 03 2014 06:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2014 05:18 Mindcrime wrote:On June 02 2014 21:01 Acrofales wrote:
In particular "vaccines cause autism" is a big one on the left hand of the political scale. Do you have the poll data to back up that assertion? What Mindcrime is saying. I live in a solid red, affluent part of Texas and I hear the anti-vaccine dumbasses all the time. Granted, I don't see the Venn diagram of anti-vaccine and creationists cross too much, but that doesn't mean one camp is "liberal" while the other is "conservative." Also, last time I checked, Michelle Bachmann was the last high-profile politician to speak out against vaccines. There's two main reasons for being anti-vaccination: the religious one and the pseudoscientific one. The former is generally used by Christian fundamentalists, who tend to be conservative. The latter one is the one used by new age hippies, who tend to be liberals. I unfortunately don't have the poll data. I thought that was the SciAm article I linked, but the right one must be older, or somewhere else entirely. Atm all I could find is Michael Shermer's blog, which doesn't mention vaccines. Liberal anti-science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/He picks out nuclear power and GMO as two of the main points where liberals happily ignore all evidence and progress when it doesn't agree with their agenda. This seems relevant : Some interesting article about false beliefsBasically all people ignore evidence if it about topic linked to their ideological position and contradicts it. (Of course to different degree). As for homeschooling - school is not only for education. It is also for general development of social habits that society might deem worthwhile. Like meeting people who are different in one way or another. EDIT: Homeschooling should be an option only due to physical inaccessibility of the school (disease, living in sparsely populated area). Schooling is also about indoctrination. History especially has a chauvinistic slant in most countries. There's a reason why countries like China and Japan have disputes over the contents of history books: (at least) one of them is lying to students. The fact that children are responsible for learning and repeating those lies, and are punished if they fail to do so, even in liberal democracies, is an abomination. So someone who grows up in a group of religious fundamentalists (remember,the homeschooling criticism was not primarily directed at people who just want to give their kids the best education) are less indoctrinated than people who go to a public school? Honestly? I simply fail do see how depriving children of reasonable education just because the parents want it is in the "American spirit". Parents don't own their kids, that kind of attitude is something you would expect out of a Islamist country that has been stuck in the middle ages for too long. edit: I don't know what schools you've been to but I'm pretty sure I have not been indoctrinated.
Again, it's a difference of opinion, I think parents DO own their children. They are the parents responsibility to educate, discipline, work and instill values into. That might be me being old fashioned though.
Child services is there for bad parents. The answer lies somewhere in the middle(as usual!). A minimum curriculum is good, one size fits all state standards is going too far. Leave it to teachers to tailor their class to each child's needs, have good parents and and government standards to weed out bad teachers. The indoctrination discussion reads like sensationalized fear mongering.to me.
|
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first.
|
Ugh.
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The United States is preparing to boost its military presence in Europe and at a cost of up to $1 billion, President Barack Obama said Tuesday, as tensions in the region simmer over Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine.
Standing with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, Obama said the U.S. plans to send more military equipment and rotate additional American troops into the region. He called on lawmakers in Washington to provide the funding to sustain the effort.
Source
|
On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first.
It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with.
The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980.
That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades.
You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to?
This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage.
I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you.
When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments.
|
On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments.
There's no realistic movement from the GOP to force schools to teach creationism. There's a few reactionary elements in favour of it, and they dominate in some small geographic areas, but I doubt very much that the GOP as a whole would desire this and push it as an agenda on a nationwide scale. My perception is that they pay lip service to it because they have such a batshit base that they need to deal with in the primaries, but it's probably not a huge or imminent systemic problem.
It obviously needs to be fought, but in general I agree with xdaunt's post that it's not worth a large effort that removes the capacity of parents to decide what's best for their children.
|
On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments.
Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post.
|
Should just say "take a rip from the bong", saying "bong load" reveals your squareness, Mr. Colorado 
|
On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post.
No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread.
|
On June 04 2014 01:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 01:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2014 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2014 00:58 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with this discussion is the presumption that there's an issue that needs to be actively fixed or corrected. Not every societal problem warrants "immediate" governmental intervention. Many will simply correct themselves over time. To the extent that teaching kids creationism is a societal problem, it is something that will correct itself. We live in an era in which information flows ridiculously easily between people. Good ideas and bad ideas alike all go through the crucible of public opinion as it is widely disseminated. Sure, bad ideas like creationism may not get wiped out overnight or even in a decade, but if you take the long, generational view, they will be further marginalized over time. And don't bring up that stupid graph showing a rise in the belief of creationism in Americans over the past few years. That's too short of a time period to know whether it's statistically significant. We just have to give it time.
The point is that we should be very wary giving the government the authority to intervene in our lives. There should be a very good reason to do so in any case. When it comes to educating children, creating a monolithic, government-run educational system through which all children must go just isn't a great idea. The most obvious problem is that it is prone to abuse. The more subtle problem is that creating an orthodoxy of ideas dampens societal creativity. Intellectual diversity should be encouraged, not stunted. If that means that we have to deal with a few more "bad ideas" in the short term, so be it.
TLDR: Liberals who are ready to go ape shit over perceived societal problems should rip a bong load and really think about whether drastic action is needed first. It's not that Creationism is just a bad idea, it's that the GOP would force it to be taught as Science in Public School Classrooms that I have a problem with. The decrease in the popularity in Creationism is among almost all liberals, conservatives have not seen any significant statistical change since 1980. That's at least two generations that were brainwashed into believing Creationism when the information and facts to make that belief provably false had already been around for decades. You may not see a problem with more and more generations of people who can't even grasp a basic base fact of the world but I do. We are supposed to discuss topics like Climate Change or Energy with people who openly admit they don't give a shit about reality because their beliefs supersede reality whenever they want to? This isn't just a problem for jerk parents who brainwash their children at private or home schools, it's a problem when GOP representatives on the SCIENCE committee repeat this total garbage. Furthermore that the GOP wants to force this garbage into public classrooms as SCIENCE is worthy of outrage. I am not calling for anything drastic, we just need to stop placating the fools who want to believe in Creationism, and certainly stop putting them on things like Science committees. GOP I'm looking at you. When someone says something from a creationist point of view that should be a full stop and they should have to leave the conversation until they agree with some basic facts. Or at least condition their ideas from a perspective that accepts those facts. There is no reason Creationists should have any credibility when it comes to scientific arguments. Thank you, Herr GreenHorizons. You are precisely the kind of person that needs to rip the bong load. And go read about what "tolerance" means. There's a distinct lack of both that and moderation in your post. No, the problem is your relativism about creationism. It's nonsense. In fact it is so ridiculous that people believing in it would probably qualify as delusional or mentally ill if it wasn't so widespread.
No, the problems are 1) your intolerance of religion, and 2) your willingness to use governmental power to satisfy your intolerance of religion. As ass-backwards as creationists and other religious groups may be, you cannot argue with a straight face that they are such a societal problem that the force of government should be brought to bear upon them.
|
On June 04 2014 01:50 farvacola wrote:Should just say "take a rip from the bong", saying "bong load" reveals your squareness, Mr. Colorado
You'd find it hilarious if you knew how many dispensaries and grow-ops that I've represented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
