Sunday open thread
Busy with family. Talk amongst yourselves.
Posted in: Uncategorized
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dave Lucas » Say WHAT?
- Rachel Maddow Frank Schaeffer Spot the Hypocrisy
- Grand-Pianos.org
- GoPiano
- Grand-Pianos.org
- PianoTrade
- GoKlavierKlavierFan
- PianoMan
- PianoMan
- GoKlavierKlavierFan
- Ephedrine pills.
- Buy alprazolam.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Your Daily Dose of Deification Iconography, Courtesy of Your Friends at The New York Times
Mudville Gazette
» EOD on standbyEd Driscoll
» The Legacy Media’s War On ConservativesRiehl World View
» Careful, Axelrod's Lips Are Moving On Health Care ReformRiehl World View
» lgf's Cheesey Chuckie Partners With Conor FriedersdorfRiehl World View
» Round up: Coffee Party Is Talking Heatedly On Need For Civility??
…and yet Lucretius divined the idea of the atom, which is hardly fringe today. One might say, that it was the ancient beginnings of some really ground breaking ideas.
FilmLadd:
So? I am not arguing that Islam isn’t worse, it is. What’s your point?
Heh. Maybe, however, if it was completely free-market you might have a great many ignorant Americans believing that the Blue fairy burped out the Universe. A healthy balance is probably best.
Not my argument completely, but I could get on board with that to some extent.
ZA,
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a public school that teaches ID as the primary theory.
Also, your insistence that it be banned completely makes it appear that you are afraid that some kids might actually believe it.
Yes, I do think this is wasted energy. I would much prefer my child to think that fairies created life or man evolved from pond scum than to believe that they are entitled to everything from the government and need to pay taxes to correct historical wrongs.
Sadly, ZA, although your reasoning is spot on, your thesis is wrong. You believe a nonbelieving, tolerant population can successfully resist a population of jihad driven believers who cannot even leave their religion without facing the threat of imminent death the rest of their lives.
The reality is it takes madness to fight that kind of madness. The Crusades to resist the Islamic expansion.
Unless people are insane, people will ‘convert’ rather than risk death. Or they at least allow themselves to be dhimmified as the first stage of conversion, just as Yale and so many others have done.
John – ‘Bout time you showed up here. We were devolving into ineffectuality. Deauxian logic is needed.
zero – When you make a cogent point, let me know.
Seriously, back to work. No, really.
John:
Yes! That’s because it was shot down (as it should have been) by the aforementioned sensible people!
Yes, I am worried that some kids might actually believe that Pi = 3 and the blue fairy is SCIENCE. I don’t care what religion they practice. Just don’t try and pretend it is science.
Anyhow, your last para is the same thing as before. I want the ideal, that none of those things are taught in school and they keep politics and religion out of school.
Roland:
Yes, they can. Didn’t I mentioned that I am an Iraq war vet?
No, it just takes courage. You don’t need religion for that. I didn’t.
So disregard my comment about your thesis. If that is your point, who can possibly argue with it? Of course the literalists shouldn’t be teaching our children their dogma in our public schools’ science classes.
On October 5th, 2009 at 11:14 am, zeroangel said:
You’ve been arguing that since all religions are nonsense, they all require action and / or fear. However, I argue that they pose different levels of danger, ranging from the minimal to the severe. This is not being “apologist.”
Why is this your concern? Why the need to make Americans non-”ignorant” in your image? Since you can neither prove or disprove the existence of the Blue Fairy – or even, if you’re a Buddhist, prove the existence of existence – then you are still trying to use the government to control others and accept your view of reality.
How do you know what a healthy balance is? You can’t even prove or disprove the existence of the Blue Fairy.
So yes, let’s get rid of tax payer funded public schools. I want to support privatized schools with my own money that teach a version of reality that I agree with.
As opposed to using the government to force everyone to support my version of reality. I am not a slavemaster.
Some individuals may not need religion. Unfortunately, we are talking about the behaviors of large groups. It is much easier to act ‘courageous’ if you believe in the Blue Fairy and the reward in the Afterlife. Surely you can see that?
BUUZZZZZZZ. Wrong again O brilliant one. Try Democritus, about 500 years previous. He was the one who first postulated matter was composed of atoms. And the atoms were supposedly ordered and functioned by operation of the “logos”. Same greek term for “word” In John 1:1-3. D’oh.
Keep it up guys. I seriously have to hit the road.
ZA,
Politics is increasing whereas ID is decreasing. Continuing your argument is like arguing that we need to make sure asbestos isn’t being used in our schools.
swede,
I actually spent the whole weekend away from the computer. It was actually a nice break.
Roland:
You will find people here and elsewhere that will argue against that.
FilmLadd:
I agree.
You said that you don’t care about the Blue Fairy and seem to make excuses saying “it’s not that bad.” It sounds rather apologetic to me.
My image? You agree with me that the Blue Fariy is nonsense don’t you? Why wouldn’t I want Americans to not be ignorant? Jeez! Education is important.
You can’t prove or disprove a whole host of religious or supernatural claims. That doesn’t make it science, in fact by the very nature that they can’t be disproven it absolutely makes them non-scientific.
A healthy balance of government funding schools vs. purely private? That’s open to debate, don’t you agree?
OK, but then do we need to make any standards for accredidation? I think we do. If not the government, who will make these standards? Obiouvsly, Universities looking for folks that want to major in biology (for example) will want to know who was taught about the Blue Fairy and who was taught about evolution.
Roland:
Oh yes, I can see that. Religion can be a useful tool. That doesn’t mean it is science or any that Holy Books should be used as the basis of law.
I’m sure you agree.
Swede:
Oh yes! My bad! Lucretius just borrowed from his ideas didn’t he? So what? My point still stands. Just replace every mention of Lucretius with Democritus.
Oh so the Bible knew all about it?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-3&version=NIV
Yes, sure. God was talking about the Standard Model in these passages. You don’t mean this do you?
John:
…because of the efforts of sane people. I still don’t see your point.
swede:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_nature_of_things
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/
…has some things as well.
Wow! Look at those nested quotes! No one is going to try and defend this, hmmm? Swede?
zeroangel
You’re saying Christianity IS that bad. I am saying Christianity is not. This is an assessment of its threat level, not being an apologist.
I believe Blue Fairies are nonsense, but can not prove this. Therefore I can not prove that teaching opposite to the Blue Fairy doctrine makes anyone more or less “ignorant.”
You, however, declare that you know better and seem to have the omniscience to determine what is good doctrine for everyone, and that the government should follow your dictates.
I am being slightly tongue in cheek here, but existentialism shows that you can’t even prove existence, much less evolution, the big bang, or Einstein.
Everything requires faith, and therefore everything is non-scientific.
Therefore I don’t want the government declaring what is real or what is not with my tax dollars.
How do you know what a healthy balance is?
Ever hear of ANSI? There are plenty of ways for accreditation to occur without getting the government involved.
The problem is not the Blue Fairy – the problem is that when you fund education publicly everyone fights everyone else over whether the Blue Fairy exists, with our money.
On October 5th, 2009 at 11:11 am, zeroangel said:
Excuse me….that was Democritus
Zero, congrats on your brother’s secular wedding. Using your version of the “Golden Apple”….
Does that include the next Trojan War as well?
FilmLadd:
I am saying Christian fundamentalists are that bad. I don’t care about the ones that can keep it seperate from science and don’t try and impose religious beliefs on others via lawmaking. You apparently don’t even care about the Blue Fairy in school and by extension, education in the country as a whole. If we aren’t going to call you an apologist what are we going to call you?
So what? You can’t prove that Dragons and and other fairies do not exist either.
So Dragons and fairies are science because they can’t be disproven and they belong in schools? No. It is ignorant if someone thinks that is science.
Not omniscience, but I am smart enough to know that Pi does not equal 3 (for example).
While true in a sense, that’s nonsense in this context and you know it. Science is a method and produces real, tangeible results. Plying some nebulous philosophy about everything being non-scietific is a rather creative dodge. Nice try though, they certainly should teach that in philopsophy class.
Like I said, it’s open to debate.
That’s fine. I can get on board with that as long as these forms of accredidation produce sane results and rightly don’t include the Blue Fairy in sicence class.
…and if it were private you would still have private schools teaching the Blue Fairy and ignorance would still be an issue for our country as a whole.
And for Swede: Sorry, there currently is no 5 star gernerals in any american armed forces to agrue with biden over anything poticial/military.
The last one was General of the Army Omar Nelson Bradley, who died in 1981. The highest rank currently used is 4 star.
Kingfish:
Yes, swede beat you to it and I acknowledged that here:
That was the version he was talking about. Basically saying that his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. In any case, sorry I didn’t get it, what are you saying about the Trojan War?
Zeus reclused himself from the contest and Paris was selected to act as judge. Aprodite’s bride was love and marraige to the most beautiful woman in the world (Helen).
Thus sowing the seeds of the Trojan War as Helen was already Menelaeus’ wife, and the pact of the lesser kings (Achilles, Odysseus, Ajax (I) and Ajax (II))
Oh, c’mon, people.
Of course ID does not belong in science classes. Any science classes.
If the subject is raised by a student, then it should be discussed: “It’s not science because it is not falsifiable. That does not mean ID is false. It just cannot be science, since the falsifiability of an hypothesis is central to what science is. You can discuss this further in your philosophy class.”
Period. End of “discussion.”
That is what Palin meant, right? I hope so.
Did not see swede’s correction.
Besides, the Blue Meanies exist beneath the sea of green in Pepperland. Has nobody seen Yellow Submarine?
Kingfish:
I knew the name I was looking for earlier started with a ‘D’ ! I was trying to remember it earlier and pulled a book or two off my shelf looking for the name. Unfortunately, one of the books I reached for had quotes from Lucretius and that prompted the mistake. *sigh* In any case, it doesn’t change any of my points to swede against his idea that western thought was always basically religious in nature up until Descartes.
Oh well, I’ll openly admit I am not perfect, despite the ridiculous claims I’ve seen on this blog in the past that atheists believe they are their own gods.
Ref. the Trojan war, yes, OK I knew that, they talked about that at the wedding. I thought you were making a joke about a “next” Trojan War which I missed.
Roland:
Yes! Absolutely. Everyone here, observe. Roland is the type of religious person (assuming he is religuous) that I have absolutely no issues with. I’ll even bet he thinks I should be allowed to purchase liquor on Sunday if I want. The claims that I hate all forms of religion are nonsense and Roland is a perfect example of someone that I can completely get along with.
I really wonder, and I don’t think so. Bobby Jindal certainlly is on the wrong side of this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Intelligent_design
My point is that the deck chairs look to be fine is there anything else here on the Titanic that requires your attention?
Zero;
We are in agreement that Western thought (not only political, but philosophical and science) was deeply controlled/limited through the Catholic Church until Rene Descartes.
On October 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, zeroangel said:
Unless your family is planning to begin the next Trojan War that is. Then when destroyed, a new Aeneas can found a new Rome, and literary history repeats itself…
Freewill is the answer. The Bible shows that governing powers rise and fall at God’s direction– falling from the evil that they do. More Bible verses for Zero about those that seek to rule us, here and here.
Zero is outraged at the thought of someone teaching about the Blue Fairy in public schools, yet he pushes his belief that we evolved from pond scum in same. I’ve found Zero’s god – and he left his brain at its feet. Our nation, under Zero.
John:
*smirk* Yes there is. That gaping hole in the side after we ran into the iceberg of fundamentalism concerns me. The science decks are flooded.
Furthermore, the iceberg isn’t going to go away and we need to warn other ships about it.
How many times do I have to say that I share your concern about hot political topics like sexuality being taught in public schools? I certainly think kids should be taught that gay people deserve to be treated with respect, but I think the format and extent to which it is taken is debatable.
None of this changes the points about the Blue Fairy in science. It is still a very important issue.
Roland,
Many threads ago, I pointed out my educational experience. I was taught the Theory of Evolution and it was explained that it was only a theory, because it had not been proven and that some people believed in a religious origins or some combination of the two theories.
As benign as that is, even that was not acceptable to ZA.
Kingfish:
Yes, do you also agree that Western thought also had it roots in ancient greece and that and that much of those roots were non-religious (Democritus for example) in nature?
Dave:
My quote clearly calls for adherence to worldy powers. Many tyrants in the Middle Ages used divine right as a means to rule. This is objective fact.
I don’t see how your other quotes change this. Even if they did, it would mean the Bible is contra-dicting itself.
Darwin is not my god, he was a man and made mistakes. He was rather wrong concerning genetics, IIRC.
? That’s a pretty silly oversimplification.
John:
Theories are never proven. I have said this to you a million times. Anyone who uses the phrase “only a theory” is being insincere.
The Heliocentric model of the solar system is also “only a theory.”
John:
That still doesn’t mean these “other theories” are science and belong in science class. They don’t and Roland explained why.
******tingly feelings of the old monster thread running up my leg******
Send a girl to camp!
I’d love to be your good example, but I have generally characterized myself as a nonbeliever with strong Christian sympathies.
Although I did have what one might call a religious epiphany on August 29. If I reject the kinds of gods all of the believers I’ve ever known believe in, and I start from scratch, I find there actually is a ‘thing’/idea/abstraction/phenomenon I could regard as worthy of something like reverential awe (worship, without the social trappings).
It isn’t power. Not even close. I can’t see how it could be the Creator (although ….. ). It’s closer to Prometheus on the rock. Or perhaps closer still to an aspect of Jesus on the Cross, if he were really only a man, one who knew he was a faker but was choosing to sacrifice himself rather than let his followers be killed in a bloodbath trying to defend him.
THAT Jesus would be far more awesome than the pompous, holier than thou superclown in the bible who knows no one can actually hurt him.
Roland:
Very well said. Would you call yourself perhaps a Pantheist? I suscribed to that idea for awhile. My brother (the one that just wed) seems to fall somewhere between there are Deism. I am totally kewl with all those ideas including the kind of benign Christianity that doesn’t seek to impose itself on me via laws or science class.
ZA,
I understand your point and I do agree to some extent. However, sending kids out with the belief that evolution is the only answer is just going to leave them conflicted. By acknowledging the controversy, you help prepare them to think critically about the subject and come to their own conclusion, which will most likely be that evolution is a valid theory. Of course, critical thinkers don’t make for loyal little taxpayers, so we must make that decision for them.
*My brother (the one that just wed) seems to fall somewhere between there and Deism. Sorry.
John:
Then why do you only stop at ID? Why not throw in the aforementioned Blue Fairy (literally) or African legends that a deity vomited the Earth? What about Korean legends that a tiger and a bear ate garlic in effort to become human (one of them succeeded and we are all descended from a bear) ?
Evolution is the only scientific answer we have and it is the only one that belongs in science class. The others can go in literature or philosophy.
****squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!******
On October 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm, zeroangel said:
Yes. Western thought is directly traced to the Hellenic model. The free thought and inquisitiveness of Zeno, Cleanthes, Pythagoreus, Socrates, Plato, Epicureus, Diogenes et al. was a huge input.
However, except for the influence of Stoicism and Epicureanism on Roman Thought there still was mention and searching for divinity of one sort or another.
Artistotle was accepted by the Catholic Church and while his writings/teachings in the most part survived and were ultimately proven false. So much for the Heliocentrism until after the death of Galileo
You do not seem to understand the centrality of falsifiability to science.
No one can ever prove God isn’t messing with the DNA as we go along. Cannot be done. But people could find a ‘100 million year old’ dinosaur saddle. Or a 100 million year old modern human, for that matter. That would kick a hole in the TOE.
Evolution in general has been ‘proved’ millions of times over by its failure to be falsified by mountains of new evidence. Yet to science it is still just a theory. One that can still be disproved.
Intelligent design is not science, even if it is true. It amazes me otherwise intelligent people cannot see that.
Kingfish:
I can acknowledge that. I am trying to remember how we went down this path, I think it went something like this:
I argued that our Constitution is not religious in nature (it isn’t) and that the culture that spawned it and our system of government has much more to do with the sum total of Western thought; which includes Greco-Roman philosophy and systems of government; than it does with our religious roots. Swede tried to tell me that Rome became Christian and you can’t separate it from Christianity. When I pointed out that these Greco-Roman philosophies and systems of government predate that event, he then tried to say that Greco-Roman thought was based on Polytheism (which is strange, is he now saying our Constitution is based on Polytheism?) and that religion is at the root of this all. I then went into Lucretius et al. and here we are. *sigh*
So, ok swede. The Constitution is based on the Greek and Roman gods, how’s that? Funny there is no mention of them in it.
Roland,
Much like the hysteria over Peltdown Man
ultimately shown to be a fraud?
Nope. Maybe a Deist since August 29, but I haven’t really thought about the closest label. I’m still working on trying to describe It.
Roland:
I have tried to explain this idea to John many times. I cannot believe that he isn’t smart enough to understand it, because all my other conversations with him lead me to believe he is an intelligent, sensbile person. I think he is really just compartalmentilizing in a big way.
Yes again! Wow, Roland, you and I should do this more often!
Kingfish:
The very sad thing is the deniers use this as evidence that evolution is untrue. Meanwhile they ignore all the other finds that were not frauds.
Works for me. As far as I am concerned you are an ally.
*the second quote above is for Roland.
I understand falsifiability and the scientific method. My point isn’t in trying to disprove evolution or promote ID, which would cover ZA’s blue fairies and all of the non-scientific theories.
My entire point is that by denying the controversy surrounding the issue by teaching one side of it, you’re doing a disservice to the students. Here you have an opportunity to encourage critical thinking and debate, but instead, we must enforce our right to freedom from religion above all else. If we have students leaving high school with the ability to reason, then who will watch MTV? Politics will be about principles and issues, and not personalities. Oh, the horror!
Use the evolution/ID issue as a teachable moment.
Exactly. Evolution ‘proofs’ like Piltdown can be proved false. Saying God Did It can never be proved false.
Once science was established as the way to seek truth regarding the material world, arguments like “lightning is God’s wrath” could be thrown out and people could work on the real reason for lightning.
I agree:
In the whole context, the U.S. Constituion is not a religious document. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (J. Adams, President) stated that the United States IS a secular nation and not a religious one.
John:
Yes, I am right with Roland on this. As soon as it comes up, explain why it isn’t science and why it’s not being taught in science class. There is your teachable moment. The students just leanred about falsifiability.
See, it also provides the opportunity to teach about falsifiability.
The more we discuss it, the more reasons I see to include it.
ZA,
I fully acknowledge and agree that ID is not science. I’m not certain how anybody could have derived that I felt otherwise.
We’re all allies here, ZA. Pretty much.
But I know what you mean.
John:
I’m ok if a student brings it up. I am even ok if it’s in the curriculum for the purpose of teaching about falsifiability. However, it stops there. There should be no actual teaching of the “theory” of ID anymore than Korean myths about a bear and tiger should be actually taught.
I was almost certain that you were one of the folks that had in the past argued that the “theory” of ID should be taught to some degree. I am glad you seem to have backed off from that. Now, all we need for you to do is read Coyne’s book.
My idea of a grand sport is croquet.
You can play it wearing a long skirt, sipping a gin and tonic and spend more time discussing the rules than actually playing.
So when will you teach critical thinking? That has to be incorporated into every class. Of course, it’s a lot easier for teachers to say “read this and answer these questions” than it is to engage students.
You’re provided with the perfect opportunity to help children develop those skills and you would choose to punt instead.
zeroangel
“Ignorance” as you define it, an “issue” as you define it. And why do you think you have the wisdom to impose your definitions upon our “country as a whole?”
It is presumptious.
Beware those with nothingness in their lives, for they will fill it up by concerning themselves with other people’s lives.
As long as the Blue Fairy doctrine doesn’t try to convert me at the point of a sword, and lets me believe and say whatever I want, and doesn’t take my money through government to promote itself, I couldn’t give a rat’s butt if 99% of the population believed in it or not.
This is why it’s important to make an intelligent threat assessment. Is the Blue Fairy dogma dangerous to my well being or freedom?
You haven’t demonstrated any danger, you’ve only called it nonsense and ignorance. These are sad adjectives, and yes it’s a bit lonely to be surrounded by Blue Fairy worshipers, but…
In a free society, what business is it of mine (or the government’s) what other people consider science or religion? None.
ZA,
I have always suggested that it be taught in the aforementioned context.
As far as it not being “science”, it is still germane to the discussion.
John:
Science is all about critical thinking. It’s taught in science classes everyday. It’s the whole method. No one is punting anything.
FilmLadd:
Pi does not equal 3 and the Blue fairy is not science as discussed above by Roland. Period. I am wise enough to know this. You must know this. I can only assume you are pandering to the fundies.
The Blue Fairy doctrine is dangerous to scientific education by virtue of the fact that it isn’t science! How do you not understand this?
It’s not about what other people consider sience. It’s about what science objectively is by defintion (falsifiability). You wouldn’t teach alchemy in chemistry anymore than you would teach Blue Fairy in biology! Jeez! Why do you persist with this? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
John:
OK then, we agree. ID should only be mentioned in science class to the extent that a teacher explains how it is just like the aforementioned Korean mtyh from a scientific standpoint. I am fine with that.
I hope you read Coyne’s book soon.
Kingfish had to leave to go tutor someone.
FilmLadd:
Are you honestly saying that if alchemy didn’t hurt anyone it’s OK if it’s taught in school in a free society?
It does hurt us all as a nation. Can’t you see that?
Pure:
Hey there! How’s things?
Well, er, well, er, thanks for asking but
Pure:
But? Are you not haivng a good day?
ZA,
Critical thinking is not being taught. Facts are presented and memorized by students and regurgitated back at test time. It’s the same problem with history. It’s all names and dates with no discussion about the significance or impact of the events.
Then again, that’s the purpose of public school, isn’t it? My daughter will start kindergarten next year, I want my voucher.
It would be better if Kingfish could be here.
John:
I don’t see how you can teach science without critical thinking. They go hand in hand. How can you possibly have a lab period without it?
In any case, ID should not be taught as a “fact” or even as a “theory.” You may not espouse this idea, but some do, even some on this board as we well know.
Pure:
He will be back later of course.
No, I’m not pandering or arguing for the sake of arguing (although it is fun).
To be clear, I agree that PI does not equal 3, Blue Fairy is not science, and the earth did not form 6000 years ago or whatever.
I just don’t understand why teaching the opposite in a private school rises to the level of a threat to my body or personal freedom.
You’re making an excellent argument for taking education out of the public sphere so that you can have schools that teach science as you and I see it, and others can do it as they see it, and so on.
Is there bodily harm or harm to my freedom that requires the government to enforce the teaching of science sans Blue Fairy?
I don’t see anyone arguing that the threat is great enough, and I see plenty of arguments against government even being involved in the matter.
The debate pro and anti Fairy is too heated, and there are certain things the government should never wade into, which is one of the principles it was founded on.
Yes, he will.
On October 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, zeroangel said:
Yes that is indeed what I am saying, as long as it’s in a private school and there are no public schools AT ALL.
This is the risk and the challenge of a free society: that other people may think and say and teach things contrary to what ones knows to be facts.
Provided that the other sides leaves you alone, leave them alone.
I don’t believe freedom of thought – even if it’s thinking about the Blue Fairy – hurts our nation to the point that we need to relinquish the freedom to think it, teach it, write it, paint it, or even sing it.
FilmLadd:
I never said that! Please stop with the strawmen. I have said consistently that it’s a threat to education in our great nation! I never said Blue Fairy threatened my physical well-being directly. Why do you so often resort to strawman?
No I am not! I even conceded that there’s various approaches (like your total free-market). In the end though, there really should be a way to ensure nonsense doesn’t get taught as science for the sake of our nation as a whole.
The problem with this is that Blue Fairy (heated or not) is objectively NOT science. It’s no more science then Pi = 3 is math. There is an ironclad reason why it should not be taught in science. The fact that it pisses off fundies is not good enough reason to compromise education. In fact, it’s a very bad reason.
FilmLadd:
I can never get on board with this kind of extreme libertarism. You will almost certainly end up with many folks in our great nation being objectively ignorant with regards to chemistry (in the case of alchemy) and biology (in the case of Blue Fairy). There need to be some kind of standards.
The only way I see to “ensure” a nonsense-free education for our nation as a whole is for the government to mandate it as it does now.
And if the government has the power to mandate THAT, then it could just as easily turn around and mandate Blue Fairy depending upon who’s elected.
So again – the government shouldn’t be in the business of determining what is nonsense or not in education.
Yep. They’re already here. And the harm to me or my freedom is…?
what is going on with this columnar format?
FilmLadd:
It hasn’t gotten too bad yet, because fortunately we have had the judicial branch to deal with this kind of nonsense in the past.
Fine, then the market and the various institutions can devise some common standard. Works for me. It’s still not OK to teach alchemy in science class as you said.
Strawman again. Your freedom is not threatened directly on this particular point, as I have said. The esteemed position the US holds worldwide as far as science and education has been waning for some time and will continue to do so with this nonsense. That is a bad thing and who knows, one day if the US falls off it’s perch, your freedom could be threatened by foreign players that have surpassed us.
Would anyone like to hold a hedgehog for entertainment?
No, not a strawman; I am saying that danger to life, liberty, or private property are the only three acceptable reasons for government intervention in anything, and I don’t see it here.
I agree with your assessment of the current state of US education but not for the reasons of religious kookery. A far more likely culprit is that government run education monopolies, which are subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous political fortunes.
I say take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.
FilmLadd:
There strawman was where you implied that I was saying I believe it is a direct threat to my physical body. I never said that. If that was not your implication then disregard charges of strawman.
Well, like I said, I don’t agree with that kind of extreme libertarism.
Yet, you agree that with your solution you will still have the aforementioned religious kookery mucking up some school systems. What is the solution? Is there none? Is the US destined to produce a generation of people that think Blue Fairy is science?
Teachers taking money from parents to teach their children ID is science are defrauding them.
Roland:
FilmLadd doesnt dispute that. He advocates ending government schooling of any kind. I think this is extreme but as long as there are some kind of common standards for education I could imagine it could work. FilmLadd rejects any standards. This I can’t get on board with.
Persuasion, conversation, argument. That’s what free societies require, allow for, are built and founded on.
We must allow others to be stupid, but try to persuade them not to be, WITHOUT using the hand of government to force them to be smart.
Because you can’t force people to think one way or another. It’s futile anyway, and it gives government the means to force you to think another way.
I don’t know. I went to Catholic High School, and last time I drove to California I listened to Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” on tape. And heck, I didn’t even fall asleep at the wheel.
Nope, just government mandated standards, which are inherently political, dangerous, and prone to corruption by nature.
FilmLadd:
You can’t force people to think a certain way but you can set certain academic standards. You and I will disagree on how this should be done and we can end here.
If we reject any kind of government requirement for and funding of education, then there should not be government standards. Not their business.
Soon we would be third world, we’d get invaded by a more sensible society, and then we’d all get better educated.
See? Raw libertarianism works out fine every time.
FilmLadd:
OK one more thing:
So, did I misunderstand? You support standards as long as they aren’t government mandated but you see no way of setting standards without government? Seems to me you would say standards can’t be set then.
Roland:
LOL. Yes, you and I seem to see eye to eye on a great many things.
The key word in my sentence was “ensure,” i.e., “enforce.”
Roland:
Hmm. We have government funded education and government mandated standards, and most kids can’t pick out Canada on a map, have never read Shakespeare, and have no clue who our current Vice President is.
Faith in the face of failure is admirable, I suppose, if for nothing else than I have a soft spot for Don Quixote (how many kids read Cervantes under these government standards? Hmm?)
That might break down if we talk foreign policy.
Roland:
I am generally on board with Republicans there. Yourself?
FilmLadd:
…and yet as bad as it is, there are still standard exams by which we can gauge children’s success and there are legal means by which Blue Fairy can be kept out of schools. I don’t have confidence that your completely free-market solution would be much better.
As it goes with state univeristies vs. private ones, the results are a mixed bag. There’s really no clear cut line that says private is always better.
Straw man, FilmLadd. No one here supports the current ludicrous system that’s miseducating our young.
I’m for vouchers and national standards including only the most basic things like teaching science in science classes and math in math classes and so on.
…and what Roland said.
My copy doesn’t contain too many references to Plato, either. But that’s beside the point, because the Constitution is a structural blueprint for government, not a treatise on political philosophy. For a document that gives us the philosophical underpinnings of our system of government, you might want to try something else, like the Declaration of Independence. Plenty of references to “god” there. Still, a little short on references to Aristotle.
And you won’t find many sentiments like “all men are created equal” among the ancient philosophers. But there are some very obvious strong Christian roots to such thinking.
Roland;
But what about teaching Spanish in English Classes ala CA?
/sarc