AZ has another bill.Follow

Because I've addressed those the last half dozen times I've advocated for school vouchers? It's kinda obvious that the advantage education-wise is that kids can more easily attend a school with a focus that matches their own desires and educational needs. My point here isn't an exclusive one. I'm saying that in addition to the obvious, we *also* get to eliminate a whole lot of somewhat rancorous political debate. When we have a system where parents can choose which school to send their kids to, it's ok for schools to "experiment" with different curriculum and ideas. When most of the kids in a given area are all going to have to attend the same school, it's not so ok, is it?



Way to miss the point. What I'm saying is that a private school can pop up marketed with any of a range of rules and alternative curriculum and no one will care because only parents who want their kids to go there will pay to send them there. If teaching kids about how aliens are controlling us via government implanted microchips will draw parents to spend their vouchers there, then it doesn't hurt the rest of us if they do that, does it? Our kids aren't forced to attend that school.

Right now, we don't have that choice, and thus every single tiny bit of curriculum ends out being the target of massive public debate. This is one of the benefits of a school voucher system. It's obviously not the only one and I never once said it was.




And here comes the distraction. You don't want to discuss the issue on its own merits, so you spin the discussion off into some tangent. Um... The same thing applies to things liberals don't want being taught Joph. That's what's so ridiculous about your position. Most of the complaints going on today about public schools involve violations of what Liberals think should be taught in them, so I'd think that school vouchers would be a solution to the problems for both sides.



Vouchers are a better way to go. Period. The primary reason why the Left doesn't like them has nothing to do with education quality, or even controversial political ideas or religious instruction. The answer really lies in two words: "Teachers Unions". But you're a good little soldier for your political "side" and will argue all that other stuff instead. Bully for you!

It's not about you Belk. I can't and wont make a specific argument about a single individual. I'm speaking of a broader population and a trend within that population.



Again. It's a trend across a large group. Not all schools are the same, and not all students are. But assuming you attended a public school, I can state with some certainty that you were almost certainly exposed to a number of social liberalist views, likely without even realizing it. That many of your fellow students rejected those ideas while you may have embraced them, potentially speaks more to the influence of the home environment than anything else.

Again, I can't speak specifically about your life and your situation. I can only speak in terms of broad observable trends.



Maybe not yours specifically. But let me ask you a few questions. When you were in school were you taught that Roe vs Wade was the most significant court case involving womens' rights? Was the phrase "right to an abortion" ever used? Where you taught about positive rights in general? Were you taught them in less direct ways (discussions about rights to things like "clean air/water", "health care", "minimum wages", etc? What about the civil rights movement? What were you taught about it? How about Slavery and the Civil War? Did you know that Lincoln was a Republican when you graduated High School? Or did that somehow get missed? How about Native American studies? Were you taught that the Indians were peaceful until Europeans arrived? Were the debunked myths about diseased blankets mentioned? How about economics? Was the phrase "gap between rich and poor" mentioned in a way which assumed or implied that this was bad?


There are a host of somewhat subtle ways in which indoctrination can be imposed. We tend to have this stereotype of indoctrination in which the students are forced to repeat things over and over or other such nonsense, but most indoctrination involves simply stating positions as assumed without allowing discussion. In the classroom, they take the form of complex question fallacies. A discussion of wealth inequity and how to resolve it without considering whether wealth inequity is bad in the first place is just one such example. There are many others, which you were likely exposed to every single day and likely never realized it. Heck. I attended a Catholic High School, and a number of socio-political assumptions which I today recognize as social-liberalism were "taught" by assumption as well. The teachers themselves likely didn't realize that the discussions they were having made assumptions which may not have been true.


That's why, when I debate politics, I like to challenge those assumptions every single time. If someone starts talking about how drilling for oil is bad because it damages the environment, I don't argue about whether drilling for oil damages the environment, or how much it does so. I'll ask whether "the environment" in this context is important enough to protect. If someone starts a conversation with a statement about how a new law hurts "immigrant rights", I don't just argue what the law does or does not do. I'll ask what immigrant rights are, and where they derive from, how important they are, and what they mean.

I do this because these are the questions most people don't ever ask. We spend a huge amount of time arguing the minutia about how this act or that act violates some right or whatever, but we fail to step back and ask what exactly we're defending. That's why I constantly challenge people on their definitions of things like rights and liberties. We often move right past the assumptions about what things are, and on to what we should do based on what we assume they are, that we never look at the things themselves. We get caught up in labels and words, and never stop to assess the core reality of what we're talking about.

And yes. I think that most people have a hard time with this. Most people have been taught to react to the language of the issue at hand, but never actually look at the issue itself.




How do you know those things make you a good person? What does "humane" mean? What is "compassion" and why is it valuable? Have you ever actually stopped and thought about those things, or do you just play word association games?




Yes. I suppose it is. Again though, I can derive every position I hold based on clearly defined core ideological principles. I've done this in the past. Can you do this? What is the consistent ideological principle which allows you to assume that "allowing people to marry the ones they love" is a good position which also allows you to say that we cannot allow people to send their children to a school which teaches what they want. How is one good and compassionate, but the other is not?


I have my own assumptions about what ideology you hold which allows for both of those positions, but it's probably not the one you think you hold, and I'd rather hear you express it yourself rather than guess. My point is that from my perspective, your positions are inconsistent based on your stated reasons for holding them. Which is why I suspect that you hold them, not because of any true underlying and consistent ideology, but rather because you've just accepted as fact that those positions are "good". But I'd love to hear a liberal, any liberal, actually give me an explanation of why they hold the set of positions they do which is consistent across the board. I've yet to *ever* see this done...

And I have to spend the rest of my life living with people who think that having others pay for food, and shelter and health care is a "right". I have to live with people who think that that wealth inequity is a problem which must be fixed. I have to live with people who apparently can't grasp that their ideas are not the only ideas and *gasp* might just be wrong ideas.




And? Why is that a problem? You also aren't subject to whatever the public school decides must be taught to your own child, right? The second we decided to publicly fund education, we put ourselves in the position of deciding what is and isn't taught *and* that public money is going to be used in ways in which we don't like. That's always the negative of making that choice Joph. It's just that you're ok with it as long as it goes your own way.


How does your tax dollars being spent to send kids to a school, which in addition to core curriculum (reading, writing, math, science, etc), they are taught some religion or social instruction, or whatever which you don't agree with hurt you? If it's a small number of people, it's a small problem, right? If it's a large number, then perhaps the ideas are more prevalent in society than you thought and *should* be taught. What we have right now is a system in which only those things in which the majority believes are "right" are taught in school. So even if 49% of the population think something should be included in the curriculum, it wont be if the other 51% disagree. This results in a skewing of our education in those areas though, since far more than 51% of our students attend public school.

With school vouchers, the teachings in school will mirror the rates at which those ideas exist within our society. So 49% of the schools would teach that thing, while 51% wouldn't. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing Joph.


You recoil against this, but in typical liberal fashion you can't seem to explain *why* this is a bad thing. If we accept that we have to fund education, why not do it this way? What is lost? The only thing I see lost is the power for a slight majority to impose their ideas on the slight minorities kids. And I personally don't see the virtue in that.




Interesting that you just skipped right past the whole teachers union thing. Can I assume that you agree that the main reason for opposition to school vouchers is the loss of power this would cause to the teachers unions? Since you failed to disagree...

So because of this you think we should subsidize teaching children about alien microchips in their heads?

Are you honestly this stupid or just this petty?


I can't even begin to guess at what you're saying here.


Your argument is that academia should be decided by mob rule? Seriously? If 51% thinks the earth is 10,000 years old, we should start teaching children, as a fact, that the planet is 10,000 years old and was made by God in seven days? Because, you know, that 51% number isn't really different from the number of people in the US who actually believe that.


You think I honestly need to try and prove that it's NOT about unions? Hrrmm... I wonder what the problem there could be.

Ham-handed, even for you and you're in rare form in this thread with how stupid an argument can be.

Edited, May 21st 2010 7:15pm by Jophiel

Well, not really... no.

The fact that you think so shows just how little thought you've put into this.

Asking me to disprove your assertion that it's all about unions is "reasonable" and calling that a stupid argument is "irrational" and an "attack"?

Well, if you say so. When you want to start discussing this like a grown up, let me know. Or else, you know, start crying that I just implied you're not a grown up and declare yourself the "winner".

You're the one trying to change the system. Convince me why we should. I don't have to really argue why it's bad -- I just pointed out that it's pointless from a "makes kids smarter" standpoint, only serves as a political cudgel and thus is nothing I'm interested in. In other words, you've failed to convince me.

Edited, May 21st 2010 7:49pm by Jophiel

What's especially funny about this is in statements like this:

Honestly, the school system largely teaches things I'm completely neutral about. Gbaji is so wrapped up in his ideology that he's convinced himself that anyone who doesn't think his idea is brilliant must be terrified of losing their vast liberal indoctrination machine. I spend about zero minutes a year worrying whether or not my kid's education is sufficiently liberal.

In fact, the area where I suppose I should be most concerned is social studies/history. After all, it's not as though they're teaching Introductory Algebra with a liberal slant. And elementary/secondary history is so laughably jingoistic and slanted towards "Yay America!" that it's not even funny. Colonial history as taught in the schools is about 20% history and 80% American Myth. But I don't really care because it does an adequate enough job of getting the major points across without watching a bunch of thirteen year old eyes glaze over as you describe how Britain was trying to recoup the costs of the French-Indian War and in fact rescinded almost every tax levied to that end and--- you know what? Forget it. The king taxed us all because he was a jerk and some patriots who loved freedom threw tea in a harbor to show how much they loved freedom and then Paul Revere rode his horse a million miles and the country was saved. God bless America and turn to Chapter Four.

Which makes it even funnier when people get their panties in a wad over Black History Month or throwing some Latin American tidbits in there. But anyway, yeah. I'm seriously worried about the vast liberal indoctrination machine being compromised and that's why I think Gbaji's arguments are poor ones.

That and my devout allegiance to the teachers unions.

Sure you're not. You're not talking about a single individual, my mistake.



Holy sh*t, where did that come from?? Oh, that's right. From your keyboard. Talking specifically to me, an individual....

But to answer your questions:

When you were in school were you taught that Roe vs Wade was the most significant court case involving womens' rights?

No, I wasn't. I actually hadn't head of Roe vs Wade until I was about 23 years old.

Was the phrase "right to an abortion" ever used?

No, never. We never really talked about abortion.

Where you taught about positive rights in general? Were you taught them in less direct ways (discussions about rights to things like "clean air/water", "health care", "minimum wages", etc?

No. And as a matter of fact, I had to look up what "positive rights" even were. I hadn't really started thinking that health care should be provided by the government (a la Europe) until I started working myself, had health insurance, and then found out that I had a chronic disease, and I learned that I would be shackled to either a job that offered me benefits or a husband who could provide them. There was no way I would ever be able to afford to pay for individual health insurance. That made me pretty upset, but I still didn't think that it should be provided to people. What really made me hold that viewpoint was when I started working directly with health insurance, and I found out what a scam it was, and how really, truly @#%^ed up it was.

What about the civil rights movement? What were you taught about it? How about Slavery and the Civil War?

I don't remember being taught much about the civil rights movement, honestly. Someone mentioned burning bras, I'm sure, but I don't think it was one of our teachers. We did learn about Harriet Tubman, and the fact that there were slaves. We also had the plantation homes in our area pointed out, and the "slave wall" shown to us as a point of pride that the people we owned built these beautiful landmarks.

Our school was quite small, and it was in Middle Tennessee, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

Did you know that Lincoln was a Republican when you graduated High School? Or did that somehow get missed?

I did, actually.

How about Native American studies? Were you taught that the Indians were peaceful until Europeans arrived?

Not at all. I was taught that when the pilgrims landed, they helped them out and taught them a thing or two, but that they were "savage" and violent and we were taught an awful lot about scalping.

Were the debunked myths about diseased blankets mentioned?

Yes, that was. And I have never heard that "debunked." However, at my school, it was taught that it was an accident. It was much later that I heard that it was deliberate.

How about economics?

My economics class was taught as a one semester class, and it was taught by a football coach. For the first two weeks, we were encouraged to pick out a stock on the stocks page of the newspaper and follow it. After those two weeks, that class had turned into a study hall, for all intents and purposes. He didn't teach us anything. The year prior, we had Mr. Harrison teach us in American History that if you "work, work, work and keep your nose to the grindstone, you'll live a productive and fulfilling life."

Was the phrase "gap between rich and poor" mentioned in a way which assumed or implied that this was bad?

I never heard that phrase uttered in my school, much less in such a way that it was implied as either good or bad. I still don't think rich people are evil simply because they have money.

From a lot of these questions, though, it sounds to me like you've been indoctrinated somewhere. That's for sure...




Well, what I actually said was that I like to think that makes me a good person. Not that I know. I recognize that there are a lot of things I don't know. However, humane means to be merciful or kind. It also means to be compassionate, and I think that's valuable because I would rather be treated humanely and compassionately, so I tend to try to do the same to others. I'm not playing a "word association game."



No, I can't. I'm a complex human being, and I understand that I cannot hold "clearly defined core ideological principles," because I am growing and changing every day. I change my mind about things when I learn new things. I leave myself open to challenging things, and I try to examine things about myself, and not get caught up in trying to stay rigid and unmoving while the world around me is changing.



There isn't one, because I have never in my life said that people should not be allowed to send their children to a school which teaches what they want. As a matter of fact, if you'd been paying attention, one of my biggest issues with your beloved voucher program is the fact that, if I had a child and your program was in effect and all of the public schools were done away with, I wouldn't have the ability to send my child to a school that teaches what I want, short of homeschooling. Which sounds lovely, but I know that I do not possess the faculties, time, energy, or money to stay at home all day and teach my children everything they will need to know to be a happy, productive member of society. So, instead, I would want to rely on public schools to teach them facts (not whatever beliefs the majority might hold, but actual facts) and teach them my beliefs at home. Which, really, is how it should be done. This can be applied to sex ed, evolution, and yes, even cultures other than our own.



Not only would I be delighted to see what principles you seem to think I hold (or any liberal holds, really) but I would also love to see what principles you hold to so stringently, since you keep bragging about having them, and insisting that I either do not, or that I am not smart enough to see what principles I hold. It would be.... highly amusing, to say the least.

As an aside, my husband really, really wanted me to include this quote to you:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited, May 21st 2010 8:38pm by Belkira

And then I went back and used bolding instead of quoting. I'm good at applying new knowledge, too!!

And I'm sure that didn't color your perceptions at all?



Good! That's rare btw.



Sigh... It was completely fabricated by a well known far left professor. He just plain made it up in the early 90s, yet it spread so quickly that it was being mentioned anecdotally in classrooms just a few years later as fact. It has been completely debunked, repeatedly, yet still persists. It's one of those things that people "forget" having been corrected about.

To be fair, there was a case of a couple smallpox laden blankets being used by a British commander of a fort under siege in an attempt to infect the tribe which was attacking them, but that was before the US existed, and it certainly didn't lead to any specific measurable epidemic at the time. While many diseases from Europe did spread accidentally to native Americans, the idea that the US army deliberately handed out smallpox laden blankets to wipe out troublesome native populations is pure fantasy.



No. These are just a subset of the assumptions I've run into over time. Many of them expressed by people on this very forum board, so I'm not sure why you're surprised.




Of course you are. You associate actions with being "merciful or kind", and therefore assume that by holding a position on those, you can continue to think of yourself as a "good person". I could follow this up with a question about how providing state issued benefits to gay couples who marry is being "merciful and kind", I suppose. Or I could even ask you to define those things. At some point, you'll end out being circular with your labels though because that's all you have.



I get that. And on some level, that's perfectly legitimate. The problem though is what I've been talking about. If you can describe in full detail the ideological principles you're operating off of, you can free yourself from the cycle of labels and look at what something *is*. By not doing so, you pretty much have to go off of the words used. You change your position based on how you feel about a given word or phrase, or whether said word or phrase is applied to something. All I need to do to sway you is to get you to associate what I want you to support with something you like. So today, you associate illegal immigrants with Latinos, and Latinos with racial victimization, and thus, you oppose anyone who opposes illegal immigration. If tomorrow, I could convince you that illegal immigration was associated with something else, you'd hold a different position.


What's missing is an assessment of the issue. Sadly, this occurs far too often and on all sides politically.



Why do you assume this? Aren't you more likely to be able to find a school that teaches what you want if there is a school voucher system in place? I guess I'm not following your line of reasoning here. To me, it's like saying that if instead of the stores only having one flavor of icecream, they offered many flavors, that you'd be unable to buy the flavor you want. I just don't get how that makes any sense...



I'm in agreement with you on that. However, public schools have not restricted themselves to just teaching "facts" for a very long time. Also, who decides what "facts" are taught?



I've expressed them many times. I'm positive I've expressed them to you directly in at least one or two previous threads. Perhaps you "forgot" what I said?

I believe in the principles of classical liberalism, largely as expressed by John Locke. I've told you this many many times. Can you figure out what your own positions are based on? I know that you think you're just a free thinking person, so why not think of what consistency there is in your ideas?




Note he says "foolish consistency". That's a consistency in which the fool isn't aware of it, or which is based on false assumptions. I know precisely why I take the positions I do. Your stated method of arriving at positions on issues is far more subject to what Emerson was talking about since there is a consistency to them, but you aren't aware of what it is. Thus, you're more easily manipulated. That's why it's "adored" by those who derive power by manipulation of the population.

I'm sure that if you tried to get me to jump through your hoops, you could convince yourself of that.



Your problem is that you hold yourself in such esteem and are so arrogant, you can't comprehend that others might be doing the same thing you are, and yet are still arriving at different conclusions than you do.



Why do I assume this? Because I live in the bible belt in Tennessee, and there are no private schools that are not religious. And I do not indulge in wishful thinking and assume that just because you build a voucher program, they will come. The majority of people in my area would be thrilled with keeping their children ignorant in an effort to keep them blindly following the flock.



I don't often take a phrase and make up a meaning for it in an effort to have something to point to and say, "See, I'm consistent and awesome!" The positions that my opinions and convictions are based on are not as easily laid down on paper (or in a message board) because they are constantly changing and evolving when I learn new things. There is a core thread of morals, if you will, which leads me to try to always find the path that leaves people with the opportunity to create their own happiness and make their own choices. I can't ascribe some fancy label to that (interesting that you need to cling to one, and yet adamantly tear the idea down so often) but it's the way that I try to live my life.

I also know that I am complex, and my opinions are not always those that follow that thread, even if I try to do so.

"Most" things? You probably do. "Everything"? Of course not. But then I don't agree with Samira or Smash or Nexa or even Flea on everything so I guess it doesn't prove much of anything. Especially since you're always so eager to lump all of use together into some liberal hivemind.

You can't be a Christian and support fornication, either. That's also extremely simple.

So, why don't you quit speaking for "true Christians" already, since you're obviously not one?