Re: The value of shopping local

Page 5 of 12  


This is an interesting development. The Don the Baptist is looking for cover, since he can't actually admit that some of the stuff he says is *completely ridiculous*, and now might understand that they are widely perceived that way, even by people who don't give him a hard time about it. He has taken their silence as approval, which, as I've said, is historically the risk.
Now he's not so sure of where he stands in the flock, so now he trivializes calls to substantiate or retract *ridiculous* statements by transferring them to statements that would never draw that kind of fire, like Worm's open-ended question. He (clumsily) hopes to blur the obvious differences between these types of utterances, so that he can go one saying the stupid things he seems to need to say with impunity, since now every innocent statement is subject to these 'unfair' calls for rationality.
For me it points to the importance for him of an *quiescent audience* for such utterances, and his need for the sense of 'community' that the inferred approval of such statements offers him. The Randian veneer from the golden age of ideology seems to be coming slightly unglued. What does Howard Roark care what other people think of his heroic utterances? He is a rugged, towering individual. Does he in fact need the 'sheep' he curses to reflect his monumentality back to up to him? It might be a tad lonely up there on Olympus, but, groups are for sissies, and 'gurlz', right?
It's sooo Alpa Chimp.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't say silence supported anything, but that it could be inferred that it did by the people making the offending statements, and that this can encourage them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I try...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He's supposed to be the Number One Poster in the entire group! From what I see second-hand, Amy's got him logically pinned and she knows it, so she's very patiently waiting for the count. Don's now happy guns are regulated so that people like me can't get them. <Slapping the tarp with open hand, "One!"> Don's now concerned that everyone else in the group will have to be rational. <Slapping the tarp, "Two!"> Don insults her intelligence, calls her narrow-minded... <Slapping the tarp, "Three!"> Ding, ding, ding!!
<Don: Insert ad hominem here.>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

I think he views it more like holding a stock that has declined in value...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Averaging down?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Worst, IMO, is the namke-calling. "YOu're so stupid!" "No, *you* are stupid!" I've seen it degenerate to a kindergarten-level.

Weel, part-yes and part no. Kids are just that, kids, andnot miniature adults, which nmeans that their brains have not yet finished developing, which in turn means reduced impulse control. Part of child-rearing is the process of teaching them impulse-control, in ways that are approriate to their mental age (soem kids do mature a bit mroe quickly than average, others a bit more slowly - even kids are individuals).
When a 3-yr-old becomes frustrated and hits someone else, it's not a amtter of "evil", it's that impulse control is not inborn/instinctive, meaning, it has to be taught.
Problems arise when the parents themselves are emotionally underdeveloped and act upon mere impulse. One of the worst things for kids is to grwo up in an atmosphere of incinsistency. One such inconsistency is, for example, if a child is punished for hitting, when teh parents themselves are physically abusive, using size, strangth, and/or aggressiveness as methods of attempted control over others. Another major problem is that nonsense of having something be a horrid sin one day, and jim-dandy the next.
IOW, agression (poor impulse control - which includes silly name-calling) will manifest at some time or another in nearly all children; what makes for a reasonable person, or a putz, is what adults, esp. parents, do, how they react, when that manifestation occurs, AND how those actions realte to their (the adults') own behaviors.
It is not "nature *versus* nature", it is "nature *plus* burture".

No, just a rossignol ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I'd never argue against that fact, to be sure...

My biggest concern, actually, is the idea of safety training. I don't know the actualy statistics, iof there are any, about how many people get POed, and then go buy a gun with the intent of using it. But there are a lot fo people who just don';t know anyhting about gun safety.
Now, I'm also speaking, don't forget, as someone who grew up in a house that was well-armed. I might have mentioned that my father was a competetive handgunner (had a shelf-full of trophies), and also a collector. He also did some hunting. And a loaded gun was *always* kept in the night-chest next to their bed. I never played with it - firstly, I had principles of gun safety well-ingrained from a very early age, and second, I literally would not put onme foot into my parents' bedroom without their permission. Period. Not an exaggeration; it's how we were raised.
But that's the point - it's how we were raised. Again, a lot fo people don't seem to know the first thing about gun safety, and that is hazardous for the poeple around them (I don't really care if someone blows *their own* fool head off...) So, to me, the whole waiting period thing is dicey, whereas I *do* think that a person should have to demonstrate a knowledge of gun safety before being able to buy one.

Yeah, *that* is just stupid. As though someone with a closetfull of guns is going to get POed, like, what?, on the way home from the A&P??, and decide to pop into the gun shop to buy one to nail someone...? Esp. when the person has a concealed gun permit and can carry one at will. Yeesh...

Oh, I know :p . That whole argument (that criminlas buy guns in gun shops) is based on fear, not facts.

A lot of it is. I detest the "presumed guilty" mentality.
Yes, there are some dangerous poeple, but most of the gun "control" proposals do that and nothign else - IOW, control guns, NOT dangerous poeple. Dangerous people will do stuff like pour a bucketfull of battery acid off of a rooftop, or figure out how to make explosives from, I dunno, foot powder and a flea collar, or some other innocuous thing. We already can't buy Sudafed any more without registering like criminals, just because some a-holes want to cook it up in old toilet-bowls or whatever so they can turn their brains into Swiss cheese by using Crystal-Meth. Hell, I went to buy a can of metal spray paint at Lowe's this past Saturday, and had to stand there waiting at the self-chek-out until someone could come over and figure out that I'm probably over 21 - why? becasue some kids have fingured out some way to "huff" (that's what the clerk called it) the stuff in the spray paint.
People get so caught up in trying to control the distribuition of *things*, even though *things* are not the fundamental problem. I'm waiting for the day that one has to surrender one's birth certificate and passport to buy a set of steak knives...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[snip]
"To Serve Man" Stop! Stop! DOn't get on that ship! "To Serve Man" - It's a cookbook!!!

Oh yeah, I always love the Piece Of Paper bit. As tho' a nut-case is worried about that.

The sick thing is that, if you do protect yourself, you're likely to get some speech abou thow you shouldn't have "stooped to their level". I know how that one goes, boy oh boy =>:-p

Just look at the situation a few years ago in FOrt Lauderdale, I think it was. The rape and battery rate was through the roof; then a lwa was passed granting women a sort fo automatic Concealed Weapon license. Not all women carried guns, but a lot started to - and the rate of rape/battery plummetted.
THere are a lot of guys (and even a few women, too) who think they have a right to do whatever they want to someone whom they can physically overpower. Not all humans posess Humanity...

Heh...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More to the point, further back, there *was* public education - teh proverbial Schoolhouse. Many people didn't get past early grades, because they had to start working -0 that it true. But a fifth-grade education form the old schoolhouse was better than the current bhigh- school diploma.
THe difference was that education was more local, and I think that people therefore were more invested in it.
Also, a huge problem is that the people born in the 60's and 70's *generally* (not of course universal) knew less hardship than did us "old geezers", and when they had kids, those kids (again, very general) knew even less hardship. It's not uncommon for kids to have weekly allowances exceeding $100-$300, even when the parents are working extra jobs to provide that allowance, and many kids don't even have trhe responsibility of taking out the garbage once a week, or mowing the law - they have no real *role* in their households, other than to exist. And I think that's a big problem. part of being a family is sharing not only fun, but also, responsibilities, because the latter actually forge tighter bonds between people - ther eis just something special about overcoming a problem together.
But when that doesn't exist, and people don't even sit down to dinner together, what sort of bonds *can* exist? Many kids grow up being just plain unconnected to much of anything, with the result that many don't care about much of anything.
I don't knwo what role schools can play in all of this, but I do have the idea that the increased bureaucratization of school systems jsut adds to that detatchment, because the school, at least in more urban areas, is not really rooted in any community - administrators come froma ll over, and it's just this massive conglomeration that the kids move through.
In a way, it's soprt of like "globalization" - massive faceless organizations in which the poeple who should be, and used to be, most important (the "consumer", or, in the case of schools, the kids, and specifically, their education) is now the least important.
As with a globalized corporation, the people making up the base of the theoretical pyramid (as in, We The People), become powerless, lacking control, emotionally detatched, becasue they are no longer dealing with something that' spart of their community, but rather, some huge faceless monster hat sits on them, is imposed by some distant force.
I think that is the underlying foundation-stone of a great many problems.
But the sulution is...?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(1) From what I've seen of the curricula. (2) From people I've known throughout my life.

Lucky you. I went to what was basically "sweat hog high". Most of what I've learned, I learned through reading.
I know poeple who had a lto of variety of courses, as did you. I've also known people wose public "education" was pathetic.
SO what? THis isn't about whether you personally got to study philospohy in high school, or whther my "English" classes in HS consisted of trying to teach remedial reading to the kids who just kept getting passed along. The fact aht you personally studied X or Y does not in any way mean that all, many, or most children actually receive an education.
[ ... ]

That doesn't really follow - I said, basically, "X seems to have been the case, and if it was, I think it had to do with Y", and it's not really logical to reject Y because X might not have been accurate. IOW, Y was a proposed contribution to X, but if X is not accurate, that in and of itself in no way disproves Y.

I did not do so. It's got to do with learning to take responsibility for oneself, which does have an impact upon how seriously one takes one's education.

So mere material acquisition, and being able to relinquish personal responsibility, equates to "higher standard of living"...?
As I said, many kids have no real *role* in their households, other than to exist - and I'll add, receive all sorts of comforts and funds regardless of how they behave. And, sorry, but no, that is not psychologically beneficial.

It should have been patently obvious that my point was not to try to return to that. The point was about the localized nature of education in the past, mroe integrated, so to speak, into the local community.
THe point is to look at what has worked in the past, consider *why* it worked, and think of how to apply those principles to the future - the point is *not* about some simplistic assunption of "returning to the supposed good old days". Part of what has been recurring throughout this thread is the fact that schools *are* often more like old turn-of-the century factories than they are like, oh, say, Socrates' interactive circle of students (i.e. hands-on so to speak), and wven worse, too many schools *are* mroe like warehouses than even factories.

Nobody was suggesting a return to the late 1800's/early 1900's, so stop trying to make it seem that such was the case. You claim tah tyou are reading a history of education, so, what, are you going to skip the parts that talk about that era? Or are you going to read about what worked, and possible reasons for successes? Why do you speak as though the rest of us are too intellectually deficient to do the same?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, so what is the curriculum of your idyllic one-room schoolhouse and what is one from a modern school system? Let's put them side by side and compare. But first we need to decide what the _basis_ of the comparison is. For instance, are we going for shee volume of information taught? Are we looking at fitness for the job? If so, how can we determine what job the graduates of each would be going into? (I can't believe I am having to define the expression "what basis", but there you have it.)

How many people do you know that were educated in the 1850's? Would you consider them to be as much of a representative sample as the people you know from current school districts?

So, _some_ school systems are bad, others are good. Do you _really_ think that one room schoolhouses would have been uniformly good?

I am a product of the public school system (mostly in Mississippi, no less). Clearly, a quality education CAN be had in the public schools. Your blanket statement that one-room schoolhouses were somehow better than current public schools just doesn't hold up.

Nor does it prove it. The biggest problem with your assertion is not whether or not any presumed quality in way-back education might have been caused by community involvement is true or not, but that even if it is true, there's probably not much we can do to generate community involvement.

Being able to eat when you are hungry and live in climate-controlled comfort certainly does.

And how is the educational system supposed to solve this?

I agree with that. However, if the things that made old time schools work (to whatever extent they did) was community involvement, but community involvement is not something that can be made to happen, it may not be terribly useful to try to emphasize that aspect too much. Instead, we should look at what we _can_ do.

The reason education worked in the past is simple...it was educating people for what their roles were going to be in the future. The problem we have now is two-fold:
1) Our education is already behind the curve in that we're educating people in a way that worked for roles they would have filled 50 years ago. 2) Even if we were able to educate people for jobs that exist the moment someone graduates, likely those jobs will not exist within 10 years. So we need to educate people to be creative and adaptable. Today's schools do not do that well, and today's teachers are probably the worst suited to be capable of imparting those skills.
-Amy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ ... ]

THAT WAS NOT THE DAMN POINT ALREADY. It was one frigging example, a *postulate*, a *possible example*.
You continually denegrate other people's supposed "lack of comprehension", yet overlook your own.

Again, you have gotten a pit-bull lock-hold on as *example* mentioned as a possible illustration of an alternativge to massive (as in, New York City, etc.) school bureaucracy. And *totally* missed the point.
THe point was in no way that they were some idyllic ideal to which weneed to return - the point was about local/community-based education, community involvement in education.
And you can stop yuelping about how you went to publice school - so did I, it's not special.

Self-defeatism *certainly* won't agenerate community involvement - you've thrown in th etowel before you've even entered the ring. Yeesh.

So the onlyu thing you can see is either material glut, or starvation? How tediously black-or-white.

Again, I didn't say it was. It's one of the things that interferes with education.
[ ... ]

I hate defeatism. I really do. It's too damn easy to say "it can't be done, so we won't try". Defeatism is one of the major factors behind most problems - people don't even bothe rtrying to do anything, because it's easier to just sit back and say it can't be done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban,alt.architecture Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:22 AM Subject: Re: The value of shopping local

Not really... I was replying to your post as I went along. You hadn't yet made your point that you hadn't really thought out your one-room schoolhouse example.< <stuff snipped>

That's not defeatism, it's accepting the things we cannot change and having the wisdom to know the difference.

And you criticize my reading comprehension...

How bout: we're not likely to solve that one at first, so look at things we CAN control and go after those first?
I noticed you deleted my points about the more likely causes of why the school systems worked in the past and what we _actually_ need to do to solve it. Sounds like you're not interested in any other perspectives than yours. I suppose if you say "the reason schools were better then is X" and X is something that's conspicuously difficult to recapture under today's circumstances, then you don't need to feel so bad about not coming up with any actual workable strategies for solving the problem.
-Amy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't a matter of not thinking it out, it was a matter of suggesting soemhting that other people might be interested in thinking about, esp. given that the ORS was not the main point, despite your insistance upon trying to make it so.

Sorry, but it's too easy to use aphorisms as "justifications" for not trying to come up with solutions to problems - I've seen it doen far too often. Granted, it takes a hell of a lot of energy to try to make changes, but that doesn't mean that no changes can ever be made. Suggesting that it's useless to even try is not wisdom, but defeatism.

No, i merely suggest that you be a bit slower when it comes to criticizing others, and a bit more cognizant of the times you err.

THat's not what you said. And anyway, all I've bene doing all along is suggesting the ssame thing that works in archetecture, and in a great many other situations: look at history, see what worked and *why* it worked, and then give careful thought as to whether some of the historical solutions can be combined with modern methods so as to achieve a better result. Or, to put in into the form of an old adage, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Part of all that is *obviously* looking at a given situation and priortizing which things can, should, and need to be addressed first. I've not said anything different from that.

No, it was late, I was tired, also aching (arthritis), plus I have to budget my time, because I can't do things as quickly as I could when I was 30, or even 20, years younger (including typing), and don't weigh quite enough for a time-dilation effect to occur localy. It is also too time-consuming to go back and search for refrences on each and every tangential detail that poeple choose to focus upon, especially given that I've a couple of decades worth of accumulated reading, higher education, leisure learning, personal experinece,and personal observation to sift through. So excuse me for not living up to a higher standard of documentation than others - at least I try to be far more careful than average to use qualifiers when I'm not certain whether I remember something correctly ("IIRC") or when something is my opinion ("IMO") or when something is a matter of personal expereince and/or observation.
What I'm not interested in is when points are missed, no matter how often I attempt to clarify them, and I'm expected to defend statements that were intended to be either analogies, or possible points of consideration.
Over and above that, however, it is exceedingly insulting for you to say I've no interest in other perspectives - it simply proves that you do nto know or comprehend even the tiniest thing about me or my life. One thing is that I had to fight tooth and nail against people who insisted that i was stupid, "merely a dumb Polack", and so on, including both most of my public school teachers, and my so-called "family". Unwilling to consider other perspectives? Considering that I grew up hearing that "Hitler had the right idea", and other equally-abhorrent "values", I've gone to immense lengths to consider other perspectives so as to improve myself and try to become a better human being.

You don't feel like considering the example, wondering whether it did work, and thinking about why, and whether aspects of it might be applicable to current problems - you instead seem to expect me to lay out each and every detail for you, while you insist that this and that "can't" be changed; you also chose to be insulting when I do not lay it all out in excrutiating detail, and clipped some of your post.
I have never claimed to be omniscient or perfect, but I have tried to consider a large range of viewpoints, and I've also been able, at least occasionally, to admit that I was wrong when someone can look at a point I was trying to make, and clearly/rationally illustrate that what I'd thought was factual, was not. Yes, I do have some opinions, as does anyone, but I try very hard to avoid making personal attacks when I don't agree with someone or when I can't see tha they're making a good point. It's rather arrogant of you to claim otherwise, most especially when you refuse to even consider the *possibility* that what you might be projecting something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Ok Freud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just get irritated when people bypass teh "500 lb gorilla" (the point) and start picking apart the pebbles (details, typos, suggestions, and other triviata). I've gotten that a lot over the years, and it *seems* (but only guessing, because I really dunno why people do what they do) to me to be an attempt at "argument by deflection" - IOW, when a conclusion can't be attacked, people try to distract attention away from it and focus upon a detail or bit of trivia. One sees that in politics very often.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

THey had public education is at least some communities - but it was community/public, not state/public or federal/public. Even when states had standards, schools were still part and parcel of, "owned", if you will, by, the local community.
But it did exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

GROUP. Community. People voting to act as a unit.

It only worked at that time because the world was a very different place.
These days, there are very few jobs one can do if one is illiterate. If kids are at least taught to read and do math, they have a higher chance of finding work. ALso, unless you're goign to propose that illiterate people not be allowed to vote because they can't read the ballots, and presumably are not sufficiently educated to make good choices, it's a fact that education makes people better citizens - democracy is generalyl spearheaded by the educated, because they've learned enough to know that freedom is a good thing.

But it shouldn't *have* to be, that's part of the point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What confuses me is that you say you don't understand what I mean when I say group/community, but right there, you use the plural: people.
I use the word "voting", so maybe it'd be more clear if I say "a bunch of people decide that somehting is good for all of them, and decide to take a certain action". You can have a group of clients - in a sense, that group of poeple have formed a "community", albeit a temporary one, because they have conme together out of a shared interest (they will benefit from the building you design).
That's why I get confused by how strongly you reject words like "community". It is possible for a group of individuals to live in proximity to one another, live their lives independently, yet come together when they share a common interest, when there is something that could benefit them all. A community *can* be a stifling mob, but it doesn't *have* to be.

I certainly don't disagree on that.

I don't want to bring specific people into it, because I'm not the type who easily remembers much of the social stuff. ANd if someone has managed to to do enough for me to actually remember that I find them annoying, I don't want to bring them into it becuase I try to avoid being annoyed <G!>
As a general principle, though, one of the big problems with socialist systems in general is that people start thinking of it as being "free", and/or "paid for by the governemnt". People treat things and services and goods much differntly when those thing s are free, or are perceived as being free, than when the tings are paid for outright. THat's just human psychology - something paid for with "hard-earned income" is valued mroe highly than is something which is perceived as something that, so to speak, "falls out of the sky".
You know that as a business person (as do all business people) - freebies are quickly taken for granted.

THat falls under the above-mentioned "problems with socialized systems". Same goes for the following:

"The Starns Factory" effect.

Realistically, yeah, semi-literate (or semi-illiterate) does seem to go a lot further than it used to...

True, but if I didn't go off onto tangents, you wouldn't know it was me =:-o OTOH, given the human penchant for living in groups, I don't know that there is a better way to deal with things. Well, perhaps teh "philosopher king" - was that Plato? - where the ruler is benevolent and highly intelligent... I really do think that most people would be OK with that sort of setup. Although that's a different issue...

I think that, by 10, most kids have a pretty good idea of what they want to do. I also think that it's possible to see abilities by that age. THe prlblem is that, too often, abilities are actually *discouraged* by both families, and worse, schools, due to sociocultural nonsense (such as, gilrs "can't" be engineers or boys "can't" be artists - views which still hold sway among certain segments of society).
If a kid has a knack for fixing engines, hey, why not elt the kid go for it. IMO, part of what's gotten things so FUBARed is the myth that people are identical, or that they "should" be *made* identical. That is just ridiculous.
For that, and other reasons, I don't equate "school" with "educational organization".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.