Warm Worm wrote in news:fhq5hl$jaa$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:
I think of going outside, because that is the very first thing you can do with children. Everything else comes later ;)
Anyplace can be a classroom. That's the point that IMO too many poeple miss. THe best IMO is to go out, observe, collect data, and so on, and then come back (to someplace) to discuss it, digest it.
I could never do math because it was never tied to anything - it was just a matter of "shut up and learn it, and if you can't learn it, shut up anyway". Once i got out of school, I did more math than I ever did in school, because it bacemae a tool rather than just some abstract bit of pedagoguery.
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:
It's already been argued at length, and better by other people, than I can. In a nutshell, education (and no, ot the current public warehouse system, as I've already gone into at length) allows for a diversity of work and a higher skill level for workers; it informs people as to the value of things like Liberty and Justice. THere is a correlation between lack of education, and criminla lifestyle, ebcause people who have no job qualifications tend to resort to crime to live. Democracy itself, whether direct or representational, relies on poeple's ability to understand facts/situations, and make better choices whcih will preserve their rights. ANd so on - as I said, others have gone into this at length, and better than I prob. can.
3D Peruna wrote in news:Bz40j.95$Ud5.76 @newsfe02.lga:
I've already explained that about 20+ times.
Hel-OOO? How on earth do you get Marxism from *anything* that i wrote?
I have consistently talked about teaching critical thinking skills (and yes, some kids are born with an advantage in htat area, however, as with reading and arithmetic and basic math, many skills can also be taught so as to give them abasic level of competency). i have *never* said anything whatsoever about Marxism. The last time I thought Marxism made sense was when I was 11, and even there, it was mainly a rebellion thing, not a political or philosophical stance. I had to study it to some extent because of my focus on the SOviet Union and subsequent job, and it's untenable.
So don't bring in that old "red herring" nonsense. =>:-p I've been IMO quite clear about what I've meant by "education".
Not to mention that a so-called "Marxist division" does not necessarily equate with Marxism, unless snidely stated or manipulated as the above. Somebody pulled somebody's red button. It has been considered polite for decades to propose, for example, a Marxist division when it comes to dating. First, no one is denigrated because one of the parties decides to go somewhere less affordable to the other and secondly, the person with a lower salary (your date could be interning at a low salary, for example) has the dignity of paying his/her share. It's basically a statement of situation and takes the status of salary out of the equation. Of course, it presumes that the couple dating knows enough about each others' salaries - ya gotta be good enough friends for that. Teaching teenagers how to calculate the cost of their desires and still include other people is a worthy discussion
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com:
Taxes are not theft when people decide through the democratic process (which, yes, has been suborned, but I'm speaking theoretically, not describing what exists). THat basically means "majority rule".
Remember the phrase "No taxation without representation".
As above.
WHat irritates me, really, is people wanting all the benefits fo being connected to a society, yet simultaneously wash their hands of it. Don't try to imply that I'm in any way against property rights, and certainly do not imply I'm some sort of communist. WHat I am is realistic regarding both human nature, the cost-benefit balance fo living in a community/society, and the constant conflict between ideals and practicalities when it comes to getting things done. I've presented many examples of situations wherein communities would benefit by working together - since I tend to type/write rather slowly, it takes a great deal of time for me to do that, btu I have doen so because I do think it's very improtant to balance individual rights with group benefit.
If you have ever used the highway system, you have to realize that it could never have been built if each community were to build its own little patch of the thing, and most certainly not if each owner of frontage land was responsible for building their patch. Yes, I know, it was built for military reasons. But don't try to tell me that people haven't benefitted from the way it's increased commerce and personal travel.
I won't say there are "many" examples like that, because I haven't tried to think of them all. WHat I *am* saying is that, if communities vote to fund a road or a schoolhouse or something elsedeemed to be a benefit, that is democracy at work, hence *not* theft. You are so focused on that idea that you forget the people can and do *choose* to fund some things.
Which is not to say that the current governmental bureaucracy is good or fair or just or any of that. It's merely to poinjt out that, when choice is involved, it's not "theft". Now, if you disagree with the community's choice, you can choose to pay for the funding, protest, and/or move, however, you can't legitimately call that choice "theft".
So, **if** you live in a community which does *choose* to fund a school so that *all* kids have an equal opportunity to learn to read, write, do basic math, and think critically, you can still home-school your kids, and in a fair system, get a tax reduction, but you can't legitimately
*both* say you support democracy, yet also denounce a community's democratic choice to give all children at least some sort of shot at an education.
I am constantly amazed at how we can provide tax incentives to outsource jobs from the US that we aren't providing for our own educated and literate workforce.
At the last Smithsonian Folklife Festival, there was a table in which the Irish were showing how they provide support services for US companies. They were assuming, in their literature and spiels that these were jobs that Americans would not want to take. They were dismayed to note person after person ask how they could get that job at that salary, asking things like "Do I have to move to Ireland?" or "Can you link me for this job from my house?".
This is one example. There are many others. And there are guides online for how to design and plan your own . Here are a few links:
formatting link
and
formatting link
show difference in approaches.
I home schooled for many years so I'm with you on this one.
Nothing like learning multiplication with half cartons of eggs and then using those eggs to make omelettes, angel food cakes and etc. Can do division with piles of nails...
Carpentry projects are great for kids to learn a little solid geometry.
3D Peruna wrote in news:NB70j.101$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe06.lga:
No, I think you are missing the point. I *know* there are many ways of looking at an issue - I'm not an idiot, for petesakes. I have thought, and continue to think, a lot about issues of rights and responsibilities, and I hold to my conclusion that rights mean nothing if they do not apply to everyone, including children (rights such as the right to live and the right to not be harmed). Opportunity is great, but it is maximized when all children have a chance to learn/be taught the things which allow them to both see, and then hopefully take advantage of, opportunity.
FIrstly, it's obvious, or at least it ought to be so, that I've been talking about basic issues, *NOT* merely describing a specific status quo. I've said about 100 times that the status quo is morinic and IMO untenable over the long term. Yet here you go once again about how pissed you are because you are forced to pay taxes. What, you think I don't have to pay them? THis household pays a *hell* of a lot in tax money. I don't like it, either.
But that is a far cry from saying that innocent children should be neglected, kept ignorant, etc., because it's "nobody else's business" that some people who have kids are stupid a-holes.
I've been talking about the *issue* - i.e., theoretically re: ethics - and *not* the status quo regarding education. My personal conclusions remain that denying children eduucation, i.e. keeping the child illiterate and innumerate, is abusive because, given the facts of human psychology, it condemns the vast majority to an unfulfilled, and often miserable, life, and of more interest to you, very often a life of crime that can inmpact your property and personal safety.
Nothing wrong with that. VOlunteerism is a great thing, IMO.
*****I am not talking about welfare!!!*****
How many times do Ihave to say that? Once again: people who abuse/neglect their kids have no right to those kids. THe kids should be taken away and adopted out, period, and no reversals of any such adoption. In a nutshell, it has to be a choice between kids, *OR* crack. There shoule have *nver* been an option to simply, without question, hand non-working people more money every time they pop out a kid - after all, *working* people have to live withing their means, and do not get extra money simply for having another kid. If you can't afford to take care of the kids, adopt them out to people who will see to it that the children *do* get an education, a chance at the proverbial brass ring, a chance to live a decent life.
SO don't imply that I'm talking about socialism - it's insulting and nowhere near the truth, totally misses the point, which is, education so as to *minimize* welfare - which IMO is evil becasue of what it has done to families (by rewarding broken homes) and because of what ti continues to do to people.
And what the bloody damn bleep does that have to do with trying to ensure that all kids - who are not responsible for what their parents dis/do - have a shot at learning to read, write, and do basic math?
See my post to Don re: the question "What if you live in a community which, through a direct democratic process, votes to have a school so that *all* the kids in the community have a chance to learn the things which are nnecessary for them to be employed, and seek self-fulfillment/happiness?" If you vote against it, but 90% of the community votes for it, well, you can either pay, or move, but if you refuse to support the democratic process, you cannot claim to favor democracy. OTOH there was someone who recently said (wish I could recall who...) that "everyone favors democracy when things go their way". THe true test is what people do when they're the minority vote.
And, *yet again*, just to be clear, I am talkng about the fundamental ethics that IMO ought to be one of the foundational principles of public service, NOT describing the current clown-college/collage that is passing itse;f off as "the government".
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in news:0R00j.1455$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Uh, sorry, but that makes no sense, unless you can come up with a reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) example.
A lot of jobs are dull and boring, especially in retail, where a vast amount of time is wasted neatening up after dooflollies who tear theorugh everything and fling stuff around like spolied toddlers flinging toys. But that's not a matter of "stupid orders", it's a amtter of "a lot of people are jerks, but in order forthe shop to make sales and, in turn, keep one's job, customers still have to be able to see the wares and they also still want to see a neat and attractive display". IOW, that's just business. Not at all thesame as just following a stupid order because some little lavatory Napolean likes to assert their pee-drip bit of "power".
There is no end of people who claim authority, and then use it to "order" people to do things, which people do, even against their own better instincts, *merely* because someone in "authority" told them to do it. Most "authority" is basically bogus, anyway.
Only when one adds to that the reason behind the concept. In the military, people have to learn to respond without thought, i.e on "instinct", because the assumption is that the commander is trying to achieve an objective while also trying to lose as few troops as possible.
And if one is a member of an orchestra, one has to be jsut that, a partof a larger entity, and not just go off a start noodling in the middle of a concert.
By and large, however, I'd say that the vast majority of mere "orders" (as opposed to directions/instructions describing a process) are stupid, and unnecessary.
Uh, I was being sarcastic :p
((At teh same time, if someone is intellectually handicapped, they often excell at repetitive tasks and can sometimes reach a craftsman level. It all depends upon the individual ;) ))
Happy? Not in my younger years - but it had nothing to do with getting educated; it was due to (1) being *kept from* the education that would have benefitted me (I had a very high IQ score in high school, and top
10% scores in several aptitudes, top 0.1% in spatial relations - but when people choose to believe you're a stupid ditz, mere facts, mere test scores, cannot change their chosen delusions), and (2) the Asperger's, which is, in a nutshell, a from of 'social handicap' so to speak - I didn't learn to "keep my head down" as you put it, because, despite having a theoretical grasp of psychology, I've never been able to "read" people; dealing with people in person is a lot like going to see a movie in a foreign language: you see people doing things, see their faces change, but there is no context, no meaning to it, it is inscrutible. To know when to "put your head down", you have to have enough "social instinct" to realize when people are gunning for you. I've never been manipulative or inherently dishonest - I *could/can* be, but it's a waste of time to me and distracts time and energy and "brain RAM" from doing things that are more interesting and more constructive.
At the same time, when I stick to doing what I have analysed as being right, I've always been happiest, because I know at those times that I did not simply w**re myself out to some a-hole's petty meanness or petty power-lust.
So, yes, all in all, I *am* happier for not having merely "gone with the flow" as you put it, or as I put it, jum,p over cliffs with other groups of lemmings. It's also led to a greater degree of financial security than for most of my former so-called "peers", a.k.a. name-calling sheep.
I maintain that it's a matter of consideration. Respect *is* an offshoot of consideration, because it means having at least soem modicum of empathy for others. ((Y'all prob. like to believe I'm a just a mean old misanthropic cynical fart, but I'm actually quite civil to others in my dealings, and when I am out and about, I generally make a lot fo folks laugh becuase I try to be kind to people and make little jokes - and it i ssatisfying to bring a littel laughter into someopne's day, since so many people *are* miserable and mean.))
Respect is *not* the same thing as "shut the f*ck up and do like I tell you"; at least, that never worked for me, ebcause punishments had less of an impact upon me than did merely sucking up, because sucking up meade me lose respect for myself. Nope, my female chromosome donor could wail into me with belts and sticks 'till teh cows came home; but with my Dad, whom I respected, all he had to do was give em a certain look that expressed disappointment, and I'd be heartbroken. So no, respect is not mere obedience.
Now, if you're talking aboout kids in the infant to toddler range, of course they have not yet developed the mental/intellectual ability to understand such concepts, but after even a young age, they understand at least the *basics* of empathy - and thus, respect, because part of respect is the desire to not hurt others if one can avoid it. SO, for example, I might not *like* this neighbor or that, but that does nto mean I want to harm them. It's nto a matter of "fear" or whatever; I merely have an aversion to causing unnecessary harm - the exception being, of course, if I am, or any of my loved ones is, attacked.
Sez who? How can you be so sure that this "happiness" is not merely a case of not knowing wny better? Nasd how do you define happiness? What you posit is perhaps a description of the current state for the majority, but I reject the idea that it's *any* sort of ideal. I also am not convinced that it *is* an entirely accurate description of the status quo
- in fact, I suspect that a lot fo people are miserable becaus ethey
*don't know how to stop being sheep - c.f. "anorexia/bulemia", for example. How many people suffer because they feel they have no choice except to be and do what others tell them to?
Most people like to be part of a community, yes; most people prefer to not have to make weighty desicions, yes. But happier because they don't know how to be themselves, be an individual? Bull.
So what? I don't care - I wasn't talking about what Don said; I was talking about my own views, not his.
The Irish were glad to do "thos jobs you Americans don't want to do. And the setup consts were financed by your government. We are grateful." (At least, that's how I remember the conversation )
formatting link
etc.
Lot's of sides to the issue. NO tax incentives for creating jobs here at home.
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com:
That's not what I'm saying - unless you think that all and any decision made by any communnity via a democratic (i.e. majority) vote is always completely abhorrent and wrong and to be dispensed with.
The solution is everything is - what? Dispense with any semblance of community? I'm trying to discern the political philosophy here, the fundamental ethics. You seem to be saying that the *only* ethic is "I've got mine!" The problem is that it's not fundamentally practical, nuless you live in a cabin out somewhere and make all of your own stuff. The moment you even trade a fur pelt for a steel axe, tho', you're interactic with others. What is the basis for agreement as to what will be traded? If ther is no comprimise, the other person might demand 10 pelts for a sewing needle, or you can demand the steel axe for a squirrel tail.
The point is that trade is one of the most basic/simplest forms fo community, and it requires comprimise - there has to be some reasonable basis for deciding the worth of the items to be traded.
A village is far more complex. All sorts of comprimises have to be made, but people live in villages because the practical benefits outweigh the annoyances of the comprimises. So how do you rpopose a village decide upon anything? How does the village decide when to hunt, or when to harvest berries, or perhaps plant soem crop or another? What if teh decision of the majority is that every hosuehold in the village has to contribute some of its grain/seeds to planting the crop? Is that "theft", even when every household derives some sort of benefit - including the really poor family at the edge of the village, where the father died and the woman and her kids can't hunt effctively or work at gathering or planting as effectively, so they have no more grain/seeds to contribute to the planting?
If democracy is evil becuase the majority overrides the individual, what should the decision-making process be? What if the village decides one person is a pain in the ass because of continually refusing to go along with the majority decision, and decides to either kick that person out, or shun that person - meaning, no contact, including trade? How practical, at that point, is individuality?
Part of the village ethic in most places has been that, if one family gets extra help this year, it just moght be one's own family who needs, and receives, some extra help next year. A bit of history: the Russian peasantry, before teh Bolshieviks took over in 1917, had a system wherein plots of land were owned by the village, no by any individual, and what they would do would be to rotate the plots so that no one family would be stuck all teh time with a poorly-producing plot; when the harvest came in, the family with the crappy plot would receive a portion from the others.
Was that "theft"?
When the Soviet Union was formed (i.e. when the whole thing became socialized), all plots were joined together and farmed in the "modern" industrial manner - then all teh grain was taken by the gov.t and supposedly "redistributed". Literally millions of peasant (land-workers) starved; I think it was something like 20 million - and IIRC, it was Stalin who said somethig to the effect of: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic".
That is definitely theft.
What I have been talking about, **with education**, i.e. one specific thing, is moer along the lines of the Russan peasant-village idea, where a community agrees that, for some things, the community benefits when it functions as a whole.
Is that theft?
Oh, but sorry, I'm just a stupid moronic "dead weight" product of the public schools, incapable of thinking, so I guess it's just idiotic of me to even dream up any sort of theoretical questions like that...
I didn't... but I did get it from some kids I know in the public education system. That's what they're being taught. "Fairness" is more important that knowing how to multiply. Being a good citizen is stressed over being able to read and reason. That's where it came from.
++ wrote in news:FqOdnUtXa92k9dnanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@rcn.net:
That made my head hurt!
OTOH, I really never did, and still don't, "get' a lot fo that social- status crap. Sure, i'd get more "social status" if I got that 500-series Beemer to park inmy driveway, btu the thing disn't fit my butt so I stuck with my 'crappy old basic Saturn" (got it in 2001, so it's really not that old, and it's basic, no power windows, but not *that* crappy, sinceit does get me from Point A to Point B, and teh A/C/ works).
If I have more $$ than my friend, and choose to enjoy my $$ by taking him somewhere he's never been, or hell, maybe by giving him a coupel hundred bucks, I don't see any sort of "power" or "inequity" or "lack of dignity" in it, it' ssimply that sometimes, I really enjoy seeing a friend have a great time.
SO all of that "Marxist Division" stuff just blows right by me - I don't get it.
???
IMO, it's just a matter of enjoyment. If your enjoyment *harms* someone else, that is wrong. OTOH, is Brittany Speas makes $700K a month, and spends every last penny of it, uh, so what? It doesn't affect me, or most people.
It comes down to whether one is harming someone else, and how. If someone else is simply jealous, or peeved, or even "offended", that isn't harm, and isn't relevant. ((Sure I'm a little envious that I don't have $700K but it ain't harming me...))
As for including others, well, if someone is your friend, or anyone you care about, you like to spend time with them, share expereinces, share things you enjoy. You include each other in your respective lives.
Including anyone else is neitehr necessary, nor autiomatically desireable
- even if you're doing volunteer work, there has to be a line between that work, and your degree of personal (and financial) involvement. Without that line, that boundary, you get eaten alive, because there is never any end to people claiming tha tthey "need" your time, yoor emotional investment, your stuff, yoru money, etc. and so on.
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in news:A_PZi.2427$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
More to the point, if someone is beating and otherwise abusing a dog or cat, is it anyone's business? Is it anyone's business if, for example, Michael Vick was running a dog-fighting ring? If so, why? THe dogs are his property, after all.
If it is someone else's business, then why is it "nobody's business" if someone is harming their children? I don't mean giving their kid a pop on the butt once in a while; I mean beating with belts and sticks, neglecting, keeping ignorant so as to try to maintain dominance, and so on.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.