The point is not that one group is *inherently* smarter than another; it is that the entrenched disparity due to socio-economic factors is such that simple equality of treatment will not erode the differences between these groups over any meaningful timescale.
Unfortunately, the liberal tendency to attempt to dictate results directly ignores certain 'socio-economic factors' that are inconvenient. First and foremost is that some societies or cultures are simply better than others, and practitioners of those better cultures will fare better in most ways than practitioners of backwards cultures. This readily observable fact is clear to anyone who hasn't had their head muddled up with multiculturalist nonsense (Yes, Japanese society is clearly superior to African tribal societies that still kill albinos for witch doctor potions and cut off little girl's clitorises.)
By artificially propping up participants of sub-standard subcultures in the United States, only destruction is spread.
Now it's very common at this point for someone to yell 'racist!', but note that I have been talking about cultures- which is an identifiable set of practices and behaviors- and not skin color. I will not pretend that behavior is dictated by skin color- will you?
What has your party done to deal with it?
I seem to recall something about judging folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Accordingly, folks like me (party notwithstanding) want to see people succeed or fail based on engaging in positive behaviors that will ensure their success going forward. Propping up the unqualified only leads them to early and more embarrassing failure, while calling the credentials of qualified people of the same 'disadvantaged' group into question.
Your point would be more meaningful if disaster preparation were a significant portion of the federal budget that them silly conservatives complain about, but it's not.
There are certain limited number of roles the government is suited to. Faithfully fulfilling those roles is what this conservative wants.
There are a vast number of tasks the federal government takes on that it is structurally incapable of handling in any intelligent way. You can't turn a screw with a hammer, yet we spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to just about do that. This conservative wants to see those roles, and those expenditures, eliminated.
Responding to certain types of disasters is something the federal government could competently and legitimately address. I would be all for funding such things.
Erm, it does not say that, not even by a long shot. The hypothesis that the universe has been created does not imply that it has a purpose. Also, if God created the universe who created God? From this you deduce that we all have a fate or a point? Sorry, but I think you are deluded. It's called wishful thinking.
You confuse science with philosophy. You claim to be a fan, but it appears I have to explain it to you. Science will give you how, philosophy will give you the big 'why'. I'm glad you're trying to purposely define your own role in this world, but not all of humanity has been given the social and educational structure that brought you to where you are.
I do not pretend to prove my points can be scientifically proven. You should not pretend they can be scientifically disproven, as we've left the realm of science.
Moving on, in Genesis, God's act of creation was purposeful. This is the beginning that has meaning. You would have me get caught up in a circle-jerk of 'but who made God? but who made him? and him? and him?......' If the analogous scientific answer was obtainable, it would be fascinating. From the philosophical standpoint, getting mired up in such sophistry serves no point.
No, because delusions don't help them. The truth does.
The truth you don't have? What are you offering in it's place? If you don't have the truth, and the subject matter is unfalsifiable and of little interest to hard science, then what business do you have calling it 'delusional'? I have explained why Genesis was not, and never could be, literal.
The Bible, and likewise all religions, attempt to answer questions about why we're here and what we're supposed to do. These are not questions science helps with. The need for an underlying supernatural philosophical structure is evident by the essentially universal presence of religion on earth. This human need will be filled. It can be filled by a beneficial belief system that advances it's adherents*, and there are perhaps less than half a dozen main types which do so. This belief system can also be filled by a retrograde religion which stunts* the personal development of it's adherents. There are many of these. There are also a number of people who claim to have advanced beyond such superstition, but they often fill the same need with something just as senseless.
I admit it's theoretically possible that there is no God, and that this beautiful world and all it's inhabitants are merely fortunate accidents. I simply do not find it probable.
The usefulness of the Bible depends partially on the maturity of the reader. With your bestiality argument, it appears you are in need of my help.
Now, it wouldn't be accurate to call me a Christian, but I have come to appreciate the good Christianity has done for mankind, especially as I see what fills the same role in it's absence.
For the moment let's assume the Bible is (among other things) our forbears passing on important lessons in the most effective way they knew.
They start the Bible with creation. Why? (Well, aside from the fact that the 'story' begins with the start of existence.)Was this 6,000 year old passage to serve as a lecture on how the universe was assembled? Would the specifics have been relevant or useful to anyone before the last 400 years? Who would start this story with an explanation of gravitational forces? Of the Newtonian physics pulling together sufficient mass to create a self-sustaining fusion machine that lights up our solar system? Would a history of the species of the earth meant anything? Would telling the tale of evolution, and of all the extinct creatures they never saw, have served any purpose?
Here we are, maybe six thousand years since the book of Genesis was written, and we're only now beginning to uncover the physical processes that made the universe and our world unfold. What place would this information had six thousand years ago?
None.
You are (besides the cow-f*cking cheap shot) 100% technically correct in your assessment of the literal truth of the book of Genesis.
You also miss the point entirely.
The point is this:
This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.
Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?
One depression-era scheme didn't work out -- the plan to make the Empire State Building a blimp port in the sky. A dirigible mooring was built on what is now the base of the television tower. The idea was that passengers could fly directly into Manhattan, getting off at the ESB, rather than landing in one of the boroughs or New Jersey. Only one blimp ever successfully docked with the Empire State, and that was only for three minutes. Near disasters, unpredictable winds, and the thought of passengers walking a catwalk 1,350 feet above the ground scuttled the plan.
Also, it's 2010. We don't call them 'third world countries' anymore. We call them 'developing nations'. The former is so Cold War...
For some states out there, 'developing nation' is an accurate description of the place. In others, 'developing nation' is indeed a euphemism for 'backwards hellhole', and I think that 'third world' conjures up the proper mental imagery in a more polite manner.
Meanings change, and without any sort of controlling body for the English language, a term means what it is commonly understood to mean. The end of the cold war didn't coincide with the end of the usefulness of the term 'third world'.
It's funny, when you do a comparison. For all the wailing about how backwards Texas is, it's California that's literally going down the toilet financially and demographically.
Texas is doing quite well, and IIRC, they've seem economic growth when most other states have seen a recession.
Leaving education aside, it's quite clear that Texas is doing several things quite well, and California is screwing most things up. What business do California politicians have lecturing anyone?
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams, Oct. 13, 1789
oh, this one is good too:
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
So while the government of the United States might not be Christian, the opinion at the time was that Christianity was necessary to preserve it. 'Why' is explained above. Atheists have not demonstrated an adequate method for instilling the necessary values on as wide a scale as Christianity. They constantly deride it, coming across as little better than the teenager who thinks his dad's a moron, only to figure out how smart he actually is when he gets to his late twenties.
They've done studies like this. Apparently it's not so great. There was a writeup on cracked.com a little while ago, with some title like "10 things that sounded awesome but weren't"
There is something very attractive about taboo behavior, particularly to adolescents. And if you make the ordinary taboo (ie, sex is naughty!), then the actually deviant is beyond the pale.
If your desire for thrill-seeking and naughtiness is sated by plain ol' intercourse, then more extreme sex acts are avoided altogether. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are ready to defend their right to horse-whip and ball-gag their willing partner, but they only got there because they were bored of the 'routine' sex act.
How many actually harmful deviant behaviors are avoided by making plain intercourse 'naughty'? How often does this social more channel what might otherwise end up as destructive behavior into entirely ordinary venues? (hehe, so to speak)
Further, by making the act of intercourse special and reserved, it serves the purpose of perpetuating society* by encouraging sex. If sex is nothing special, easily available, and entirely approved, how long would it take to get rather bored of it?
The human experience is rather complex, and those of us who would call intercourse 'just another biological function' don't realize the intricate interplay between biology, reproduction, society, and of course our own experiences. The practices and mores of our society are the result of distilled experience over the ages. While tradition is not immutable and infallible, it shouldn't be toss aside casually either. Liberation in one area may lead to degradation in other areas, and we may find ourselves painfully relearning the lessons that drove our forebears to create these bothersome rules in the first place.
(*If you think the world is overpopulated, show us you're serious by offing yourself. The rest of us recognize we've got something worth preserving here, and richer societies have declining birthrates anyway, so there's self-correction at play.)
That said, of course we still won't see all the oceans get destroyed, but worst-case the ecosystem of the gulf may be decimated for the rest of our lives and then some.
That may be a bit overly dramatic. The spill hasn't even added up to the Exxon Valdez yet, and this particular well will have to flow for a few more months past that to add up to what seeps into the gulf naturally. Now obviously one big leak isn't the same thing as 600 smaller ones, but oil isn't exactly new to the ecosystem either.
To get an estimate of how much oil seeps into the Gulf each year, the researchers took into account the thickness of the oil-only a hundredth of a millimeter, the area of ocean surface covered by slicks, and how long the oil remains on the surface before it's consumed by bacteria or churned up by waves. "The number is twice the Exxon Valdez's spill per year, and that's a conservative estimate," said Mitchell.
Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear.
Humans are, and you're one of them. One of the nice things about the Judea-Christian Heritage is that it teaches some humility, a desirable trait.
In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition.
And the faux-intellectual elite hate it when traditions are taught that impede their desire to fornicate with anything willing. Unfortunately, they fail to see the basis for teaching self-restraint ("Any pleasure not rationed by a preacher or priest is evil"), and think that because these traditions are taught with supernatural stories, they must be just as worthless as superstition.
The hallmark of such people is a complete and utter lack of imagination, as they can't see that religion would be a good vehicle for passing forward practices that experience has shown to be beneficial to society. They seek to tear down religion, but in fact have no realistic alternative for teaching useful morals and values that has been demonstrated on a widespread scale.
Don't be too in love with specifically articulated rationality. The ability to explain useful traditions is limited by the individuals experience, by their verbal skills, and by your ability to listen. Since you started out by implying how awesome you think you are compared to everyone else, your attention will always be a weak link.
The traditions you deride have moved our civilization through the last several thousand years. You're not smart enough to create such a legacy. You can look around the world and see that there are many traditions far worse than the western one.
If you can identify a mechanism in homeschooling which prevents Mr. Smith from telling his child that evolution is a lie from the devil and that the world is 6000 years old, I'd be glad to entertain the idea in a more serious light. But until then, public school is the lesser of two evils.
If totalitarian thought control is your goal, then yes, public school is the lesser of two evils. However, the poor kid who has only been taught about the biblical story of creation is the exception, not the norm.
The norm is that home schooled students significantly outperform public school students in many areas of study.
Better results matter. You seem to be concerned primarily with ensuring that everyone only thinks state-approved thoughts (correct or not), and are apparently willing to sacrifice all the better results home schools generally deliver in a vain attempt to stamp out the occasional outlier.
The politics of the matter are irrevocably intertwined. If I was an advocate for global warming, I wouldn't want to point out any conflict of interest on the part of the folks who fund most of the AGW research.
If you can find an AGW proponent that has acknowledged the potential of ulterior motives of politicians promoting AGW, then perhaps I misspoke.
However, given that: 1) You correctly identified my political alignment as right wing though I made no direct statement of the science. and 2) You used the political, purposely inflammatory, non-scientific term 'denialism'
Perhaps the science and politics are no longer separable, eh? Maybe you'd be best off coming to terms with that. In the single sentence
Thank you for epitomising the idiocy of right-wing denialism.
you've revealed a number of unflattering things about the emotional and intellectual level you operate on.
Exactly. The solutions demanded by AGW advocates are completely out of line with the advocate's established credibility and the highly theoretical nature of the science.
They also completely ignore our ability to invent solutions to problems as they arise, and instead seek to spend sometimes trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to roll back the clock.
Wait... what? If we really can guess your position on the truth of AGW based merely on a completely unrelated statement on the bias of a government agency, then this suggests that your position on AGW is somehow influenced by your opinions of government agencies, which is silly.
Hardly. AGW proponents aren't too keen on discussing ulterior motives on drumming up a global crisis. They like to talk about all the 'evil corporations' who have a vested interest in poisoning the earth (etc.) They often talk as if the scientists (who get their grants primarily from governments) are as pure as the driven snow, and the governments funding them could only possibly want the best for their people (this purity requires more money and control, to fend off those evil corporations, you see.)
So if I bring up the fact that politicians stand to gain from the acceptance of AGW, it would be unlikely I would also be a proponent of the AGW theory.
If you find a proponent of drastic action to fend off climate change that has previously acknowledged the 'money and control' motive of politicians, I'm interested in the link.
Possible - but is there any evidence to support your assertion?
Refer to the word 'conjecture' in my original comment's title.
As to the rest of your comment on the boys in question, a good ol' 'hate fuck' would be a tough thing to prove in court, and in accordance with the title/subject of my comment, it was conjecture. Being neither a journalist nor a jurist, I am free to do so.
And out comes the straw-man.
Can the answers to life and the resolution to a conjecture-based discussion can be found in a rhetoric 101 class?
If you weren't thinking it, someone else was. I've been commenting on the intreW3bs for quite some time now, and I know where these conversations tend to go.
We started delaying sex when we started mandating a 10-year education before adolescents were given any responsibilities. Having retarded their maturity, we then had to try and force restrictions on their sexuality to match - and it generally doesn't work that well.
Quite reasonable. In the realm of giving teenagers responsibility, if societal experience has shown that exclusive pair bonding with a minimum number of sexual partners is beneficial to the community, than a prolonged educational period would also necessitate prolonged chastity.
Now I also firmly believe that teenagers are quite capable of adopting far more responsibilities than we typically require of them, however, that includes the responsibility to keep it in their pants until they're married.
Or do you propose sexual responsibility is the one area where we can't expect a damn thing from teenagers?
Global warming is used as a justification to tax (carbon taxes) and control (cap and trade, various environmental regulations.).
There's nothing a government body wants more than money and control. Ergo, it's in the interests of the House of Commons to say 'yep, everything's legit here, and because it is, we're taking more of your money and restricting your lives & business even more. Gotta save the earth, ya know. It's for your own good.'
(The astute reader can guess my position on the matter of anthropogenic global warming, but the above statement is independent of the scientific truth of the matter.)
Chiefly because exposing school systems to a competitive market implicitly accepts that some schools will fall into even worse decay that they currently are. Poor schools become poorer, with little funding to hire better teachers or acquire better books.
As schools are not objects which can house an infinite number of students, some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral - schools that are not only sub-par, but lacking funding and interaction with a diverse body of students, since all the brightest have made it into the "nice" schools.
I don't see why anyone would object to the ultimate destruction of schools that just plain can't hack it.
Incidentally, there are a number of voucher-funded schools out there that take any student who is willing to subscribe to their program- not just the best and the brightest, but the marginal students as well.
Since those schools have to work to keep the students- even the slower ones- there, these students also excel (relatively speaking) in a competitive school market.
Face it. Public schools that don't have competition have fewer reasons to deliver educated students than public schools that must basically justify their existence every year.
How many people in your workplace would (or do) slack off continually when there is no pressure to deliver results? Do you really want your children educated in the same fashion?
The best public schools exist in cities with high parental involvement in the students education and the school board. The residents of poorer districts may not become this involved for a variety of reasons, but even they can spend an hour a year deciding if their child should really keep going to that particular school.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the liberal tendency to attempt to dictate results directly ignores certain 'socio-economic factors' that are inconvenient. First and foremost is that some societies or cultures are simply better than others, and practitioners of those better cultures will fare better in most ways than practitioners of backwards cultures. This readily observable fact is clear to anyone who hasn't had their head muddled up with multiculturalist nonsense (Yes, Japanese society is clearly superior to African tribal societies that still kill albinos for witch doctor potions and cut off little girl's clitorises.)
By artificially propping up participants of sub-standard subcultures in the United States, only destruction is spread.
Now it's very common at this point for someone to yell 'racist!', but note that I have been talking about cultures- which is an identifiable set of practices and behaviors- and not skin color. I will not pretend that behavior is dictated by skin color- will you?
I seem to recall something about judging folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Accordingly, folks like me (party notwithstanding) want to see people succeed or fail based on engaging in positive behaviors that will ensure their success going forward. Propping up the unqualified only leads them to early and more embarrassing failure, while calling the credentials of qualified people of the same 'disadvantaged' group into question.
Your point would be more meaningful if disaster preparation were a significant portion of the federal budget that them silly conservatives complain about, but it's not.
There are certain limited number of roles the government is suited to. Faithfully fulfilling those roles is what this conservative wants.
There are a vast number of tasks the federal government takes on that it is structurally incapable of handling in any intelligent way. You can't turn a screw with a hammer, yet we spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to just about do that. This conservative wants to see those roles, and those expenditures, eliminated.
Responding to certain types of disasters is something the federal government could competently and legitimately address. I would be all for funding such things.
You confuse science with philosophy. You claim to be a fan, but it appears I have to explain it to you. Science will give you how, philosophy will give you the big 'why'. I'm glad you're trying to purposely define your own role in this world, but not all of humanity has been given the social and educational structure that brought you to where you are.
I do not pretend to prove my points can be scientifically proven. You should not pretend they can be scientifically disproven, as we've left the realm of science.
Moving on, in Genesis, God's act of creation was purposeful. This is the beginning that has meaning. You would have me get caught up in a circle-jerk of 'but who made God? but who made him? and him? and him?......' If the analogous scientific answer was obtainable, it would be fascinating. From the philosophical standpoint, getting mired up in such sophistry serves no point.
The truth you don't have? What are you offering in it's place? If you don't have the truth, and the subject matter is unfalsifiable and of little interest to hard science, then what business do you have calling it 'delusional'? I have explained why Genesis was not, and never could be, literal.
The Bible, and likewise all religions, attempt to answer questions about why we're here and what we're supposed to do. These are not questions science helps with. The need for an underlying supernatural philosophical structure is evident by the essentially universal presence of religion on earth. This human need will be filled. It can be filled by a beneficial belief system that advances it's adherents*, and there are perhaps less than half a dozen main types which do so. This belief system can also be filled by a retrograde religion which stunts* the personal development of it's adherents. There are many of these. There are also a number of people who claim to have advanced beyond such superstition, but they often fill the same need with something just as senseless.
I admit it's theoretically possible that there is no God, and that this beautiful world and all it's inhabitants are merely fortunate accidents. I simply do not find it probable.
*I recall an article that explains this better than I can. If you have the time, please read As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.
The usefulness of the Bible depends partially on the maturity of the reader. With your bestiality argument, it appears you are in need of my help.
Now, it wouldn't be accurate to call me a Christian, but I have come to appreciate the good Christianity has done for mankind, especially as I see what fills the same role in it's absence.
For the moment let's assume the Bible is (among other things) our forbears passing on important lessons in the most effective way they knew.
They start the Bible with creation. Why? (Well, aside from the fact that the 'story' begins with the start of existence.)Was this 6,000 year old passage to serve as a lecture on how the universe was assembled? Would the specifics have been relevant or useful to anyone before the last 400 years? Who would start this story with an explanation of gravitational forces? Of the Newtonian physics pulling together sufficient mass to create a self-sustaining fusion machine that lights up our solar system? Would a history of the species of the earth meant anything? Would telling the tale of evolution, and of all the extinct creatures they never saw, have served any purpose?
Here we are, maybe six thousand years since the book of Genesis was written, and we're only now beginning to uncover the physical processes that made the universe and our world unfold. What place would this information had six thousand years ago?
None.
You are (besides the cow-f*cking cheap shot) 100% technically correct in your assessment of the literal truth of the book of Genesis.
You also miss the point entirely.
The point is this:
This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.
Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?
I seem to recall seeing a history channel story discussing that port, and recall that it was horrible to actually dock an airship there.
ah well here's a relevant quote:
For some states out there, 'developing nation' is an accurate description of the place. In others, 'developing nation' is indeed a euphemism for 'backwards hellhole', and I think that 'third world' conjures up the proper mental imagery in a more polite manner.
Meanings change, and without any sort of controlling body for the English language, a term means what it is commonly understood to mean. The end of the cold war didn't coincide with the end of the usefulness of the term 'third world'.
assassinating the president
With Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi as the next two people in line, Obama is perfectly safe.
It's funny, when you do a comparison. For all the wailing about how backwards Texas is, it's California that's literally going down the toilet financially and demographically.
Texas is doing quite well, and IIRC, they've seem economic growth when most other states have seen a recession.
Leaving education aside, it's quite clear that Texas is doing several things quite well, and California is screwing most things up. What business do California politicians have lecturing anyone?
President John Adams, eh?
John Adams, Oct. 13, 1789
oh, this one is good too:
So while the government of the United States might not be Christian, the opinion at the time was that Christianity was necessary to preserve it. 'Why' is explained above. Atheists have not demonstrated an adequate method for instilling the necessary values on as wide a scale as Christianity. They constantly deride it, coming across as little better than the teenager who thinks his dad's a moron, only to figure out how smart he actually is when he gets to his late twenties.
They've done studies like this. Apparently it's not so great. There was a writeup on cracked.com a little while ago, with some title like "10 things that sounded awesome but weren't"
If you hadn't already labeled me as a 'foe', I might put more thought into answering you.
Instead, I'll answer your sarcastic, insulting question with another one:
Just how long have you been around, son?
There is something very attractive about taboo behavior, particularly to adolescents.
And if you make the ordinary taboo (ie, sex is naughty!), then the actually deviant is beyond the pale.
If your desire for thrill-seeking and naughtiness is sated by plain ol' intercourse, then more extreme sex acts are avoided altogether. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are ready to defend their right to horse-whip and ball-gag their willing partner, but they only got there because they were bored of the 'routine' sex act.
How many actually harmful deviant behaviors are avoided by making plain intercourse 'naughty'? How often does this social more channel what might otherwise end up as destructive behavior into entirely ordinary venues? (hehe, so to speak)
Further, by making the act of intercourse special and reserved, it serves the purpose of perpetuating society* by encouraging sex. If sex is nothing special, easily available, and entirely approved, how long would it take to get rather bored of it?
The human experience is rather complex, and those of us who would call intercourse 'just another biological function' don't realize the intricate interplay between biology, reproduction, society, and of course our own experiences. The practices and mores of our society are the result of distilled experience over the ages. While tradition is not immutable and infallible, it shouldn't be toss aside casually either. Liberation in one area may lead to degradation in other areas, and we may find ourselves painfully relearning the lessons that drove our forebears to create these bothersome rules in the first place.
(*If you think the world is overpopulated, show us you're serious by offing yourself. The rest of us recognize we've got something worth preserving here, and richer societies have declining birthrates anyway, so there's self-correction at play.)
That may be a bit overly dramatic. The spill hasn't even added up to the Exxon Valdez yet, and this particular well will have to flow for a few more months past that to add up to what seeps into the gulf naturally. Now obviously one big leak isn't the same thing as 600 smaller ones, but oil isn't exactly new to the ecosystem either.
Link here
...Palinism
So, now that Bush-hating is becoming inexcusably passe, there's a new target for the 'progressives' daily two-minute hate.
The population has discovered that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, and the money is going towards that.
Humans are, and you're one of them. One of the nice things about the Judea-Christian Heritage is that it teaches some humility, a desirable trait.
And the faux-intellectual elite hate it when traditions are taught that impede their desire to fornicate with anything willing. Unfortunately, they fail to see the basis for teaching self-restraint ("Any pleasure not rationed by a preacher or priest is evil"), and think that because these traditions are taught with supernatural stories, they must be just as worthless as superstition.
The hallmark of such people is a complete and utter lack of imagination, as they can't see that religion would be a good vehicle for passing forward practices that experience has shown to be beneficial to society. They seek to tear down religion, but in fact have no realistic alternative for teaching useful morals and values that has been demonstrated on a widespread scale.
Don't be too in love with specifically articulated rationality. The ability to explain useful traditions is limited by the individuals experience, by their verbal skills, and by your ability to listen. Since you started out by implying how awesome you think you are compared to everyone else, your attention will always be a weak link.
The traditions you deride have moved our civilization through the last several thousand years. You're not smart enough to create such a legacy. You can look around the world and see that there are many traditions far worse than the western one.
If totalitarian thought control is your goal, then yes, public school is the lesser of two evils.
However, the poor kid who has only been taught about the biblical story of creation is the exception, not the norm.
The norm is that home schooled students significantly outperform public school students in many areas of study.
Better results matter.
You seem to be concerned primarily with ensuring that everyone only thinks state-approved thoughts (correct or not), and are apparently willing to sacrifice all the better results home schools generally deliver in a vain attempt to stamp out the occasional outlier.
Congratulations. You are the 1,000,000,000th person to express that thought on the internet.
Here's your door prize.
The politics of the matter are irrevocably intertwined. If I was an advocate for global warming, I wouldn't want to point out any conflict of interest on the part of the folks who fund most of the AGW research.
If you can find an AGW proponent that has acknowledged the potential of ulterior motives of politicians promoting AGW, then perhaps I misspoke.
However, given that:
1) You correctly identified my political alignment as right wing though I made no direct statement of the science.
and
2) You used the political, purposely inflammatory, non-scientific term 'denialism'
Perhaps the science and politics are no longer separable, eh? Maybe you'd be best off coming to terms with that.
In the single sentence
you've revealed a number of unflattering things about the emotional and intellectual level you operate on.
Exactly. The solutions demanded by AGW advocates are completely out of line with the advocate's established credibility and the highly theoretical nature of the science.
They also completely ignore our ability to invent solutions to problems as they arise, and instead seek to spend sometimes trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to roll back the clock.
Hardly. AGW proponents aren't too keen on discussing ulterior motives on drumming up a global crisis. They like to talk about all the 'evil corporations' who have a vested interest in poisoning the earth (etc.) They often talk as if the scientists (who get their grants primarily from governments) are as pure as the driven snow, and the governments funding them could only possibly want the best for their people (this purity requires more money and control, to fend off those evil corporations, you see.)
So if I bring up the fact that politicians stand to gain from the acceptance of AGW, it would be unlikely I would also be a proponent of the AGW theory.
If you find a proponent of drastic action to fend off climate change that has previously acknowledged the 'money and control' motive of politicians, I'm interested in the link.
While discussing an article about a political body passing judgment on scientific work?
No.
Refer to the word 'conjecture' in my original comment's title.
As to the rest of your comment on the boys in question, a good ol' 'hate fuck' would be a tough thing to prove in court, and in accordance with the title/subject of my comment, it was conjecture. Being neither a journalist nor a jurist, I am free to do so.
Can the answers to life and the resolution to a conjecture-based discussion can be found in a rhetoric 101 class?
If you weren't thinking it, someone else was. I've been commenting on the intreW3bs for quite some time now, and I know where these conversations tend to go.
Quite reasonable. In the realm of giving teenagers responsibility, if societal experience has shown that exclusive pair bonding with a minimum number of sexual partners is beneficial to the community, than a prolonged educational period would also necessitate prolonged chastity.
Now I also firmly believe that teenagers are quite capable of adopting far more responsibilities than we typically require of them, however, that includes the responsibility to keep it in their pants until they're married.
Or do you propose sexual responsibility is the one area where we can't expect a damn thing from teenagers?
Global warming is used as a justification to tax (carbon taxes) and control (cap and trade, various environmental regulations.).
There's nothing a government body wants more than money and control. Ergo, it's in the interests of the House of Commons to say 'yep, everything's legit here, and because it is, we're taking more of your money and restricting your lives & business even more. Gotta save the earth, ya know. It's for your own good.'
(The astute reader can guess my position on the matter of anthropogenic global warming, but the above statement is independent of the scientific truth of the matter.)
I don't see why anyone would object to the ultimate destruction of schools that just plain can't hack it.
Incidentally, there are a number of voucher-funded schools out there that take any student who is willing to subscribe to their program- not just the best and the brightest, but the marginal students as well.
Since those schools have to work to keep the students- even the slower ones- there, these students also excel (relatively speaking) in a competitive school market.
Face it. Public schools that don't have competition have fewer reasons to deliver educated students than public schools that must basically justify their existence every year.
How many people in your workplace would (or do) slack off continually when there is no pressure to deliver results? Do you really want your children educated in the same fashion?
The best public schools exist in cities with high parental involvement in the students education and the school board. The residents of poorer districts may not become this involved for a variety of reasons, but even they can spend an hour a year deciding if their child should really keep going to that particular school.