In response to dclydew's eminently sane proposal (to let no one but parents monitor their children's usage), Jim tries to give the final brush-off, by a quick appeal to authority:
Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.
Whoop-de-doo! Far from counting against it, the fact that two extremist camps are against a proposal is often a sign that it's a good proposal.And in this case it is, certainly better than either of the two extremes currently on offer.
In case you missed it, Jim explicitly says that unless you home school, you shouldn't expect to know what your kids are being exposed to. Then he wonders why his ilk are peceived as insensitive to the needs of parents? Amazing.
Jim and his colleagues had better start looking for opportunities to compromise: if it comes down to a choice between two exremist positions, the "so-called slent majority" is going to opt for the one that recognizes the rights of parents, every time.
Is there any source for this other than the one page?
Re:Interesting story...
on
Sex in Space
·
· Score: 2
I think NASA's been right not to let sex be part of the space program. If you're going to be in close quarters with someone for six months, sex just introduces too great a risk of communication problems that could jeopardize the mission.
I don't mean to be critical, I really don't, and before anyone flaims me, I'm guilty of it too. But here is what I'm hearing:
"I'd really like to use VMware, but they want money." "VMware is great, but they keep nagging me to pay them."
I thought the author's point was (and in any case my experience has been) that VMWare still has enough configuration and support issues that it doesn't seem right for them to be charging money for it -- yet.
Customer X tells the defendant, "I want an original manuscript of Plato's Republic.
I'm no paleographer, but I know people who are, and if anyone had an original manuscript of any of Plato's dialogues, that fact would have major historical significance. It wouldn't be something you could buy online.
But I agree with the rest of your description of the situation.
Is it not the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are into?
You're assuming that if parents bear responisiblity for rearing their children well, parents must be the only ones with this responsibility. But why must they be the only ones responsible? In civil cases, law courts routinely apportion responsibility to different parties.
I acknowledge that parents bear the most responsibility to see to it that their kids don't become violent sociopaths. Perhaps those who post on this topic could consider the possibility that other people and institutions might also bear some responsibility in this regard.
All ideas are worthy of consideration. (Some are only worthy of a few milliseconds of consideration, but you cant just chuck them out the window...
This sounds edifying, but it can't be right. Go to any substantial university library and look around. And then go on to give a few milliseconds' consideration to each of the ideas expressed in that library.
The point isn't that your proposal shouldn't be followed. It can't be followed.
They are not simply trying to sway his opinion of his employer's opinion of his suitablity.
To "sway" is simply to cause to move to and fro; it carries no suggestion of rational persuasion. When Singer's detractors become too much a pain, they sway his employer's opinion about his suitability.
Since Ivy League schools are more or less impervious to this kind of influence, Singer's detractors will not in fact succeed, but at a more precariously situated institution, they might well.
(Please note a distinction between expressing the opinion that the person is unsuitable for the job and demanding termination).
When a person with authority concludes you are unsuitable, you get fired. So what's the distinction you're after? Is it just the distinction between who has and lacks the authority to fire someone?
In other words, is the point you are after the fact that many of the people who are exercized by Singer's views lack the authority to fire him? If so, I imagine those people already realize this fact, and are hoping to sway those with that authority to come to the conclusion that he's unsuitable.
Undergraduates don't really study science, at least not at first. They learn a just-so version of science, to prepare for the real thing. (For example, they learn a fanciful version of "the" scientific method, the limitations of which they will recognize only much later.)
High schoolers get a just-so version of this just-so version of science.
Given the subtlety of the issues raised by evolution, it makes sense to put it off until college -- just as we don't expect high schools to seriously discuss quantum physics.
You can be a good citizen (which seems to be the goal of high school education) without knowing much about either evolution or physics. On the other hand, you can't fashion a responsible, comprehensive view of the world (the goal of high-quality undergraduate education) without this kind of general knowledge.
I doubt Kansas college freshmen will be at a real disadvantage in relation to others who've been indoctrinated into a "just-so" version of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
In response to dclydew's eminently sane proposal (to let no one but parents monitor their children's usage), Jim tries to give the final brush-off, by a quick appeal to authority:
Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.
Whoop-de-doo! Far from counting against it, the fact that two extremist camps are against a proposal is often a sign that it's a good proposal.And in this case it is, certainly better than either of the two extremes currently on offer.
In case you missed it, Jim explicitly says that unless you home school, you shouldn't expect to know what your kids are being exposed to. Then he wonders why his ilk are peceived as insensitive to the needs of parents? Amazing.
Jim and his colleagues had better start looking for opportunities to compromise: if it comes down to a choice between two exremist positions, the "so-called slent majority" is going to opt for the one that recognizes the rights of parents, every time.
Is there any source for this other than the one page?
I think NASA's been right not to let sex be part of the space program. If you're going to be in close quarters with someone for six months, sex just introduces too great a risk of communication problems that could jeopardize the mission.
I don't mean to be critical, I really don't, and before anyone flaims me, I'm guilty of it too. But here is what I'm hearing:
"I'd really like to use VMware, but they want money."
"VMware is great, but they keep nagging me to pay them."
I thought the author's point was (and in any case my experience has been) that VMWare still has enough configuration and support issues that it doesn't seem right for them to be charging money for it -- yet.
Just one odd thing about your example:
Customer X tells the defendant, "I want
an original manuscript of Plato's Republic.
I'm no paleographer, but I know people who are, and if anyone had an original manuscript of any of Plato's dialogues, that fact would have major historical significance. It wouldn't be something you could buy online.
But I agree with the rest of your description of the situation.
Is it not the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are into?
You're assuming that if parents bear responisiblity for rearing their children well, parents must be the only ones with this responsibility. But why must they be the only ones responsible? In civil cases, law courts routinely apportion responsibility to different parties.
I acknowledge that parents bear the most responsibility to see to it that their kids don't become violent sociopaths. Perhaps those who post on this topic could consider the possibility that other people and institutions might also bear some responsibility in this regard.
All ideas are worthy of consideration. (Some are only worthy of a few milliseconds of consideration, but you cant just chuck them out the window...
This sounds edifying, but it can't be right. Go to any substantial university library and look around. And then go on to give a few milliseconds' consideration to each of the ideas expressed in that library.
The point isn't that your proposal shouldn't be followed. It can't be followed.
They are not simply trying to sway his opinion of his employer's opinion of his suitablity.
To "sway" is simply to cause to move to and fro; it carries no suggestion of rational persuasion. When Singer's detractors become too much a pain, they sway his employer's opinion about his suitability.
Since Ivy League schools are more or less impervious to this kind of influence, Singer's detractors will not in fact succeed, but at a more precariously situated institution, they might well.
(Please note a distinction between expressing the opinion that the person is unsuitable for the job and demanding termination).
When a person with authority concludes you are unsuitable, you get fired. So what's the distinction you're after? Is it just the distinction between who has and lacks the authority to fire someone?
In other words, is the point you are after the fact that many of the people who are exercized by Singer's views lack the authority to fire him? If so, I imagine those people already realize this fact, and are hoping to sway those with that authority to come to the conclusion that he's unsuitable.
It all seems pretty straightforward.
Undergraduates don't really study science, at least not at first. They learn a just-so version of science, to prepare for the real thing. (For example, they learn a fanciful version of "the" scientific method, the limitations of which they will recognize only much later.)
High schoolers get a just-so version of this just-so version of science.
Given the subtlety of the issues raised by evolution, it makes sense to put it off until college -- just as we don't expect high schools to seriously discuss quantum physics.
You can be a good citizen (which seems to be the goal of high school education) without knowing much about either evolution or physics. On the other hand, you can't fashion a responsible, comprehensive view of the world (the goal of high-quality undergraduate education) without this kind of general knowledge.
I doubt Kansas college freshmen will be at a real disadvantage in relation to others who've been indoctrinated into a "just-so" version of evolution.