Mister Mister

Sorry I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The proper conservative/libertarian position is to kill the DOE and return it to the states and local governments, as education is a local institution, this is perfectly reasonable to me. What the DOE has done the last 40 or so years, is take tax money out of communities, run 60-70% of it through a massive, unnecessary bureaucracy, and return the rest back to those communities, provided they cooperate with certain curriculum prescriptions. It's a typical example of the government breaking your leg, giving you crutches, and asking you to thank them for it. So I guess my question is, for the third time, WHAT SPECIFIC POLICY PROPOSALS do you think actually go against the idea of school choice which you say you agree with? Because you're saying a lot of words but not really being clear about what the actual concern is.

Sorry I think you just put a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Show me where I said: - profits being involved necessarily means things will improve for the better across the board (not sure what that means) - where I "Demonize horrendous public education"...using words like that is intellectual laziness - because I had a bad experience in school therefore the teacher is at fault. - equating being a business person with morality "'Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations"... This one really boggles my mind. First off, who says the system is run exclusively for profit? That's just a leftist talking point. People have all different motivations for what they do, the owner of the school, the teacher, the parent, the child, monetary profit is only a small part of it. Second of all, who says that we are assuming everyone has the same motivations??!!! We don't at all assume that: that's why we know a centralized education model which decides on the curriculum and funding for millions of children from different backgrounds can't work. Also you never really answered my initial question of, which particular policies concern you and why?

Most people want to control their environment, it's how we survive as human beings. Some people, however want to control others' minds. This is also a way of surviving. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy, just a pattern of manipulation, it can be between husband and wife, child and parent, government and citizen, etc. For there to be a grand conspiracy, would mean that evil manipulative people never disagree or have conflicts of interest between them, which of course they do.

Trump is Aragorn. All Hail the King. But yes the Ring must be destroyed.

Sorry, I'm reading what I assume to be a hit-piece, but most of it sounds pretty good to me. Which part in particular concerns you? I'm not crazy about the part about religious values, but I'm curious WHAT ACTUAL PROPOSED POLICY reflects this? It sounds like they are just trying to frame a case of Guilt by Association, that she was in this or that Think Tank, and they once published an article that said X, therefore X will become National Education Policy. Pretty flimsy as far as I can tell. I also have to say, that as it stands now, Common Core is being used to promote a kind of religious ideology of collectivism and globalism that is way more troubling to me than the average Christian education, which is pretty good except for the Creationism/anti-Evolution part. It just exemplifies how the Left believes they have the moral high ground without having to prove anything. They just assume public schools are a good thing, "for-profit" = EVIL, and so on. They mention how Michigan has adopted this model, and just say 80% of charter schools are run by private companies...well, how are the kids in those schools doing compared to kids in the average public school? How does spending compare to public schools? A rigorous analysis would ask these kinds of questions, not just assume religion and profit BAD; public GOOD.

Yes, the basic problem with that attitude, is to what extent is it a virtue to have tolerance for the intolerant? Does the average Muslim believe in YOUR freedom of expression? A majority of British Muslims, for example, believed that the Danish cartoonist who published a drawing of Mohammed, should have been prosecuted. This is the issue of our times - the West is having it's values of universality, consistency, openness, tolerance, liberty, empathy, etc., being used against us by tribal, totalitarian, violent, regressive ideologies; particularly Islam and Communism. You see, there is a line between "expression and politics" that the Left doesn't want to acknowledge. Most of us are completely fine with these people expressing their views in their own countries if it doesn't affect us. In the abstract sense, I feel bad for the children who are indoctrinated into these cultures, and all the people who suffer under them: women, apostates, gays, etc., but I am not going to intervene except to help spread arguments as to what is a better set of cultural values. But in a democratic socialist State, they can influence the government with their vote, and take resources from me. People use this word "voice" with regards to politics, as in "everyone deserves a voice", but the dark truth that we know, that others won't admit, is in a Statist society, enough of a certain kind of voice mean the guns come out. I hope that clears it up for you. Good question.

glad to hear you are enjoying your studies the categorical imperative is a nice try, a more rigorous version of the "Golden Rule", but is seriously flawed and fails upon examination. Kant says, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" First of all, it isn't clear which actions are a maxim and which are not. If I listen to heavy metal music, do I at the same time will that everyone MUST listen to heavy metal music? If I steal but make an excuse for it, like I'll pay the guy extra, later, I could will that this is a universal law. People are good at this kind of manipulation with themselves and with others (It's different when I do it). Also, when he says "whereby you can...will", doesn't this come down to preference to some extent? A big strong person could WILL that it is a universal law that all disputes be resolved by an arm wrestling match. This phrasing in particular is vague and not very clear philosophically. One of the biggest challenges in ethics is differentiating between preferences, and morals (or universal preferences), if there is such a thing. So like I said, I think it's a nice try, but essentially begs the question, and doesn't really solve any of the fundamental problems of ethics. Kant was also a big Statist and a bit of a religious mystic so there's that...

The radical Left is in general, in my opinion, fueled by a combination of neglect/daycare in childhood, and incessant cultural Marxist indoctrination for two decades.

Yes it was fair of you to ask for clarification, but tbh it was just a feeling I had after watching the video once, and then watching that one section again. Perhaps it was inaccurate to say that she "made a mistake", but moreso that she wasn't as clear as she could have been to explain the subject to newbies. That's all I was saying. If you're still following the thread Kat, I'm curious what you think.

There are different degrees/flavors of religiosity, and with them comes different interpretations of what something like "worship" means. For some, it's the ceremony, going to the building on the right day, singing the right songs, performing the right gestures, etc. For others, worship of their God means living in accordance with certain values. If anything, the ceremony ought to be a reminder of what these values are, recognition of something bigger than ourselves, etc.

Good point. In the scenario the OP described, I pictured/assumed a woman of 90-100 who wants to have a family, as opposed to a woman of 110-120 who wants a grad degree and a career As far as how to define better, I don't really know. I suppose for now all I can say is "preferable to me"

Yea good point, maybe I'm wrong or maybe it's not a big deal.

Interesting question. Off the cuff I think it's better to have lower IQ kids with a better emotional experience than higher IQ kids with a mother who isn't present, physically or emotionally. That's just a recipe for neurotics.

sorry I didn't think I was concealing anything. I just don't think the language she used to explain where that number comes from was that clear or accurate, to someone who has never heard this before. You interpreted it correctly because you already know, I assume. I didn't mean to be rude just helpful.

Good video, but I think you made a mistake at the beginning, when explaining where the 77% number comes from, you said something like, "the income of women is subtracted from that of men"...for those of us who understand this issue, we know what you meant, but if this was new information to someone, it might be confusing. So I would make sure you are clear about details like that.

really makes other Presidents look bad

there was a fellow who wrote a book called the decline of literacy or something. He doesn't actually credit it to public schooling, as he is a leftist intellectual, I think he blames technology and Republicans or something. But he shows how the US led the world in newspaper sales per capita, very high level reading like Dickens and Melville and Whitman and Thomas Paine were best-sellers, and the Presidential debates between Lincoln and Douglass used language at a college reading level. Fast forward to today, when many high school graduates can't fill out an application to McDonald's, best-sellers are trash like Da Vinci Code or 50 Shades of Gray, and Presidential debates are at a 7th grade reading level.

those issues are just proxy for something else. White people, and non-whites who value western culture and like living in western countries, see their gene-pool and way of life eroding to 3rd worlders, by the machinations of political and financial elites. And when they push back against this they are . When you strip all the unreal abstractions away: countries, false moral signalling, states, law, constitutions, etc., it just comes down to gene wars: different gene-pools with conflicting evolutionary strategies competing over resources and ultimately, survival.

well you don't know until you write it, that's the point. I just thought it was strange, villagewisdom wrote an interesting article, then your "criticism" is about what she should have written about. I also would be interested to see what you come up with, as I am into the topic myself.

why don't you write about it yourself?

I agree with you about Sessions' position on the drug war. When you say 98% of the anti=cop attitude comes from this policy, however, how do you know that? Are you not perhaps mistaking the world for yourself? In other words, your biggest problem with the cops is that they would arrest you for the harmless action of smoking weed, but other people might have other reasons. Nevertheless I think you are maybe getting worked up over nothing, as the Attorney General answers to the President, and it is very likely that Trump will de-schedule cannabis. I also think that Stef's arguments about drugs are correct. I smoked weed for many years and now I am better off without it. The more in touch with my thoughts and feelings I became, the more I found that cannabis made me feel neurotic, paranoid, anti-social, and disoriented. I used to think I needed it to be creative, but now I am writing an album's worth of quality songs every year for the past 3 years with absolutely no mind altering drugs except for the occasional drink. I would urge you to try it, and to find other ways to cope with issues than self-medicating and risking imprisonment.

It's a good question. I teach kids music, and in general there are things they like doing, and things they don't like doing. If you pay attention to their needs and indulge the things they like, you develop trust, and they are willing to do the things they don't like as much, so long as you can make the case of why it will be good for them in the long run. This part is lacking in public education, in fact, it is impossible within the context they are working with: there are just too many students per teacher, often with widely divergent IQs, different cultures, parenting backgrounds, and so on, and the school has to pander to DOE standards in order to get 30 or 40% of the funding which was taxed out of their community in the first place. Also, teachers are indoctrinated in "Education" degrees which preach a creepy mix of Cultural Marxism, collectivist "ethics", and behavioralist social psychology, where they study not what makes a person happy and healthy, but how to get them to do what you want. I know because I once considered getting such a degree.

Sorry I don't mean to be snarky, but I wanted to offer a word of advice. When you are trying to make a point like this, do the legwork and post the links here, to actually help make the case. Otherwise most of us will read this, but aren't going to start comparing google searches. If you think it's important, do the research for us. Just a basic principle of Division of Labor.

I think the controversy lies in that these platforms usually don't start as being political, they sell you on being totally open and free social networking and communications platforms, and then once they have established themselves as a popular, they start to enforce a political agenda. So I think a case could be made, however shaky, that it is a violation of an implicit contract.

I've heard this is fake. But the fact that you can't tell anymore says a lot.