If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by ++ on November 21, 2007, 12:17 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
>3
>
>
>
>
>>If you mean teaching children
>>about rights and responsibilities, then yes. If you mean teaching
>>children about something else, say the idea of "from each according to
>>his ability, to each according to his need", then no...
>>
>>
>
>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
>
>
>
|
 
| |
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 21, 2007, 3:21 pm
>
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>>3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you mean teaching children
>>>about rights and responsibilities, then yes. If you mean teaching
>>>children about something else, say the idea of "from each according
>>>to his ability, to each according to his need", then no...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>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.
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.
> Teaching teenagers how to calculate the
> cost of their desires and still include other people is a worthy
> discussion
???
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
<LOL!> 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.
|
|
Posted by 3D Peruna on November 21, 2007, 3:18 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
> @newsfe02.lga:
>
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Education - not mere memorization of facts, but learning how to think
>>>>> and reason - is not a social rogram (such as welfare), it is a
>>>>> necessary element to democracy. Democracy depends upon people
>>>>> understanding the decisions they need to make. Education is an
>>>>> investment. The ignorenti cannot make the sorts of decisions that
>>>>> maintain liberty
>>>> Yeah, but that doesn't relieve them of their constitutional right to
>>>> personally bear thermonuclear weapons....
>>> Which is why education is important.
>> Depends on what you mean by "education".
>
> I've already explained that about 20+ times.
>
>> If you mean teaching children
>> about rights and responsibilities, then yes. If you mean teaching
>> children about something else, say the idea of "from each according to
>> his ability, to each according to his need", then no...
>
> Hel-OOO? How on earth do you get Marxism from *anything* that i wrote?
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.
I was agreeing with you conditionally.
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 18, 2007, 7:17 pm
>
>>
>>> Education - not mere memorization of facts, but learning how to think
>>> and reason - is not a social rogram (such as welfare), it is a
>>> necessary element to democracy. Democracy depends upon people
>>> understanding the decisions they need to make. Education is an
>>> investment. The ignorenti cannot make the sorts of decisions that
>>> maintain liberty
>>
>> Yeah, but that doesn't relieve them of their constitutional right to
>> personally bear thermonuclear weapons....
>
> Which is why education is important.
My point exactly. If you're gonna carry nukes, you better know your
parabolas.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 21, 2007, 12:00 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Education - not mere memorization of facts, but learning how to
>>>> think and reason - is not a social rogram (such as welfare), it is
>>>> a necessary element to democracy. Democracy depends upon people
>>>> understanding the decisions they need to make. Education is an
>>>> investment. The ignorenti cannot make the sorts of decisions that
>>>> maintain liberty
>>>
>>> Yeah, but that doesn't relieve them of their constitutional right to
>>> personally bear thermonuclear weapons....
>>
>> Which is why education is important.
>
> ???
> A person gets *educated* on the job.
> Just ask any of the minimum wage workers, they'll tell you.
> You know, all the people the Amy's of the world think everyone else
> should pay for, just so they can spend their lives flipping burgers.
>
>
>
You're erroneously equating "skills training" with "education". THey are
different things, different types of learning.
|
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: The value of shopping local | November 11, 2007, 12:34 am |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 11, 2007, 12:47 am |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 13, 2007, 6:50 pm |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 15, 2007, 7:30 pm |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 15, 2007, 7:43 pm |
| Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local | November 10, 2007, 7:32 pm |
| The Shopping Centre of Spazio, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | October 31, 2008, 7:59 am |
| This is a local bar in a town of 300 | May 23, 2007, 4:40 pm |
| How to find a local architect | April 18, 2008, 1:15 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap