Superior/Inferior Cultures?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2015, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 01:20 PM by Chas.)
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(13-04-2015 08:19 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 07:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is your unsupported opinion.


Seriously? What dream world do you live in? Unschooling is an unrealistic ideology.


You really miss the point. The individual rarely has any idea what the future holds nor do children possess the wisdom or knowledge to make those choices.


Sentence diagramming is possibly the single most ridiculed activity in public schooling. But I'm not arguing against its efficacy in general, I'm arguing against its efficacy in duress. Again, people don't learn well when forced. They learn well when they are pursuing a personal goal. So if a child has the desire to become a writer, then sentence diagramming might well be invaluable. But if a child has designs on becoming an auto mechanic, it's not going to be of much use and forcing him to do it is going to result in a hollow victory for the teacher. This is very clearly evidenced by the disturbingly high rate of illiteracy among public school graduates.

Do you really think a six-year-old or a nine-year-old has sufficient judgment?
There have been many bad ideas in education that have led to poor performance, but unschooling is just another.

Both you and the literature create a strawman demon of classroom education that might exist somewhere, but not in the majority of schools.
Many of the principles espoused by the unschoolers are, in fact, used in traditional educational settings. They are not unique to unschooling.

Quote:Again, do you have an argument with supporting evidence or do you just have a sack of adjectives to hurl at unschooling? It's quite simple Chas.... read. You might actually learn something about a topic which you know little of nothing if you try it.

I did read up on it. It's not a workable theory.

Quote:And once again, do you have supporting evidence that children have no ability to decide for themselves what they want to know? Do you have some evidence showing that children who don't attend school are somehow doomed to failure?

Go ahead and do the study - there isn't any data out there

Quote:You seem fond of casting blanket assertions but the truth is that public school has an atrocious track record where financial and grammatical literacy are concerned.

Wow - blanket assertions. Shocking
Some schools do well and others don't. The correlation seems to be home environment and family expectations. That may have been the genesis for the idea of unschooling.

Quote:And I think we could agree that those two things are vastly more important for an adult than knowing what year Columbus is alleged to have discovered this utopia in which we live, can't we?

Who takes care of the unschooled when the parents both work?
For much the same reasons that homeschooling is not widespread, neither can unschooling.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 01:58 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 03:16 PM by Billy Bob.)
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I've already explained what's not important in some generality but what IS important? Well, that depends on the person, their location and a variety of other factors that no group of bureaucrats can know. If little Johnny lives in the northern part of the US, he needs to know some things about how to move around and survive in the snow. If he's in the south, he needs to know how to avoid heat stroke. If he demonstrates an interest in working with his hands, he needs to learn how to use tools. If he's interested in numbers and computers, he needs to know calculus and logic.

Do you condemn the system without a viable alternative or a explication of that system's demise?
Absorbing the surrounding culture and accommodation to it by a child is an inevitable process. Individual conformity to the cultural matrix is the majority result. State sponsored compulsory educational indoctrination attempts to create a cultural matrix that benefits the society and the individual who will have to live in that society. It is not moral in a strict sense because: indoctrination and social engineering. Parents have overriding influence on the child's education and cultural understanding. Parents may consciously exercise this influence. Some do not, but overriding of school indoctrination takes place anyway. Every parent may devalue or add learning and guide the cultural paradigm of their child.
The content of education and indoctrination is one of those forever wars that each generation and each locality must decide. It is fought between people (a minority) who care. A bureaucratic inertia keeps the system going while the battle goes on.
How knowledge is taught is a technical question best addressed by the knowledgeable. IMO educational and indoctrination techniques and processes are poorly understood and fuzzy. The solution seems obvious, more science. I hope for rigor and understanding on this subject in the future. I hope for more money to achieve this end. Money is a function of, again, how many people really care.

One cockroach at a time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(13-04-2015 07:59 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I've already stated that life safety is an exception but I'll address your strawman. Removing a child (or anyone for that matter) from harm's way is not a threat of force, it's a reaction to an impending or immediate threat of harm. This strawman is usually constructed with boiling pots of water on a stove and the logical refutation is thus... why is your child close to the danger in the first place? Have you not, as a parent, been responsible enough to protect your child from these things? If not, why not? What sort of moron puts a child in front of a fierce dog?
Ah I see, so the "strawman" of opposing some kid's will with your own not being equivalent to violence can be negated by asserting that the parent can foresee any situation before it happens and keep their kid wrapped in a silken cocoon of safety, and any parent who cannot do this must be incompetent... At what point do you propose to allow the kid to make their own mistakes? 5? 10? 40?

Quote:Lastly, the fact that violence is not used in most instances does not negate the fact that there is an explicit threat of violence in compulsory education. This is logic at its simplest form. One can easily reason that if something is compulsory, refusing to comply must be enforced through some means. Ultimately, and especially where the state is concerned, violence is the logical end to that line of reasoning.
Ah yes, because little Johnny refusing to go to school ultimately implies a prison sentence Rolleyes Christ.

Quote:That's not emotive, it's factual. If that fact pisses you off, perhaps you need to explore the reason why instead of lobbing insults my way. ;-)
Perhaps if you were more intelligent I'd feel the urge Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
Countdown to Molyneux... Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-04-2015, 09:55 PM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(13-04-2015 09:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  Countdown to Molyneux... Rolleyes

[Image: invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-04-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(13-04-2015 08:55 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That said, who needs to be gotten up to speed on lies about the virtue of the state? What possible good does it do little Johnny to be able to recite a prayer to a colored rag? What good does it do for little Johnny to be capable of diagramming sentences or to pick out verbs and adverbs in them? Especially if he has no interest in any profession that would require such skills?

That doesn't particularly sound like any real school I've ever heard of or attended.

(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I've already explained what's not important in some generality but what IS important? Well, that depends on the person, their location and a variety of other factors that no group of bureaucrats can know. If little Johnny lives in the northern part of the US, he needs to know some things about how to move around and survive in the snow. If he's in the south, he needs to know how to avoid heat stroke. If he demonstrates an interest in working with his hands, he needs to learn how to use tools. If he's interested in numbers and computers, he needs to know calculus and logic.

What if someone doesn't want to learn anything?

Lazy and stubborn people exist, after all.

(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  And if he does not show an interest in sentence structure then no one anywhere should be forcing him to sit in a prison like room for any period of time any number of days per week, month or year learning how to diagram sentences. Why? For the same reasons why it is wrong to force children to learn about and pretend to worship gods. Namely, because they have not asked to be.

Children are not competent. Children cannot make their own decisions. Because they're children. What they want isn't necessarily what's best for them.

(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  And why do we even think we need to force children to learn? Children are quite naturally voracious learners any time their motivation is left unmolested by busy body adults who think they can decide for other human beings what they should know and what they should not know. Don't believe me? Try to stop a child from learning how to talk, how to walk, etc. Try to stop an older child from pursuing that which interests him or her. If you do, they will hide from you and do it anyway. Unless of course, you've successfully murdered their interest in learning by forcing them to sit, often sequestered from their friends, in a cold and boring room practicing rote memorization of things in which they have no interest.

That sounds like a big bucket of opinion.
(and it's pretty disingenuous to compare language acquisition to "wanting" to learn algebra or whatever)

(12-04-2015 11:39 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Not to mention, forcing people to do things which they do not want to do (life safety notwithstanding) is just fucking immoral and sadistic.

But it's also the definition of society - limits on individual freedom of action for collective benefit. If no one wanted to break laws then we wouldn't need laws in the first place. As such, everything is a matter of weighing cost and benefit.

Bonus question: is forcing people to be vaccinated immoral and sadistic? Why or why not?

That YOU'VE never seen a bad school does not mean none exist. It's also true that your perspective has a tremendous amount to do with how you view the efficacy of, well, anything. And of course, that applies to all of us but when you make an argument from incredulity you've pretty effectively said, "I don't see the problem with it so I'm going to dig my heels in on the matter and refuse to hear other arguments". That's not at all unlike the Christian argument that God did it so we don't need to look any further.

If a child doesn't want to learn right now, why does he need to be forced? And how do you know that a child who doesn't want to learn right now, will never want to learn? Are you prepared to say that forcing someone to do something right now is better for them "society" when the possibilities are that by doing so, you may cause him to reject any future opportunities to learn?

So children aren't competent and can't make their own decisions..... so why the hell are they expected to study hard and learn in school? After all, a person who is incapable of making their own decisions surely cannot be expected to learn complicated maths and other concepts. The truth is, children are competent to make decisions when they're guided by the adults who're responsible for their care.

One of the many ways we teach a child is to properly inform him of his choices, explain to him the potential or definite implications of each and then allow him to think those choices through and make a decision. And while this should go without saying, of course we don't allow them to make decisions that will result in their harm but we also need to be realistic about the definition of harm. Who's going to die if a kid doesn't study math today or, if he forgoes brushing his teeth tonight because he's tired from traveling? And so what if he wants ice cream for breakfast? When later that day, he complains of feeling bad, that when we explain to him that his body got too much sugar and not enough vitamins that morning and that's why it's not a good idea to eat ice cream for breakfast. Lessons of experience are the most useful to all of us and safely guided bad decisions can make for lifelong changes in both habits and the child's willingness to take what his parents say to be credible. The same applies to schooling and the argument that some people may just naturally be lazy and shiftless is simply not a good one. People become lazy because of their environment, not because of their genes.

Children learn by observation. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. And it's not exclusive to learning language. People who are raised in violent homes tend to be violent as adults and people who're raised in non violent homes tend not to be non violent. Likewise, if a child grows up around parents who're sports fanatics, the chances are that they too will be sports fanatics. We see this with religion as well. Kids born in Muslim homes rarely ever become Buddhist or Christian, and vice versa. Thus, when children are raised by lazy parents who attempt with words to make them study hard but don't model the behavior, they tend to become lazy. It's not too hard to understand the reason why either. After all, do you want to be forced to do X while the person forcing you to do it does just the opposite?

So the definition of society is to do immoral shit to kids and that's just the way it is? That argument was pretty popular when abolitionists wanted to end slavery.... "We've always had slavery and so that's just the way it is". Nevermind the immorality of something because society said it's okay. NO. I refuse to ignore morality because of some perceived societal benefit or some ridiculous tradition. If it is wrong for me as an adult to force you as an adult to do something you do not want to do then it is also wrong for me as a parent to force my child to do things he doesn't want or for "society" to force individuals to do things they don't want to do.

Regarding laws, there are only a few that benefit society writ large. The prohibitions on rape, murder and assault are and pretty much always have been staples of human societies and their genesis is respect for property rights. It's pretty simple... don't hit, don't steal and don't lie. We learn that very early on as children. The problem however, is that parents usually hit their children, take their property and tell them lies on a regular basis. Thus, we have the society we have today, where most people accept the notion that some perceived authority has the right to aggress against us, take our property and tell us lies about what it does.

And if you truly want to apply utilitarian standards to society, then apply it consistently. The truth is that literacy is much, much lower today than it was when the state took over schooling. Thus, public schooling has cost society a lot and has has had negative benefits.

Lastly, yes and no. Forcing someone to be vaccinated is immoral but it is not sadistic. Even in the irrational society in which we live, most people will voluntarily be vaccinated once the benefits have been shown to them. The few who choose not to won't create a plague of disease sweep across the world and that's pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that there IS currently is a group of people who're anti vaccination and there currently IS NOT an epidemic of diseases for which we commonly vaccinate.

And where kids are concerned, I've never said there are no instances where parents shouldn't force their children when life safety is an issue. Matter of fact, I presented that caveat early on... as in, a few years ago on this forum and have repeated it in this thread. But even still, each time this topic comes up, the best argument that people can come up with is the implication that I'm telling people they should let their kids eat fire and wash it down with gasoline. Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That YOU'VE never seen a bad school does not mean none exist. It's also true that your perspective has a tremendous amount to do with how you view the efficacy of, well, anything. And of course, that applies to all of us but when you make an argument from incredulity you've pretty effectively said, "I don't see the problem with it so I'm going to dig my heels in on the matter and refuse to hear other arguments". That's not at all unlike the Christian argument that God did it so we don't need to look any further.

Your logic is "some schools are bad so we should do away with schools".

Quote:If a child doesn't want to learn right now, why does he need to be forced? And how do you know that a child who doesn't want to learn right now, will never want to learn? Are you prepared to say that forcing someone to do something right now is better for them "society" when the possibilities are that by doing so, you may cause him to reject any future opportunities to learn?

The earlier in life things are learned, the more effective they are. Waiting is not good.

Quote:So children aren't competent and can't make their own decisions..... so why the hell are they expected to study hard and learn in school? After all, a person who is incapable of making their own decisions surely cannot be expected to learn complicated maths and other concepts.

Non sequitur.

Quote:The truth is, children are competent to make decisions when they're guided by the adults who're responsible for their care.

Oh, like teachers? Consider

Teachers are traditionally acting in loco parentis.

Quote:One of the many ways we teach a child is to properly inform him of his choices, explain to him the potential or definite implications of each and then allow him to think those choices through and make a decision.

Which does not work well on children who have not yet developed judgment skills. You are utterly ignoring brain development which continues through childhood into early adulthood.

Quote:And while this should go without saying, of course we don't allow them to make decisions that will result in their harm but we also need to be realistic about the definition of harm. Who's going to die if a kid doesn't study math today or, if he forgoes brushing his teeth tonight because he's tired from traveling? And so what if he wants ice cream for breakfast? When later that day, he complains of feeling bad, that when we explain to him that his body got too much sugar and not enough vitamins that morning and that's why it's not a good idea to eat ice cream for breakfast. Lessons of experience are the most useful to all of us and safely guided bad decisions can make for lifelong changes in both habits and the child's willingness to take what his parents say to be credible. The same applies to schooling and the argument that some people may just naturally be lazy and shiftless is simply not a good one. People become lazy because of their environment, not because of their genes.

What level of mistake are you willing to subject children to?

Quote:Children learn by observation. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. And it's not exclusive to learning language. People who are raised in violent homes tend to be violent as adults and people who're raised in non violent homes tend not to be non violent. Likewise, if a child grows up around parents who're sports fanatics, the chances are that they too will be sports fanatics. We see this with religion as well. Kids born in Muslim homes rarely ever become Buddhist or Christian, and vice versa. Thus, when children are raised by lazy parents who attempt with words to make them study hard but don't model the behavior, they tend to become lazy. It's not too hard to understand the reason why either. After all, do you want to be forced to do X while the person forcing you to do it does just the opposite?

How does that even pertain to schooling?

Quote:So the definition of society is to do immoral shit to kids and that's just the way it is?

That you think that schooling is immoral is a result of your libertarian fantasy world.

Quote: That argument was pretty popular when abolitionists wanted to end slavery.... "We've always had slavery and so that's just the way it is". Nevermind the immorality of something because society said it's okay. NO. I refuse to ignore morality because of some perceived societal benefit or some ridiculous tradition. If it is wrong for me as an adult to force you as an adult to do something you do not want to do then it is also wrong for me as a parent to force my child to do things he doesn't want or for "society" to force individuals to do things they don't want to do.

Fine - don't send your children to school.

Quote:Regarding laws, there are only a few that benefit society writ large. The prohibitions on rape, murder and assault are and pretty much always have been staples of human societies and their genesis is respect for property rights. It's pretty simple... don't hit, don't steal and don't lie. We learn that very early on as children. The problem however, is that parents usually hit their children, take their property and tell them lies on a regular basis. Thus, we have the society we have today, where most people accept the notion that some perceived authority has the right to aggress against us, take our property and tell us lies about what it does.

And if you truly want to apply utilitarian standards to society, then apply it consistently. The truth is that literacy is much, much lower today than it was when the state took over schooling. Thus, public schooling has cost society a lot and has has had negative benefits.

Citation required.

Quote:Lastly, yes and no. Forcing someone to be vaccinated is immoral but it is not sadistic. Even in the irrational society in which we live, most people will voluntarily be vaccinated once the benefits have been shown to them. The few who choose not to won't create a plague of disease sweep across the world and that's pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that there IS currently is a group of people who're anti vaccination and there currently IS NOT an epidemic of diseases for which we commonly vaccinate.

No, it is not immoral, it is merely the price of living in society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Superior/Inferior Cultures?
(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That YOU'VE never seen a bad school does not mean none exist.

Irrelevant. You were the one saying they're all shitty.

What I was saying was that you've either got to substantiate that sweeping generalisation or else back the assumption train up a few miles.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  It's also true that your perspective has a tremendous amount to do with how you view the efficacy of, well, anything. And of course, that applies to all of us but when you make an argument from incredulity you've pretty effectively said, "I don't see the problem with it so I'm going to dig my heels in on the matter and refuse to hear other arguments". That's not at all unlike the Christian argument that God did it so we don't need to look any further.

I think we can safely establish that opinions are subjective. So I guess it's good to have that cleared up.

Disputing the total lack of evidence presented for an opposing viewpoint is not an argument from incredulity.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  If a child doesn't want to learn right now, why does he need to be forced? And how do you know that a child who doesn't want to learn right now, will never want to learn? Are you prepared to say that forcing someone to do something right now is better for them "society" when the possibilities are that by doing so, you may cause him to reject any future opportunities to learn?

I invite you to entertain the premise that ignorance is actively harmful. This in order to try to understand why others might disagree with you, without resorting to calling them sadistic and immoral for having the unmitigated gall to have different opinions...

Is it sadistic and immoral to prevent people from driving, unless they prove their competence to some accepted standard?

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So children aren't competent and can't make their own decisions..... so why the hell are they expected to study hard and learn in school? After all, a person who is incapable of making their own decisions surely cannot be expected to learn complicated maths and other concepts. The truth is, children are competent to make decisions when they're guided by the adults who're responsible for their care.

So, children aren't competent to make decisions. Good! That's established. Now you're saying that it depends on the competency of the adults responsible for them - a very different claim.

I submit another premise for your consideration: by your statement, it follows that some adults are not competent guardians. Accepting this for consideration, what does that entail for their children or wards?

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  One of the many ways we teach a child is to properly inform him of his choices, explain to him the potential or definite implications of each and then allow him to think those choices through and make a decision. And while this should go without saying, of course we don't allow them to make decisions that will result in their harm but we also need to be realistic about the definition of harm. Who's going to die if a kid doesn't study math today or, if he forgoes brushing his teeth tonight because he's tired from traveling? And so what if he wants ice cream for breakfast? When later that day, he complains of feeling bad, that when we explain to him that his body got too much sugar and not enough vitamins that morning and that's why it's not a good idea to eat ice cream for breakfast. Lessons of experience are the most useful to all of us and safely guided bad decisions can make for lifelong changes in both habits and the child's willingness to take what his parents say to be credible. The same applies to schooling and the argument that some people may just naturally be lazy and shiftless is simply not a good one. People become lazy because of their environment, not because of their genes.

Irrelevant. Children are not rational. That is a basic fact of human neurological development. To insist otherwise is asinine and irresponsible. The consequences of many actions are not immediately apparent, not that children would be capable of making dispassionately rational informed choices even if they were. Explaining the long-term actuarial health effects of dietary patterns is not going to appeal to a six year old.

We might then say that definitions of harm differ. A trivial observation, but one I'd hope we can agree on. And since we've established that opinions can and do vary, it follows that no one is wrong for disagreeing. I then fail to see how it's useful to condemn as immoral that same inevitable difference of opinion...

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Children learn by observation. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. And it's not exclusive to learning language. People who are raised in violent homes tend to be violent as adults and people who're raised in non violent homes tend not to be non violent.

Except that isn't true. The vast majority of abuse victims are not abusers.

It's a lazy conflation of causation and correlation in any case. There are many, many factors influencing people as they grow up. Two children in the same socio-economic circumstances in the same place at the same time are, odds on, going to grow up with a lot of similar traits and outlooks. Regardless of the superficial personality of their parents. Notwithstanding, y'know, all the other additional and external factors influencing them...

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Likewise, if a child grows up around parents who're sports fanatics, the chances are that they too will be sports fanatics. We see this with religion as well. Kids born in Muslim homes rarely ever become Buddhist or Christian, and vice versa.

You do realize there are often immediate and severe consequences for such conversions, right?

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Thus, when children are raised by lazy parents who attempt with words to make them study hard but don't model the behavior, they tend to become lazy. It's not too hard to understand the reason why either. After all, do you want to be forced to do X while the person forcing you to do it does just the opposite?

Again with the silly reductionism. No, a handful of superficial personality traits held by their guardians are not the sum total of factors influencing the way people grow up.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So the definition of society is to do immoral shit to kids and that's just the way it is?

I can't recall ever saying that. Can you point me to the straw man who did?

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  That argument was pretty popular when abolitionists wanted to end slavery.... "We've always had slavery and so that's just the way it is". Nevermind the immorality of something because society said it's okay. NO. I refuse to ignore morality because of some perceived societal benefit or some ridiculous tradition.

"There was once social endorsement for a thing we now disagree with, therefore..."

Therefore what? That isn't an argument.

If we're disputing social norms then that's done now. Today. By modern people. With modern knowledge. Regarding modern circumstances. What other people used to do seems a bit of a transparent distraction.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  If it is wrong for me as an adult to force you as an adult to do something you do not want to do then it is also wrong for me as a parent to force my child to do things he doesn't want or for "society" to force individuals to do things they don't want to do.

Okay. Then it is wrong for anyone to have any rules, ever.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Regarding laws, there are only a few that benefit society writ large.

Ah. So there are some rules you support. Apparently, then, you do support using force to compel behaviour. Because that's what having rules necessarily entails.

You may do so under wider or narrower sets of circumstances than other people, but the specifics of your personal set of opinions have no special privilege. I mean, I grant that you think you're self-evidently correct, but, as it happens, most other people also think they're right, too.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The prohibitions on rape, murder and assault are and pretty much always have been staples of human societies and their genesis is respect for property rights.

Except law codes and moral systems predate the notion of property rights by thousands of years, notwithstanding that they've only ever applied (even now) to certain classes of people under certain circumstances.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  It's pretty simple... don't hit, don't steal and don't lie. We learn that very early on as children. The problem however, is that parents usually hit their children, take their property and tell them lies on a regular basis. Thus, we have the society we have today, where most people accept the notion that some perceived authority has the right to aggress against us, take our property and tell us lies about what it does.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Never go full Molyneux.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  And if you truly want to apply utilitarian standards to society, then apply it consistently. The truth is that literacy is much, much lower today than it was when the state took over schooling. Thus, public schooling has cost society a lot and has has had negative benefits.

Except that's patently false. Literacy rates prior to widespread public schooling were dramatically lower.

That's just a fact.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Lastly, yes and no. Forcing someone to be vaccinated is immoral but it is not sadistic. Even in the irrational society in which we live, most people will voluntarily be vaccinated once the benefits have been shown to them. The few who choose not to won't create a plague of disease sweep across the world and that's pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that there IS currently is a group of people who're anti vaccination and there currently IS NOT an epidemic of diseases for which we commonly vaccinate.

That's sloppy evasion. After all, you do evidently accept that some people will not accept "the benefits shown to them". So the rest is blind assumption. In actuality the amount of "harm" done to others by that behaviour is directly proportional to the number of people who act that way.

So, it's pretty disingenuous so say that it's fine to let everyone choose for themselves (in effect: for parents to choose for their children) because right at this moment there aren't sufficiently "bad" consequences.

Not to mention the implicit stance in your statements that you would agree to forcing compliance if there were sufficiently severe consequences. That's not a bad thing; that's how everyone thinks. It's just that opinions can and do vary on just what constitutes "sufficiently severe consequences". Because people are not all the same.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  And where kids are concerned, I've never said there are no instances where parents shouldn't force their children when life safety is an issue.

Okay; do you then accept that there are no objective definitions of concepts like "safety" and "harm"?

Because the nuance of subjective understanding is really the crux of your problem here.

(14-04-2015 10:30 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Matter of fact, I presented that caveat early on... as in, a few years ago on this forum and have repeated it in this thread. But even still, each time this topic comes up, the best argument that people can come up with is the implication that I'm telling people they should let their kids eat fire and wash it down with gasoline. Wink

I haven't seen anyone implying that, let alone stating it.

"There wouldn't be any problems because reasons" is not sufficient argument. And it sure as hell doesn't answer the question, "what if people actively abuse their freedom, let alone err through incompetence or ignorance?"

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: