Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

They were more concerned with academics, although in that sense, too, they gave little help, and mostly criticism or punishment if I failed to do my work or got a lower grade. I was expected to learn on my own.

And haven't we seen the results of that?!

[pErvinalia]

And, there are those professors in academia and activists who would say that by reading to your kids, you are "unfairly disadvantaging others." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... rine-timpf

Technically speaking any competition is unfair unless all competitors participate on the same, level playing field. Adam Swift's use of the word "unfair" is justified. What's your beef?

Having a level playing feel does not mean everyone's intelligence, abilities, strength, dexterity, constitution, fortuitiveness, aggressiveness, drive, ambition, etc. are the same, and it doesn't mean they all had the same training, education, upbringing, caring parents, or schooling.

The Olympics are fair, even though some athletes can train all the time without having to do anything else, and others have to make do.

The notion that it would be "unfair" to other people that I read to my daughter, or drive her to school that I pay for with money I could use for other things, or save, is ridiculous.

Definition of unfair
1 : marked by injustice, partiality, or deception : unjust

Partiality - unfair bias in favor of one thing or person compared with another; favoritism.

In what way is reading to my kids partiality? Is it that I read to them but not the neighbor's kids? Please explain.

Definition of partiality

plural partialities
1 : the quality or state of being partial : bias

Definition of partial

1 : of or relating to a part rather than the whole : not general or total a partial solution a partial payment
2 : inclined to favor one party more than the other : biased
it is inconsistent with justice to be partial —J. S. Mill

[Hermit]

And, there are those professors in academia and activists who would say that by reading to your kids, you are "unfairly disadvantaging others." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... rine-timpf

Technically speaking any competition is unfair unless all competitors participate on the same, level playing field. Adam Swift's use of the word "unfair" is justified. What's your beef?

Having a level playing feel does not mean everyone's intelligence, abilities, strength, dexterity, constitution, fortuitiveness, aggressiveness, drive, ambition, etc. are the same, and it doesn't mean they all had the same training, education, upbringing, caring parents, or schooling.

It goes without saying that contestants are not equal. There'd be no point having competitions if they were. Sending your children to private schools or reading them bedtime stories can be regarded as parents giving them a push along during the race, which to my mind creates a field that is not level. It's analogous to the former east block raising their competitors in what might be called athlete factories, only the east block did on an industrial scale what parents do on an individual scale. It is also analogous to this:



I was hoping you had replied more honestly, with words to the effect of: "Yes it's unfair. Deal with it."

Well, I don't think it's unfair that I read to my kids, or send them to a good school...

OK, plan B it is then. Just deny that a playing field that is not level is unfair.

I was hoping you'd explain explicitly why it's unfair.

I have, and you just quoted the explanation, but OK, here it is again:

It goes without saying that contestants are not equal. There'd be no point having competitions if they were. Sending your children to private schools or reading them bedtime stories can be regarded as parents giving them a push along during the race, which to my mind creates a field that is not level. It's analogous to the former east block raising their competitors in what might be called athlete factories, only the east block did on an industrial scale what parents do on an individual scale. It is also analogous to this:

[Hermit]

I think an argument can be made that celebrating the day colonial rule started in Australia is different than celebrating the day a country becomes an independent nation.

You got that exactly right. The current date celebrates the declaration of British sovereignty over this continent. The simultaneous proclamation of the two Australia Acts, 1986 (one in the UK parliament and one in the Australian) on the 3rd of March - which eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court - makes infinitely more sense to me.

Having to admit that we were still formally hanging onto the old dart's apron strings with the UK government having the last word on what happens in Australia in the judicial and legislative spheres as recently as 32 years ago would be altogether too embarrassing for our local yokels to draw attention to, though.

Meh, being a former British colony is a good thing. The best places in the world were formerly British colonies. It's the Anglo-Saxon west that created the greatest system and the greatest overall culture -- taking "western civilization" to the "next level" so-to-speak. Be proud of formerly being British colonies.

True, but the holiday is called Australia Day for a reason. In case you can't work out what that reason is, here's a hint: It's not to celebrate the declaration of British sovereignty over this continent. If it were, we would have called it "Invasion Day".

Whoa! Looks like the then dominant culture is trying to violently keep out immigrants in search of a better life.

Penal colony as "immigrants in search of a better life." What a novel concept.

Well, I'm fairly sure I get what Australia Day is about. It commemorates the planting of the flag in Oz. I get the objection to it, too. The people whose culture has been there for thousands of years are not part of that Oz that commemorates the planting of the flag. So they're like, "hey, we're Australians now too."

No. the Aborigines who object to the date object to their country having been invaded. Australia Day does celebrate Great Britain claiming sovereignty over a land inhabited by an estimated 750,000 people. The British regarded Australia as terra nullius without making an official proclamation of it until John Batman bought some land from an Aboriginal tribe in 1835. Governor Richard Burke quashed the deal by declaring the continent terra nullius in a proclamation dated the 10th of October. The intent was to give the British government direct control over every square inch of Australian lands, formally totally disowning Aborigines in the process.

I sympathise with their objection, but that is not why I, among others, object to the date of Australia Day. Personally I don't care much about nationhood - we are all one species after all - but while we must have nations, the particular date on which we, as Australians among homo sapiens, are supposed to celebrate our nationhood constitutes an embarrassment. I can't think of another nation that celebrates its nationhood by commemorating the day on which another nation has claimed sovereignty over its lands.

Still, things could have been worse for us all. Had Jean-François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse arrived at Botany Bay just a few days earlier, we would all now be speaking French.

[laklak]

Would have been great for the global snail market, though.

[pErvinalia]

I can't get over the level of conservative outrage over this on Facebook. They really aren't liking it. And happening at the same time is one of the stars of the Southern Cross being assigned a common name from one of the Aboriginal languages. The southern Cross, unfortunately, has become a bogan and even right wing nationalist symbol over the last decade or two. There's some really unhappy bogan and conservatives over this.

[JimC]

Getting back to the subject of advancement by merit, which has always been the American spin on their society. 42 has put up a number of red herrings, and has used some quotes from the margins of the left to back this up.

No-one in their right mind is going to object to parents who want the best for their children reading to them, encouraging them etc. Nor is it surprising or unethical for parents to use whatever resources they have to support their education. What we do need to recognise, though, is that there is a systemic advantage that accrues to the children of the wealthy in terms of their chance of gaining tertiary qualifications, and that children in poverty have considerable barriers in their path to the same goals, even given equal ability and motivation. An ethical society would do a lot more in terms of means-tested financial support for disadvantaged people who have demonstrated the ability and desire to improve their chances of employment by study.

[Forty Two]

I can't get over the level of conservative outrage over this on Facebook. They really aren't liking it. And happening at the same time is one of the stars of the Southern Cross being assigned a common name from one of the Aboriginal languages. The southern Cross, unfortunately, has become a bogan and even right wing nationalist symbol over the last decade or two. There's some really unhappy bogan and conservatives over this.

The problem is all your constellations are upside down.

[Forty Two]

Getting back to the subject of advancement by merit, which has always been the American spin on their society. 42 has put up a number of red herrings, and has used some quotes from the margins of the left to back this up.

The American spin is that people should be allowed to do as they please, and have a right to be "left alone." In so doing, the result is that it's more likely that the meritorious rise or advance. However, I would just clarify that this is not "advancement by merit," because meritocracy suggests that overall, there is some requirement that people advance on merit or some merit based testing or analysis, which is NOT the American way and never has been. The American Way would allow one brother to hire and work with and "advance" his other brothers, because he likes and trusts them, even though some other chaps that he might not know are of greater objective "merit."

I don't know what red herrings you're referring to. I did refer to the more recent sources I linked to as on the "cutting edge." So, I admit we're talking an extreme view, but over time, as I also noted, extreme views sometimes move to the middle.

No-one in their right mind is going to object to parents who want the best for their children reading to them, encouraging them etc.

People in their right mind, do, however, object to exactly that. Note as an example the article in Slate about how "if you send your kids to private school, then you're a bad person..." If you read the comments to that article, you'll see many people in full-throated agreement. So, while certainly - I agree - not the majority - there are plenty of right minded folks, or apparently right minded folks, who do accept the ideology underpinning the notion that freely sending one's children to a good, albeit private, school is immoral. Immoral. A bad person. Not just unfair. You are a bad person.

The list of things people privately do that are being likened to a systemically, government/state entrenched advantage gets longer. And, ultimately, it's the collectivist ideologies driving it. The extreme Progressive Left does so out of a sincere desire to do good. However, enacting into law rules that would restrict people's free choice, because of the reality that some people get better results or are smarter or work harder or are luckier than others is really a pernicious course of action. That way lies totalitarianism. One that comes with a smiling face and a caring heart, but it will not stay that way.

Nor is it surprising or unethical for parents to use whatever resources they have to support their education. What we do need to recognise, though, is that there is a systemic advantage that accrues to the children of the wealthy in terms of their chance of gaining tertiary qualifications, and that children in poverty have considerable barriers in their path to the same goals, even given equal ability and motivation.

Not systemic. Advantages yes, but "the system" unless you're talking about some sort of unequal treatment by the State or the government is not doing it. Free people making free choices and some having better and others having worse outcomes is not a system.

An ethical society would do a lot more in terms of means-tested financial support for disadvantaged people who have demonstrated the ability and desire to improve their chances of employment by study.

I guess that depends on how much a society is doing in the first place. Would an ethical society ALWAYS do a lot more, or is there an amount of financial support for disadvantaged people that finally allows one to say that an ethical society would not have to do more. And, interestingly, from ideological base where these kinds of arguments come, it's often presented as a solution that to help the "disadvantaged" everyone must proceed in accordance with a State program so that it's all the same. The example there are those that would eliminate private schools altogether and have everyone have to follow the same path in public schools. Those people exist and are right minded. And, their ideology says that it is "systemically" unfair that the "system" allows people the freedom to start a school, accept students, and educate them for a fee, because "not all" of the members of that society can get in or afford it. To make the "system" fair, we have force and compel people attend a public school, so that nobody moves at a faster pace than anyone else. The wealthy parents send their kids to private school disproporationately, they say, and so they tend to get into better universities, and hold better and more professional type jobs in the end.

Those making the moral judgment that this is "bad" or "bad people" send their kids to private schools, or that there is a moral argument for banning private schools altogether, are illiberal and authoritarian. They have good intentions, I will grant, because they want to help the less fortunate, so most people will probably say, but their solution is to impose authoritarianism control over the day to day lives of individuals and families. They would ban as immoral a group of people in West Bumfuck, Kansas, or East Jabib, Western Australia, from getting together, buying a building, and inviting people to buy education services from them, and they would say anyone who would want to send their kids to that place is a bad person. And, they'd do that under the rubric of kindness, fairness, compassion and progressivism. And, similarly, they would compel everyone to attend a cookie-cutter, soul-crushing State-run education facility, all out the kindness of their hearts to help the "disadvantaged." And, they would call themselves, quite often, "liberal." (at least in the US).

[DRSB]

This morning my boss arrived at work in a brand-new Lamborghini. I said „wow, that’s an amazing car!“
He replied „If you work hard, put all your hours in, and strive for excellence, I’ll get another one next year.“

[Sean Hayden]

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what red herrings you're referring to. I did refer to the more recent sources I linked to as on the "cutting edge." So, I admit we're talking an extreme view, but over time, as I also noted, extreme views sometimes move to the middle.

I addressed this, and quelle surprise, you ignored it. What you claimed one of those sources said was made up and full of bullshit rhetoric. I linked the original piece.

Nor is it surprising or unethical for parents to use whatever resources they have to support their education. What we do need to recognise, though, is that there is a systemic advantage that accrues to the children of the wealthy in terms of their chance of gaining tertiary qualifications, and that children in poverty have considerable barriers in their path to the same goals, even given equal ability and motivation.

Not systemic. Advantages yes, but "the system" unless you're talking about some sort of unequal treatment by the State or the government is not doing it. Free people making free choices and some having better and others having worse outcomes is not a system.

Unless you think poverty is the fault of every individual poor person, poverty IS systemic. Poverty breeds poverty, and also lowers IQ in some cases (not mine, obviously... ). I.e. poverty is a system itself.

Additionally, it is a feature of our societies that it is easier to obtain educational, health, and financial benefits, and better quality ones at that, when you are richer. That is systemic.

An ethical society would do a lot more in terms of means-tested financial support for disadvantaged people who have demonstrated the ability and desire to improve their chances of employment by study.

I guess that depends on how much a society is doing in the first place. Would an ethical society ALWAYS do a lot more, or is there an amount of financial support for disadvantaged people that finally allows one to say that an ethical society would not have to do more. And, interestingly, from ideological base where these kinds of arguments come, it's often presented as a solution that to help the "disadvantaged" everyone must proceed in accordance with a State program so that it's all the same. The example there are those that would eliminate private schools altogether and have everyone have to follow the same path in public schools. Those people exist and are right minded. And, their ideology says that it is "systemically" unfair that the "system" allows people the freedom to start a school, accept students, and educate them for a fee, because "not all" of the members of that society can get in or afford it. To make the "system" fair, we have force and compel people attend a public school, so that nobody moves at a faster pace than anyone else. The wealthy parents send their kids to private school disproporationately, they say, and so they tend to get into better universities, and hold better and more professional type jobs in the end.

Those making the moral judgment that this is "bad" or "bad people" send their kids to private schools, or that there is a moral argument for banning private schools altogether, are illiberal and authoritarian. They have good intentions, I will grant, because they want to help the less fortunate, so most people will probably say, but their solution is to impose authoritarianism control over the day to day lives of individuals and families. They would ban as immoral a group of people in West Bumfuck, Kansas, or East Jabib, Western Australia, from getting together, buying a building, and inviting people to buy education services from them, and they would say anyone who would want to send their kids to that place is a bad person. And, they'd do that under the rubric of kindness, fairness, compassion and progressivism. And, similarly, they would compel everyone to attend a cookie-cutter, soul-crushing State-run education facility, all out the kindness of their hearts to help the "disadvantaged." And, they would call themselves, quite often, "liberal." (at least in the US).

Jim has just explained twice to you now (as well as a large number of times before) that he isn't interested banning these advantages. You are arguing against a strawman. He specifically talked about acknowledging that these advantages are real and significant and then providing support to those who suffer significant disadvantage. Why aren't you addressing this?

[Seabass]

You are arguing against a strawman.

His entire fucked up worldview seems to be an argument against a strawman. As if having Democrats in charge will lead to some sort of nightmarish hellscape in which parents aren't allowed to read to their kids. Fucking preposterous. In fact, having Democrats in control leads to, god forbid, California, New York, Washington...

[pErvinalia]

I just saw a video of his hero - Jordan Peterson - using our shared lobster ancestor of 360 million years ago to argue for a certain view of human nature. These people seriously inhabit an alternative universe where they seem unable reach conscious awareness of the utter ridiculousness of their arguments. It's like that poll you mentioned where 42% of republicans think accurate news is "fake news". These people, to put it bluntly, are mental retards. They are holding the human race back immeasurably.

[Forty Two]

This morning my boss arrived at work in a brand-new Lamborghini. I said „wow, that’s an amazing car!“
He replied „If you work hard, put all your hours in, and strive for excellence, I’ll get another one next year.“

So unfair.