Conquer Club

Education in the USA

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Education in the USA

Postby crispybits on Sat May 18, 2013 3:30 am

Phatscotty wrote:yuh, Crispy, you got yourself a joke there, but it's out of context. I'm not really interested in it other than to say that's what happened in my logic class.

Crispy, opinion: Is religion Logical?


Religion is perfectly logical once you assume faith. Faith is illogical by definition, because it's belief without evidence. However that misses the point entirely.

1) In a logic class logic should be taught. A logic teacher should be allowed to use any real world analogies they like, as long as the reasons for those analogies are to teach about what logic says about the forms of argument. A logic class is not a place where we should be learning about what biology, french language or religion says, beyond analysing the logical structures of those subjects as part of lessons about logical forms.

2) You did not say "religion is attacked", you said that "the christian right is attacked". The christian right is a movement that wants to conflate religion and politics. The clue is in the name, christian (religion) right (politics). There are many lines of criticism that could be aimed at that movement that have nothing to do with religious claims and everything to do with the logical nonsensicality of a group trying to enforce their particular flavour of religious rules on everyone, including those of other/no religion, by force of secular law.
Last edited by crispybits on Sat May 18, 2013 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby waauw on Sat May 18, 2013 5:31 am

Phatscotty wrote:Get the education you missed!
FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!



you call that education? I went to that website of prageruniversity and the first vid I clicked on about the seperation of church and state was pure christian propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vmZPMRCBhU#!

The website claims that the USA may not have a separation of church and state because the founding fathers didn't design it so. Seriously, what is it with you americans and thinking that your founding fathers were unable to make mistakes? What makes ever single one of their words so holy? They were human weren't they?

The guy just failed to address what has happened in history in countries where church and state weren't seperated. Here in europe the vatican used to rule countries together with the royal families and if anyone dared speak out against christianism they were tortured and executed. Now I have to admit that this doesn't always happen. Nevertheless it's what the seperation of church and state in europe is for. It is a measure to prevent religious persecutions.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sat May 18, 2013 11:00 am

Woodruff wrote:If you agree that it is "the norm today" for schools to teach and train students to have anti-American values, then you are quite simply ignorant. There is no other way to put it, frankly. I am stunned to even see these sorts of statements typed out they're so far from reality.

But I am curious...exactly which anti-American values are you referring to, that are being taught so plainly in our high schools? Let's get into some specifics.


I do want to point out that "anti" means displaying opposite characteristics. It doesn't imply that "anti-American" values "hate" America or take American values in to the back room and mugs them.

American values are (or should be) derived from the adoption of the values of the Age of Enlightenment in the late 18th century. It is based on inalienable rights and the limited role of government to assure these rights to all (the fact that this in theory never happened in practice is besides the point; nothing in theory happens in practice and any system that thinks otherwise is doomed to failure).

The modern value system that is taught in the schools these days derives from the progressive era that really started in the late 19th century. It is derived from an European mindset that government should provide the means to "free" us from our problems. Jefferson's "inalienable rights" are the polar opposite of Roosevelt's four freedoms.

In short, our original values depended on equality of opportunity, while the modern progressive system depends on equality of results. "Everyone gets a trophy."

Woodruff wrote:I would suggest that how he was treated had more to do with "Vietnam vet" than his having been in the military or his being a "gun nut" or anything else, given the high incidence of PTSD and how poorly it was treated for so long that came from that era. That plus general misunderstanding and ignorance of PTSD.


To put this in a different context, are you suggesting that we had no gay people in this country until they came out of the closet? The fact is that PTSD is not really "new." We just now see it for what it is. Many WWII veterans had symptoms that would have been described as PTSD. WWI veterans had them even worse, because that war was closer to that of the modern wars in terms of duration and combat fatigue.

But it was the fact that he was familiar with guns because he was a vet that scared them, not because he was a gun not (he wasn't really a gun nut). Vietnam is an interesting example. Few people who opposed fighting wars hated the people who fought them; merely the people who ordered them. The anger towards the Vietnam War was directed to the soldier; they hated him more than they hated the war. Never before had a nation so vilified the people who were drafted by the government to mess up their lives against their will. But the "Hippy" era took over the campuses after the war and such values have flooded the modern education system we have in public schools today.

I have a feeling that had he been a First Gulf War veteran the same thing would have applied. It's assumed that they don't let "those people" teach their children. So veterans have to "hide in the closet" to get teaching positions.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sat May 18, 2013 11:12 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Well, you sure are an example of anti-American values.. you seem to think the government is the people's enemy, not our servant.


No, you are the one who is misguided. The traditional "American" view of government was to compare it to fire. It is both necessary and dangerous at the same time. It needs "power" to function, but power in turn corrupts. The founding fathers, especially those who wrote and debated the constitution, knew this problem well. They argued that if men were angels, no government would be necessary and if men were governed by angels, no restraint on government would be needed. But since neither is the case, there must be a balance to prevent things from getting out of hand. The fire is nice in the fireplace, but it really desires to burn the whole house down.

The whole notion of "government as servant" is a progressive attitude, made possible by the monk like bureaucrat. Such people don't exist; angels do not govern us. They are instead a group of people with a common interest; to remain blissfully employed along with all the perks and powers therein. Checks and balances were important in order to keep factions constantly in check. The progressive model did away with all of that and we now live in the result.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sat May 18, 2013 11:16 am

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If you agree that it is "the norm today" for schools to teach and train students to have anti-American values, then you are quite simply ignorant. There is no other way to put it, frankly. I am stunned to even see these sorts of statements typed out they're so far from reality.

But I am curious...exactly which anti-American values are you referring to, that are being taught so plainly in our high schools? Let's get into some specifics.


I do want to point out that "anti" means displaying opposite characteristics. It doesn't imply that "anti-American" values "hate" America or take American values in to the back room and mugs them.


That's not how I believe the term was being used, and I don't believe you think that either, but ok...we'll roll with that.

tzor wrote:American values are (or should be) derived from the adoption of the values of the Age of Enlightenment in the late 18th century. It is based on inalienable rights and the limited role of government to assure these rights to all (the fact that this in theory never happened in practice is besides the point; nothing in theory happens in practice and any system that thinks otherwise is doomed to failure).


American values are whatever values Americans in general believe they should be. HOPEFULLY, American values are malleable over time as we educate ourselves on how to treat others, else we would be valuing slavery, inequality and the irradication of Indians.

tzor wrote:The modern value system that is taught in the schools these days derives from the progressive era that really started in the late 19th century. It is derived from an European mindset that government should provide the means to "free" us from our problems.


American high schools really don't teach students that the government is there to free them from their problems. In fact, I find such an idea laughable.

tzor wrote:In short, our original values depended on equality of opportunity


Equality of opportunity? The hell it does. "Our original values" depended on the equality of opportunity among white males.

tzor wrote:while the modern progressive system depends on equality of results. "Everyone gets a trophy."


I haven't seen ANYTHING in high schools that runs to "equality of results" other than "No Child Left Behind" (which, you may recall, I am firmly against). High schools do not play the "everyone gets a trophy" game, nor do universities.

Woodruff wrote:I would suggest that how he was treated had more to do with "Vietnam vet" than his having been in the military or his being a "gun nut" or anything else, given the high incidence of PTSD and how poorly it was treated for so long that came from that era. That plus general misunderstanding and ignorance of PTSD.


To put this in a different context, are you suggesting that we had no gay people in this country until they came out of the closet?[/quote]

Huh? I have no idea at all what you're trying to get at here.

tzor wrote:The fact is that PTSD is not really "new." We just now see it for what it is.


I am well aware of that. It seems odd to me that you would think I don't, given my background.

tzor wrote:But it was the fact that he was familiar with guns because he was a vet that scared them, not because he was a gun not (he wasn't really a gun nut).


You read the guy's mind, then, and determined why the vet scared him? Or is this just the impression that the Vietnam vet gained, and how he passed it on to you. I find it very unlikely that another adult would be that scared of someone just because they know how to handle a weapon. I don't know ANY adults, teacher or not, who would have such a view of things.

tzor wrote:Vietnam is an interesting example. Few people who opposed fighting wars hated the people who fought them; merely the people who ordered them. The anger towards the Vietnam War was directed to the soldier; they hated him more than they hated the war. Never before had a nation so vilified the people who were drafted by the government to mess up their lives against their will.


I agree. That's why my contention is that perhaps it was the appellation of "Vietnam vet" (and the resultant fear of "they're gonna lose it", as irrational as that is) that so bothered the other individual, rather than the fact they were good at handling weapons.

tzor wrote:But the "Hippy" era took over the campuses after the war and such values have flooded the modern education system we have in public schools today.


So now we're teaching students to villify the military? Any idea how popular Junior ROTC is in the high schools? Principals and school boards LOVE Junior ROTC, because it provides things for their students that many times they don't get elsewhere.

tzor wrote:I have a feeling that had he been a First Gulf War veteran the same thing would have applied. It's assumed that they don't let "those people" teach their children. So veterans have to "hide in the closet" to get teaching positions.


This is truly not even remotely the case. In fact, I have to go back to my statement regarding ignorance.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sat May 18, 2013 11:19 am

tzor wrote:The whole notion of "government as servant" is a progressive attitude, made possible by the monk like bureaucrat. Such people don't exist; angels do not govern us. They are instead a group of people with a common interest; to remain blissfully employed along with all the perks and powers therein. Checks and balances were important in order to keep factions constantly in check. The progressive model did away with all of that and we now live in the result.


The progressives are the only ones to blame for the current state of our government? Really?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sat May 18, 2013 11:20 am

crispybits wrote:Religion is perfectly logical once you assume faith. Faith is illogical by definition, because it's belief without evidence. However that misses the point entirely.


All logic requires illogic, strange though that may sound. That is because all logical systems are built upon a set of axioms.

An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek į¼€Ī¾ĪÆĻ‰Ī¼Ī± 'that which is thought worthy or fit,' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally "true" systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa


Now you might look at religion and say, "My, your axioms are quite large" but the notion that you can have a logic system that does not ground itself on axioms is non sense.

Note that it also means that since any axiom could be, in fact, wrong, that because a system is logical doesn't mean that it is correct.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sat May 18, 2013 11:24 am

Woodruff wrote:The progressives are the only ones to blame for the current state of our government? Really?


The current state of the federal government was desired for them; it's what they worked hard to achieve and they accomplished it. So, in that case, yes.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sat May 18, 2013 11:25 am

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:The progressives are the only ones to blame for the current state of our government? Really?


The current state of the federal government was desired for them; it's what they worked hard to achieve and they accomplished it. So, in that case, yes.


Nice how you can hold so many non-progressives blameless. How very non-political of you.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sat May 18, 2013 12:06 pm

Woodruff wrote:Nice how you can hold so many non-progressives blameless. How very non-political of you.


I never said I did hold them blameless. There are a whole number of groups that have done much harm to this country. Most have managed to tag on to those changes made by the progressives. Corportists come to mind here. It's so easy for a big company to influence a big federal agency to get what it wants. Ever notice that no CEO was ever fired because of the scandals of a few years ago?
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Phatscotty on Sat May 18, 2013 8:10 pm

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 19, 2013 12:02 am

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Nice how you can hold so many non-progressives blameless. How very non-political of you.


I never said I did hold them blameless.


Really? Because the portion of your statements that you removed from your quoting says that you were. I specifically asked about "only progressives" and your response was to the affirmative.

tzor wrote:Ever notice that no CEO was ever fired because of the scandals of a few years ago?


Believe me, I certainly have. Or sent to jail, for that matter.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby crispybits on Sun May 19, 2013 8:45 am

tzor wrote:
crispybits wrote:Religion is perfectly logical once you assume faith. Faith is illogical by definition, because it's belief without evidence. However that misses the point entirely.


All logic requires illogic, strange though that may sound. That is because all logical systems are built upon a set of axioms.

An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek į¼€Ī¾ĪÆĻ‰Ī¼Ī± 'that which is thought worthy or fit,' or 'that which commends itself as evident.' As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally "true" systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa


Now you might look at religion and say, "My, your axioms are quite large" but the notion that you can have a logic system that does not ground itself on axioms is non sense.

Note that it also means that since any axiom could be, in fact, wrong, that because a system is logical doesn't mean that it is correct.


You seemed to miss a very important part of what makes an axiom. I've highlighted it for you. Religious beliefs are not axioms, because there is significant controversy (even if you disregard atheism, there is controversy between religions).

Regardless of which, my statement is still valid. Faith is illogical, there is no self-evident uncontroversial piece of truth that lets you get from "I exist" (the most basic axiom) to "God exists". If you assume faith (i.e. "God exists") AND you assume that you have some sort of priveleged information (my religion is the right one), then religion is perfectly logical from that point onwards.

Why you're dragging this off topic though is byond me - if you want to argue about God come back to the God thread, I left a post in there for you that you never answered, just popped in with more "little nit-picks" that were also factually incorrect...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sun May 19, 2013 12:19 pm

Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Nice how you can hold so many non-progressives blameless. How very non-political of you.


I never said I did hold them blameless.


Really? Because the portion of your statements that you removed from your quoting says that you were. I specifically asked about "only progressives" and your response was to the affirmative.


This was my original quote ...

Checks and balances were important in order to keep factions constantly in check. The progressive model did away with all of that and we now live in the result.


The bureaucratic model of the progressive system (as typified in the early 20th century work, "Philip Dru, Administrator") is the biggest cause of all the current problems in the Federal Government today.

Oh sure, crony capitalists could use departments to funnel money to their favorites (as Lincoln did with the department of Agriculture) but that requires perpetual agreement of congress because their budgets are determined by congress. However, once you get a single agency the power across the board to implement laws (regulations), enforce laws, and adjure cases based on those laws (regulations) you have an infinitely corrupt agency.

Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:Ever notice that no CEO was ever fired because of the scandals of a few years ago?


Believe me, I certainly have. Or sent to jail, for that matter.


Well it is nice that we can, on occasion, agree on some things.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sun May 19, 2013 12:29 pm

Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:American values are (or should be) derived from the adoption of the values of the Age of Enlightenment in the late 18th century. It is based on inalienable rights and the limited role of government to assure these rights to all (the fact that this in theory never happened in practice is besides the point; nothing in theory happens in practice and any system that thinks otherwise is doomed to failure).


American values are whatever values Americans in general believe they should be. HOPEFULLY, American values are malleable over time as we educate ourselves on how to treat others, else we would be valuing slavery, inequality and the eradication of Indians.


American "values" are determined by majority vote? So if we get a massive migration of Russians into the US, then American Values become Russian Values then? (Honestly, I have no idea what "Russian Values" are, other than perhaps that they are often accompanied with a good glass of vodka.)

Moreover it ignores the point that few people live up to their values.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 19, 2013 12:59 pm

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Nice how you can hold so many non-progressives blameless. How very non-political of you.


I never said I did hold them blameless.


Really? Because the portion of your statements that you removed from your quoting says that you were. I specifically asked about "only progressives" and your response was to the affirmative.


This was my original quote ...

Checks and balances were important in order to keep factions constantly in check. The progressive model did away with all of that and we now live in the result.


I have a quote you made too, which makes the direct statement that progressives are the only ones to blame for the current state of our government:

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:The progressives are the only ones to blame for the current state of our government? Really?


The current state of the federal government was desired for them; it's what they worked hard to achieve and they accomplished it. So, in that case, yes.


Why make a statement if you're going to run from it?

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:Ever notice that no CEO was ever fired because of the scandals of a few years ago?


Believe me, I certainly have. Or sent to jail, for that matter.


Well it is nice that we can, on occasion, agree on some things.


I think that religion is not involved, you and I agree on a fair number of things in general. You just tend to think much more conservatively than I do.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 19, 2013 1:01 pm

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:American values are (or should be) derived from the adoption of the values of the Age of Enlightenment in the late 18th century. It is based on inalienable rights and the limited role of government to assure these rights to all (the fact that this in theory never happened in practice is besides the point; nothing in theory happens in practice and any system that thinks otherwise is doomed to failure).


American values are whatever values Americans in general believe they should be. HOPEFULLY, American values are malleable over time as we educate ourselves on how to treat others, else we would be valuing slavery, inequality and the eradication of Indians.


American "values" are determined by majority vote?


How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?

tzor wrote:So if we get a massive migration of Russians into the US, then American Values become Russian Values then? (Honestly, I have no idea what "Russian Values" are, other than perhaps that they are often accompanied with a good glass of vodka.)


Are they Americans? If so, why wouldn't their values incorporate into American values?

tzor wrote:Moreover it ignores the point that few people live up to their values.


Unfortunately, that is very true.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby tzor on Sun May 19, 2013 3:16 pm

Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians. Most people can't really describe their own values well.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 19, 2013 4:07 pm

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians.


That doesn't seem very relevant, to be honest. Are you still chasing after Communists and Nazis?

tzor wrote:Most people can't really describe their own values well.


That seems like bullshit to me. I can't imagine too many people who can't describe what they value.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby waauw on Sun May 19, 2013 4:15 pm

tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians. Most people can't really describe their own values well.


If you create a system based on values established/observed by historians you'd get an aristocracy. Now although this may sound very pleasant at first, it isn't in reality. Even these intellectuals are subject to human weaknesses(greed, lust, vengeance, ...). This is a problem as these intellectuals may mix up their own emotions with observed values.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby waauw on Sun May 19, 2013 4:28 pm

Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians.


That doesn't seem very relevant, to be honest. Are you still chasing after Communists and Nazis?

tzor wrote:Most people can't really describe their own values well.


That seems like bullshit to me. I can't imagine too many people who can't describe what they value.


Actually tzor is right. In any marketing class(in my country anyway) whether it be in college or at the university, one of the first things you get taught is that people aren't aware of what they value, what their needs are. It's as Nietzsche once described that a large part of the human mind is hidden in subconciousness.

Look at the internet for example. In the 80's barely anyone would've taught the world wide web would get this popular. It did however. In time people started to realise how much need they had for the internet and thus it grew. People did not however realise what their needs were before the WWW had commenced growing.

It's often peoples experiences that determine whether people are aware of their values. And as not everyone has experienced the same things, people will vary very differently in their values. Of course I do admit people can also get aware of this by self-reflecting, however even the mind and our time to do this is limited.

This is why for example people forget how much they should fear a powerfull government and are willing to accept it. However once gone through an era of oppression by the government, people suddenly are aware of their need to be more free from the government.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Woodruff on Mon May 20, 2013 3:04 am

waauw wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians.


That doesn't seem very relevant, to be honest. Are you still chasing after Communists and Nazis?

tzor wrote:Most people can't really describe their own values well.


That seems like bullshit to me. I can't imagine too many people who can't describe what they value.


Actually tzor is right. In any marketing class(in my country anyway) whether it be in college or at the university, one of the first things you get taught is that people aren't aware of what they value, what their needs are. It's as Nietzsche once described that a large part of the human mind is hidden in subconciousness.

Look at the internet for example. In the 80's barely anyone would've taught the world wide web would get this popular. It did however. In time people started to realise how much need they had for the internet and thus it grew. People did not however realise what their needs were before the WWW had commenced growing.

It's often peoples experiences that determine whether people are aware of their values. And as not everyone has experienced the same things, people will vary very differently in their values. Of course I do admit people can also get aware of this by self-reflecting, however even the mind and our time to do this is limited.

This is why for example people forget how much they should fear a powerfull government and are willing to accept it. However once gone through an era of oppression by the government, people suddenly are aware of their need to be more free from the government.


Just because an individual doesn't consciously think about something over and over again doesn't mean they don't value it. For instance, that doesn't mean they don't value "freedom from the government", it just means they don't keep it at the forefront of their consciousness...that's not the same thing, in my opinion.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Education in the USA

Postby waauw on Mon May 20, 2013 4:18 am

Woodruff wrote:
waauw wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
tzor wrote:
Woodruff wrote:How else do you determine "American values" if not by asking Americans?


I'd prefer to ask historians.


That doesn't seem very relevant, to be honest. Are you still chasing after Communists and Nazis?

tzor wrote:Most people can't really describe their own values well.


That seems like bullshit to me. I can't imagine too many people who can't describe what they value.


Actually tzor is right. In any marketing class(in my country anyway) whether it be in college or at the university, one of the first things you get taught is that people aren't aware of what they value, what their needs are. It's as Nietzsche once described that a large part of the human mind is hidden in subconciousness.

Look at the internet for example. In the 80's barely anyone would've taught the world wide web would get this popular. It did however. In time people started to realise how much need they had for the internet and thus it grew. People did not however realise what their needs were before the WWW had commenced growing.

It's often peoples experiences that determine whether people are aware of their values. And as not everyone has experienced the same things, people will vary very differently in their values. Of course I do admit people can also get aware of this by self-reflecting, however even the mind and our time to do this is limited.

This is why for example people forget how much they should fear a powerfull government and are willing to accept it. However once gone through an era of oppression by the government, people suddenly are aware of their need to be more free from the government.


Just because an individual doesn't consciously think about something over and over again doesn't mean they don't value it. For instance, that doesn't mean they don't value "freedom from the government", it just means they don't keep it at the forefront of their consciousness...that's not the same thing, in my opinion.


and some people will just not think about it at all. Not everyone likes to think about these things. Some people prefer to think about what's happening in football or Hollywood, rather than stuff like freedom. This way values [url]can[/url](not saying it will for sure) remain on an unconscious level forever. And as long as people aren't aware of them, they won't act towards them on purpose.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Education in the USA

Postby thegreekdog on Mon May 20, 2013 3:16 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:That's just it, Phatscotty. The math teacher isn't teaching conservative OR liberal values. The history teacher isn't teaching conservative OR liberal values.


Those are flat out lies. My Logic professor pushed Atheism and Liberalism every single class. My American History professor had an extreme Leftist view of history and had a giant Yassir Arafat picture on the wall. The worst I have personally seen came from my English Professor and my political science professor. It was the same guy, and it didn't matter what class he took.

You could have blindly chosen 2 different subjects that are far harder to politicize, had you put any thought into that whatsoever.


Did they succeed in their attempts to indoctrinate you into their thinking?

I think many teachers and professors lean left (in my anecdotal experience... of which there is actually a lot).

So there are really two questions here:

- Is the federal government (or some other institution) directing the indoctrination of students into a certain viewpoint? There does not appear to be any proof of that in this thread or anywhere else, so I think we can safely answer no.

- If the answer to the first question is yes, has the indoctrination been successful or effective? I think we can also answer no to that question. You and I have both had left-leaning teachers and professors and we remain staunchly anti-left.

Moderators, since those were rhetorical questions that have effectively ended debate in this thread, this thread can now be locked. Thanks!


I'm convinced that awesome posts get ignored around here.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Education in the USA

Postby Lootifer on Mon May 20, 2013 4:39 pm

I concur TGD.

(on both awesome posts getting ignored and closing this thread).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users