|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted November 14, 2009 10:00 PM |
|
|
Yes I think so as well.
I'm all in for that kids get informed so they can choose for themselves what classes they should have, etc.
But I think only classes where what you learn is considered likely enough to be true, should be on this list.
I don't know much about creatism, so I can only comment on what I've heard, what I've heard is that basicly it explains everything as it's Gods doing, and then tries to explain how an all powerful (not for debate right now  ) being can do so, and how it's consistent with the <insert religious text>.
I mean anyone can do that, and it's impossible to place any kind of certainity on it, just like the flying spaghetti monster, it might exist, it might not, but unless you actually have a way of measuring it, considering its existance is in my opinion without meaning/reason.
As an example of how easy it's to fit everything, imagine (like astrology (I think that's what it's called, not certain on the english name, it's where they tries to tell your future via your name / the place the stars where in when you were born, etc.)) that I say <random number> brings bad luck.
Now it's so, that I can by any mean as long as I am the one who defines the equations, get to this number, simply by addition (oh today is <insert date> if you add/multiply/subtract, etc. then you get to this number, so today is an unlucky day), or similar.
So I think that's a whole lot of text just to write that I agree.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 14, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I think only classes where what you learn is considered likely enough to be true, should be on this list.
I disagree. I think all classes available should be on the list. And the mandatory ones will be only ones that deal with social stuff. You know, like basic language and arithmetic, not calculus or trigonometry and advanced literature. A bit of history and geography helps as well. But that's about it for mandatory (notice I said a BIT).
All others should be on the list for the taking. Of course you have to choose SOMETHING or else you get kicked out of school and you'll have to learn by yourself (not necessarily bad )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 14, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
Is that a stance that can be interpetated like we should have all possible information available (no one should choose for us, except ourself), but it's our own responsibility to evaluate wether the information is likely enough to be considered as future knowledge, or should be dismissed, i.e. no so called "bad information"?
Because I think in one stance that you're right in that we should have all posibilities presented, and in the long run I think it's always the right choice, but I do also think that if we take modern society into consideration, then it'll be a huge waste of ressources if everyone should go through the same evaluations, in stead of having those "bad books" removed from the very start.
Also, of course basics is important, I agree, without it, more advanced stuff does not really make any meaning.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 05:06 PM |
|
|
Not really, that's not reasoning. "Basic" stuff is not important. SOCIAL stuff, stuff that helps you survive in society, is important. (e.g: language, arithmetic). I mean what can you do if you don't even understand the warning signs? That's why those should be mandatory.
But anything else being mandatory is no different than brainwashing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
Excuse me, Death, but that's complete nonsense. We haven't got a society with noteworthy pieces of art and culture because we - as a society - teach children only what they need to survive. Not to mention the fact that it is pretty debatable what exactly is necessary to learn for survival.
Society has the right to teach children the values it thrives upon, whether that is helpful for survival or not. So if pupils are supposed to learn, for example, Latin, than it's obvious that this ain't necessary for survival. Still, IF society thinks that Latin is important to learn - can it hurt? Where's the brainwashing?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
|
Like society used to think religion and hatred of other religions was important, right?
I find it hypocritical of you to accuse Elodin of brainwashing when you suggest the same, but obviously what YOU consider "values" -- which is, "let the society decide". Which is no different than letting the majority of 'parents' decide, so if they are highly religious or fanatics about something (e.g: highly militaristic, for instance), well, I hope you can draw the conclusions.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 08:24 PM |
|
|
But TD, I think the difference in your analogy (and why it's false) is clear when considering on what basis you decide upon, wether your beliefs are considered likely enough to be true, or to say how well you've reflected over it.
Though, I still think that the ability to choose what interests you at any age is still very important, how to make the choosing realistic (and not getting a lot of kids who wants to be a turtle (from the TNMT show of 1987)), you must inform them so they can make a reflected upon choice.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 08:46 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:48, 15 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
But TD, I think the difference in your analogy (and why it's false) is clear when considering on what basis you decide upon, wether your beliefs are considered likely enough to be true, or to say how well you've reflected over it.
Sorry, but I am not the kid learning at the school. Why should "my reflection over it" matter?
There is no objective way to measure truth. That holds no water. You can't just say "this is a free society where everyone can have his own opinion" and then "but my opinion is that what I do is more objectively correct than someone else's, therefore my opinion dictates what should be taught".
One thing, though, is SURE to benefit from this. It's called propaganda.
You see, people who use it, actually believe in it and think that their way is "the true way". Why should yours be different? Or mine?
EDIT: Furthermore I do not see the relationship between truth and school.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no objective way to measure truth.
Exactky. And that's why you are wrong. Society is what makes school possible. So society teaches the values it deems appropriate and necessary. Same is true for parents.
However, the rule is to make the ground obvious on which the things taught are standing, if you understand what I mean.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 09:13 PM |
|
|
Society deemed anti-communist propaganda necessary during the Cold War in America as well. Same but reversed in the USSR. Not very pleasant, I must say.
If you think I said that public schools should decide what to teach (aka private schools), no that's not what I mean. I mean give the kid the choice for himself.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 09:39 PM |
|
|
Nah. I mean, it's ok that society - the state - decides what is taight. If you teach the grounds as well on which things stand, everything is ok.
There is always influencing,
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 09:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean, it's ok that society - the state - decides what is taight.
So if it decides to teach fanaticism, it's ok even though kids don't want it? It was ok in communism propaganda, and capitalist propaganda in the US, and the propaganda in Nazi Germany too, after all, they were taught by the state. And even the kids who fought in the war, I assume, also ok... who cares if the kids don't want it?
Now I understand why Elodin keeps talking about the Big Brother or State-God, probably because arguing with you. I mean, he wants the parents to teach kids whatever they want, you want the state to teach them what it deems fit/necessary. These two are very similar, and it's obvious why I disagree with both.
The state should interfere and not allow kids to be indoctrinated, that's for sure. But not by indoctrinating! (which is what your suggestion allows). Essentially the state should protect kids from that by giving them the choice (well, at their level anyway), not by indoctrinating them their way. Stopping one indoctrination for another indoctrination isn't any different.
That's why I couldn't understand why Elodin called my thinking brainwashing, since he probably had preconceived ideas about your system and put them on mine, where I disagree with both.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, it's ok that society - the state - decides what is taight.
So if it decides to teach fanaticism, it's ok even though kids don't want it?
Grow up. Get real. Make sense.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, it's ok that society - the state - decides what is taight.
So if it decides to teach fanaticism, it's ok even though kids don't want it?
Grow up. Get real. Make sense.
I think you forgot the logic home. Actually the quotes here speak for themselves.
Here let me break it into elementary pieces for you:
STATEMENT: It's ok -- means it's alright -- that the state decides what is taught
Now for examples:
1) Wind back some centuries. The State is highly religious. It funds crusades and is run by the church.
It's ok that the state decides what is taught --> It's ok that the kids are brainwashed into being religious fanatics.
2) The State is anti-communist. It doesn't even begin to tell kids of it, and "teaches" them that capitalism is the only way. It might also teach them lies about communism.
It's ok though.
3) The State is highly militaristic (Nazi Germany for instance) and brainwashes children into fighting. Because that's what the state thinks it's worth.
4) The State is run by hippies and they teach everyone to love each other.
5) The State is run by emos and tells everyone that suicide is a good thing and even encourages "suicide therapy" to make them into suicide.
Conclusion: all of the above are correct to act the way they do, none is "better", just "different". I mean, all follow the same premise, which is that the state should decide what should be taught.
I wanted to add more but don't have time now. So let's get to other conclusions and similarities by breaking the statement up into pieces, because clearly, you can't comprehend it otherwise:
Elodin says: Parents know what's best for their kid and they should be allowed to teach them their values, not Big Brother. Parents have the right to brainwashing their kids as they see fit, the state has no right to it.
Your statement says: The State knows what's best for the kids and they should enforce what should be taught (that is, not just "making it available" but making it MANDATORY). The State has the right to brainwashing the kids as it sees fit, parents have no right.
Hardly a difference. I mean, just substitute one group of humans for another (State vs Parents). None takes into account the kid's decision, of course.
If you think I'm going to do logical analysis on the rest of my post, forget it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted November 15, 2009 10:59 PM |
|
|
This feels nostalgic...SSDD??
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2009 08:26 AM |
|
|
|
First and foremost it feels like complete BS.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2009 08:36 AM |
|
|
I think Death has quite a valid point that you should address.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
|
He has no point at all; instead he's just ranting. I addressed the point he made in my first post to him, and after that he simply switched to rant mode, embarking on one of his usual trips into Death-Land instead of trying to answer to the point made. Or do you see any explanation of him on how a society is supposed to define what is "necessary for survivcal in society" and WHY a society should be content to teach only that stuff, leaving the rest to the children?
Moreover, he didn't say much in the young marines thread, but still a comparison with what he says there with what he says here may be helpful.
As a last hint, the differenve between brainwashing and teaching isn't a difference in content but in method. Which means, Death is as much off the mark as it gets because the question always was and is still not WHAT is taught, but HOW it's taught To make it even more clear, in a gross overstatement and simplification you might say, it doesn't matter what a society teaches, if the method is "non-invasive".
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 16, 2009 12:37 PM |
|
|
I thought his point was that we should not be limited in the information presented to us, and then it was our own, and only our own responsibility, to evaluate wether the given information is both likely and interesting enough to be considered knowledge.
Then again, maybe I only read whatever I want to read and not actually what people write.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2009 12:53 PM |
|
|
|
If that was his point - who knows? -, does it make any sense to you?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
