Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:44 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: 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.
I don't address most of what you write, because you're full of shit. I didn't make anything up. I summarized and paraphrased, and that's what happens when a person actually states a position and makes an argument.
pErvinalia wrote:
JimC wrote:
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... :{D ). I.e. poverty is a system itself.
Therein lies a fundamental disagreement as I do not agree that poverty is a system. Poverty is a state of lack of wealth or resources. If poverty is the system, then there is no distinction or difference that is not systemically unfair. Poor people can't eat at expensive restaurants or buy expensive cars and houses. That's not a systemic unfairness - unless, as I pointed out before, one subscribes to a particular kind of ideology. I can think of a prime example of that kind of ideology.
pErvinalia wrote:

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.
That's the reality of life, but life is not a system. This is the problem with the ideology that I'm referring to. You refer to a fact of life - that people with more food in their pantry get to eat more food than people who have less food in their pantry -- and call that a systemic problem. It's not a system in the sense of an organized scheme or method.

I would never disagree with the statement that it's easier to obtain most things that cost money when you have more money. That's, of course, a general reality. However, it's not inherently unfair that people have more money than other people.

pErvinalia wrote:
JimC wrote: 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?
I never said he was, and i've explained to you and him more than once already that I'm talking about the extreme, cutting edge progressive position that we should ban those advantages. I'm not arguing after a strawman, because I never attributed the argument to someone who didn't advance it. There ARE people who advance that argument. That's the argument I'm addressing. I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with them, or if JimC personally doesn't agree with them.

I have addressed the issue of providing support to those who suffer significant disadvantage. You have this constant insistence that I talk about what you prefer to talk about. If you scroll back to the start of this sub-conversation wherein the issue of private schools and reading to kids came up, you'll see what we were talking about. Assistance to the needy is a different issue than that, and I brought up specific issues related to reading to kids and related to the immorality of sending kids to private school. If you and Jim don't agree with those extreme views, that's great, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about and analyze those views here. We aren't limited to only discussing views that someone here personally holds and advocates, and discussing those views, which exist and are advocated by some people, is not a "strawman."
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:51 pm

Seabass wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: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...
I never attributed the views about reading to kids and private schools to Democrats. I specifically noted that the views were extreme and on the cutting edge of a Progressive ideology. I specifically said that most people do not agree that it's unfair to read to your kids, or immoral to send kids to private school - I very clearly noted that those are extreme views, although advanced by rightminded people.

I've never advanced a nightmarish hellscape vision of when Democrats are in charge. I've heard folks here, though, advancing those nightmarish hellscapes about when Republicans, especially Trump, is in charge. The economy was going to tank, the stock market was going to tank, blacks and browns were going to be rounded up and put in camps, people would starve, and 20 million people would lose the ability to go to the doctor...

I don't think you folks know what a strawman is. A strawman is when you attribute an argument to a person, and that person is not actually making that argument, and then you defeat the false argument. I haven't done that, since I have not attributed any argument to you, pervinalia, JimC or anyone else here. I specifically cited arguments raised by folks on the cutting edge of Progressive thought, and who claimed certain things were, in essence, problematic, to wit, the immorality of private school and the unfairness of reading to kids. That's not raising a strawman. People actually advanced those arguments. Why this creates such angst in you and pErvin is really beyond me. It's as if you just want to make sure nobody talks about the stupid shit advanced from that side of the political spectrum.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:13 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: 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.
I don't address most of what you write, because you're full of shit.
Is the original article, not the sarcastic biased one you quoted, "full of shit"?
I didn't make anything up.
Yes you did. The professor never said you should feel bad about reading to your kids.
I summarized and paraphrased, and that's what happens when a person actually states a position and makes an argument.
And I explained how the article you were paraphrasing was inaccurate. Hence why I linked the original article and then discussed what the professor actually said. But you aren't interested in accuracy or any sort of intellectual honesty. You are only interested in peddling a biased rhetoric filled position.
pErvinalia wrote:
JimC wrote:
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... :{D ). I.e. poverty is a system itself.
Therein lies a fundamental disagreement as I do not agree that poverty is a system. Poverty is a state of lack of wealth or resources.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether poverty is a system of interacting parts.
If poverty is the system, then there is no distinction or difference that is not systemically unfair. Poor people can't eat at expensive restaurants or buy expensive cars and houses. That's not a systemic unfairness - unless, as I pointed out before, one subscribes to a particular kind of ideology. I can think of a prime example of that kind of ideology.
You've moved the goalposts from "system" to "systemic unfairness". Something doesn't have to be unfair before it can be described as a system.
pErvinalia wrote: 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.
That's the reality of life, but life is not a system.
It's actually society, and society is clearly a system. Not that it matters, as life is clearly a system as well.
This is the problem with the ideology that I'm referring to. You refer to a fact of life - that people with more food in their pantry get to eat more food than people who have less food in their pantry -- and call that a systemic problem. It's not a system in the sense of an organized scheme or method.
This is a non-sequitur. You went from assumption: "systemic problem", to conclusion: therefore not a "system". The fact that it harder for poor people feed themselves is systemic. You are trying to mix in a different debate about whether that is a "problem" or "unfair". Before we get to that point, you need to understand and accept what a system is.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:28 am

Forty Two wrote:I've heard folks here, though, advancing those nightmarish hellscapes about when Republicans, especially Trump, is in charge. The economy was going to tank, the stock market was going to tank, blacks and browns were going to be rounded up and put in camps, people would starve, and 20 million people would lose the ability to go to the doctor...
I think you've heard the voices in your head. Let's see some links to these alleged claims. I'll save you time with the the tanking economy. That's clearly going to happen if those tax cuts go through (I think they're in law now, aren't they?).
I don't think you folks know what a strawman is. A strawman is when you attribute an argument to a person, and that person is not actually making that argument, and then you defeat the false argument. I haven't done that, since I have not attributed any argument to you, pervinalia, JimC or anyone else here.
But you keep raising these arguments when the rest of us have made clear we don't hold that position. And you do continually in response to our posts. Why do you keep doing that?
I specifically cited arguments raised by folks on the cutting edge of Progressive thought, and who claimed certain things were, in essence, problematic, to wit, the immorality of private school and the unfairness of reading to kids. That's not raising a strawman. People actually advanced those arguments. Why this creates such angst in you and pErvin is really beyond me. It's as if you just want to make sure nobody talks about the stupid shit advanced from that side of the political spectrum.
Fuck you are dishonest. You really are unbelievable. No one is claiming that is a strawman. It was the BANNING of things like reading to kids and private schools that are the strawman. You are arguing against things no one here supports. Repeatedly. While quoting us. If you want to rant, do it without quoting our words while doing it.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Seabass » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:59 am

Forty Two wrote:
Seabass wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: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...
I never attributed the views about reading to kids and private schools to Democrats.
You didn't have to. The overarching theme of your posting history shows that you're one of these nuts who thinks that anyone to the left of the Republican party wants to implement some sort of soviet-style, authoritarian, totalitarian, "soul-crushing" regime whose purpose is to drag everyone down to the same level of misery. You litter the forum with examples of the craziest far-left fringe, then you make statements like the following:
Forty Two wrote:So, I admit we're talking an extreme view, but over time, as I also noted, extreme views sometimes move to the middle.
Forty Two wrote:the problem is that extremes slowly migrate to the middle as time goes on, and the absurd sometimes become accepted).
which show that you think ceding any ground to the left will place us on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Have you ever read your own damn posts? You are clearly still in the grip of the right-wing paranoia that took hold of the US during the Cold War:
Forty Two wrote:And, ultimately, it's the collectivist ideologies driving it.
Forty Two wrote:That way lies totalitarianism.
Forty Two wrote:they would compel everyone to attend a cookie-cutter, soul-crushing State-run education facility, all out the kindness of their hearts
The thing is, no one's looking to fucking sovietize America. All the American left (which barely qualifies as left) wants is for the US to be a little less like "shitholes" like Alabama and Mississippi, and more like first world places like Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe, Scandinavia, etc. Oh, and California, Washington, New York, etc...

You're so terrified of anything with the faintest hint of "collectivist" stink on it that you'd rather see a bunch of goddamn creationist, theocratic, racist, sexist, right-wing cavemen in control of government than reasonable, centrist Democrats.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:21 am

:clap:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:55 pm

Forty Two wrote:
JimC wrote: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.and a caring heart, but it will not stay that way.
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.
Firstly, while it is understandable that parents will give their children every possible advantage over others, how do you argue that such advantage gained through privately owned wealth parents of other children do not possess is fair and moral? I mean, as far as the children are concerned, creating an uneven playing field is both in your eyes. Care to look at the situation in the eyes of those children?

Secondly, a level playing field does not drag all children down to a common mediocrity, or worse, lets the less capable gain an unfair advantage. The smarter and harder working ones will still win out over those who are less so. Meritocracy still reigns, but it does so on a level playing field. This is a truly good thing. In extreme cases playing fields that are not level diminishes the chance of intellectual cripples climbing up the business or government ladder because mum and dad's wealth helped them scrape through a degree at Harvard.

As far as society is concerned private schools - and the wealth that enables students to enter them - are (cough - Bush junior - cough) counterproductive.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by DRSB » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:18 am

One thing you have to give the Bolsheviks credit for is the alphabetization of the population and the obligatory school.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Svartalf » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:23 am

Which is great when you see how the sheeple are still voting for a strongman dictator like Vlad Vladimirovich
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by DRSB » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:22 am

Svartalf wrote:Which is great when you see how the sheeple are still voting for a strongman dictator like Vlad Vladimirovich
This does not invalidate my point.
By the way, wasn't Hitler democratically elected too?

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Svartalf » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:34 am

Shows that education kis not protection versus a dictatorial regime
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:04 am

Svartalf wrote:Shows that education kis not protection versus a dictatorial regime
Svarty, you are right. Education does not protect a population from dictatorial regimes, but the Bolsheviks did something no Tsars - themselves constituting dictatorial regimes - bothered with: Instituting a massive project, known as Likbez, that raised the literacy rate from 37% for males and 17% for females in 1917 to 90.8 and and 72.5% respectively by 1939. That is a huge jump in a relatively short period of time. No kudos for that?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by DRSB » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:58 pm

Hermit wrote:
Svartalf wrote:Shows that education kis not protection versus a dictatorial regime
Svarty, you are right. Education does not protect a population from dictatorial regimes, but the Bolsheviks did something no Tsars - themselves constituting dictatorial regimes - bothered with: Instituting a massive project, known as Likbez, that raised the literacy rate from 37% for males and 17% for females in 1917 to 90.8 and and 72.5% respectively by 1939. That is a huge jump in a relatively short period of time. No kudos for that?
:tup: Massive kudos!

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Rum » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:25 pm

DRSB wrote:
Svartalf wrote:Which is great when you see how the sheeple are still voting for a strongman dictator like Vlad Vladimirovich
This does not invalidate my point.
By the way, wasn't Hitler democratically elected too?
A bit of a myth this.

His party formed a coalitions and as leader of one of these he was asked to become Chancellor. He was never directly elected nor did his party ever gain an overall majority. By the time he was in power however it was all too late. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended many civil liberties. Under the authority of that decree, Hitler’s government was given the legal right to arrest and imprison opponents and suspected enemies of the state without trial, and to censor the press.

User avatar
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by DRSB » Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:34 pm

Rum wrote:
DRSB wrote:
Svartalf wrote:Which is great when you see how the sheeple are still voting for a strongman dictator like Vlad Vladimirovich
This does not invalidate my point.
By the way, wasn't Hitler democratically elected too?
A bit of a myth this.

His party formed a coalitions and as leader of one of these he was asked to become Chancellor. He was never directly elected nor did his party ever gain an overall majority. By the time he was in power however it was all too late. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended many civil liberties. Under the authority of that decree, Hitler’s government was given the legal right to arrest and imprison opponents and suspected enemies of the state without trial, and to censor the press.
A little surfing on the internet indicates that he was installed by democratic means and enjoyed massive support even after it became clear what he was about, by the people of thinkers and poets:
https://www.quora.com/Was-Adolf-Hitler- ... man-nature
https://www.quora.com/Was-Adolf-Hitler- ... man-nature

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests