Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:10 pm

Forty Two wrote: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?! :smoke:
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: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:15 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote: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.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote: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.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:Definition of partiality

plural partialities
1 : the quality or state of being partial : bias
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote: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
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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:03 am

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote: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:

Image

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.
Forty Two wrote: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:
Hermit wrote: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:

Image
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
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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:07 am

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote: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".

Image
Whoa! Looks like the then dominant culture is trying to violently keep out immigrants in search of a better life. :leave:
Penal colony as "immigrants in search of a better life." What a novel concept.
Forty Two wrote: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.
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
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by laklak » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:43 am

Would have been great for the global snail market, though.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:53 am

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.
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
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:01 am

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.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:00 pm

pErvinalia wrote: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.
“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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:28 pm

JimC wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
“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
DRSB
Posts: 5591
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by DRSB » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:03 pm

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.“

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:09 pm

:funny:

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:28 pm

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.
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.

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.
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?
Last edited by pErvinalia on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:39 pm

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...
"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: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:49 pm

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.
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
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 3:18 pm

DRSB wrote:
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. :cry:
“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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests