Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 46785
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:32 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:Australia Day is problematic. There's a growing movement to change the date. Thankfully 42 isn't Aussie, so we don't have to listen to how persecuted he would feel having his date taken away from him.
You invent these ideas. I've never suggested I've been persecuted at all. Pointing out the idiocy of certain ideas is not a claim to persecution.

Moving Australia Day is of little importance to me, and 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. I'm sure that the fact that the US doesn't celebrate November 11 as "America Day" or something like that being that's the day the British Pilgrims landed in New England, doesn't bother you, and I would guess you can fathom difference between November 11, 1620, and July 4, 1776, in terms of concept.

I would suggest March 3 be Oz's new day, because that's the day you blokes finally gained complete independence from the British. Like the proverbial adult child who doesn't leave home until he's in his 40s, so went Australia.... :smoke:
The best date I've heard suggested is May 8. M8. :D
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.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 35220
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 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:41 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:Australia Day is problematic. There's a growing movement to change the date. Thankfully 42 isn't Aussie, so we don't have to listen to how persecuted he would feel having his date taken away from him.
You invent these ideas. I've never suggested I've been persecuted at all. Pointing out the idiocy of certain ideas is not a claim to persecution.

Moving Australia Day is of little importance to me, and 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. I'm sure that the fact that the US doesn't celebrate November 11 as "America Day" or something like that being that's the day the British Pilgrims landed in New England, doesn't bother you, and I would guess you can fathom difference between November 11, 1620, and July 4, 1776, in terms of concept.

I would suggest March 3 be Oz's new day, because that's the day you blokes finally gained complete independence from the British. Like the proverbial adult child who doesn't leave home until he's in his 40s, so went Australia.... :smoke:
The best date I've heard suggested is May 8. M8. :D
:lol:

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18898
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:36 am

Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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?

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18898
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:55 am

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.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:45 am

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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. It's fair unless the rules of the game are different for everyone.

Is it "unfair" for someone who has played Monopoly for decades to play against someone who just learned the rules last week? Of course not. The rules of the game are the same. Is it unfair for someone who took a course in how to play Monopoly to play against people who never took that course? Of course not. Is it unfair for those who grew up playing Monopoly in their family every Friday night to play against those who had to learn on their own, sporadically playing only with those who would play once in a blue moon? Of course not.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:50 am

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.

And, you created AC/DC, which is among the greatest rock bands of all time, and that's an objective fact. You kind of tripped up there with "Men At Work" back in the 1980s. But, hey, you have cool accents, you like swilling in beer, you enjoy tough rugger style football sports over soccer, and when it comes down to it, Merkins and Ozzies -- no matter how much you may not like to admit it -- are destined to be solid friends. Everyone but pErvin, of course. :smoke:
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18898
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:10 am

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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."

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18898
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:23 am

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

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 46785
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 8:46 am

Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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

And, while that example would not "ban" reading to your children -- the thought crossed his mind -- only, he balances the interests and says he wouldn't suggest a ban on reading to kids, because of the familial and relationship benefits that the activity fosters. Apparently, it'd be great to ban reading to level the educational outcomes, but it's not great to ban reading to level the relationship outcomes. He doesn't explain why.
He does, if you read the actual article your article is about - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/6437058

He's a philosopher, engaging in philosophical navel gazing, and in actuality his work is based around defending the value of the family unit and has nothing to do with defending equity (or the opposite) in society. What constantly amazes me is that you continue to rely on "media" articles that are so clearly biased (you can tell the writer is unprofessional from their sarcasm in the last paragraph). Are you unaware of these rhetorical biases in many of the articles and videos you post??
This is on the cutting edge of Progressive thought today. Feel bad sometimes about reading to your kids,
More dishonest interpretation from you. He didn't say that you should "feel bad" sometimes about reading to your kids. He said that you should consider the implications from time to time.
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.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 46785
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 8:53 am

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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
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.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 20625
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:21 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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

And, while that example would not "ban" reading to your children -- the thought crossed his mind -- only, he balances the interests and says he wouldn't suggest a ban on reading to kids, because of the familial and relationship benefits that the activity fosters. Apparently, it'd be great to ban reading to level the educational outcomes, but it's not great to ban reading to level the relationship outcomes. He doesn't explain why.
He does, if you read the actual article your article is about - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/6437058

He's a philosopher, engaging in philosophical navel gazing, and in actuality his work is based around defending the value of the family unit and has nothing to do with defending equity (or the opposite) in society. What constantly amazes me is that you continue to rely on "media" articles that are so clearly biased (you can tell the writer is unprofessional from their sarcasm in the last paragraph). Are you unaware of these rhetorical biases in many of the articles and videos you post??
This is on the cutting edge of Progressive thought today. Feel bad sometimes about reading to your kids,
More dishonest interpretation from you. He didn't say that you should "feel bad" sometimes about reading to your kids. He said that you should consider the implications from time to time.
If something makes me feel bad it's invariably the fault of that something, whether it's people demanding washroom rights or the sterilisation of the homeless.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:51 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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, so I did answer honestly. It's no more unfair to other people than other people instead investing the money that I spend on books and school and other related costs and having more money for retirement. That's not unfairness.

And, I really don't think it's "unfair" that some people have more money than others, or are willing/able to give more time/energy to their kids. Most parents I run into say they hardly ever read to their kids. There is no excuse for that, in my view. Books are free in the US - the schools give them away - every town has a library with a kid's section dedicated to it. You can even download materials online to a phone or PC or whatever. If you don't have a PC, use of them is free at libraries and other places. The fact that I do value education, and the fact that I sit them in my lap several times a week and read to them is not unfair, and my response was honest when I said that the notion that I should feel bad about that because other people don't do that is ridiculous.

I was hoping you'd explain explicitly why it's unfair. What I read was that yous said that reading to them was giving the kids a boost in the race. Yes. And that is expressly not unfair. It's akin to a father working with his son to build a soapbox racecar to compete against other fathers and their sons, and if one father takes little to not interest in the racecar, it's not unfair that I take interest and help my son design and build one that is apt to go faster. Now, life is only a race if you want it to be, of course. It's not really a competition, other than in the minds of individuals who view it as such. So, really, another way to describe it is that in a free society, you're not forced to do much of anything - if you want to read and learn with your kids, fine. If not, fine. If you want to instead play sports with them, fine. If you do the latter, chances are the kids will be better at sports than the kids whose parents don't do that. Maybe it's dance, and some parents focus on teaching their kids to dance.

To use myself as an example, my parents told me it was good to join sports, for example, but they gave me zero support and were largely incapable of teaching me anything about sports. They themselves did not know how to play any sports, and they for the most part viewed them as childish games which skill and development of ability was secondary. it was just something to go do and dick around with, and helping me become better was irrelevant. They had more important things to do, like earn a living. 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. All that is fine - there are arguments people have for why it's better to be given the responsibility to do one's own work, and follow the teacher's instructions, etc. However, I've chosen a different way with my kids, which is to be engaged in their learning process, and their sports, and their dance, and give them encouragement, and let them ask me questions, and I can answer the questions, or work with them to learn how to find the answers.

Yes, my goal is to give them a "leg up" -- but that is not "unfair." There is no moral reason why my kids have to hold themselves back if they are capable of doing more, and there is no moral reason why it is unfair for me to help them reach a capacity and goal that is higher than they would be alone. The assumption that humans must go through life with exactly the same upbringing is based on an ideology I do not share.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:01 pm

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:

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."

My take on any kind of day of commemoration is that they are up to the people to decide what to celebrate. I generally oppose the government creating official days. It's generally a political move, and we're paying these elected officials salaries - I find the fights over or for designating something in law to be an official day of celebration or remembrance to be a giant waste of time, and a misplacement of government resources and power.

If it were up to me, we'd not have any official holidays of any kind. However, people would be free to celebrate what they wanted. We shouldn't have a law that says the Independence Day in the US or Australia Day in Oz is by law a holiday. The people should organize themselves.

Look at the problem arising with Christmas. As the non-Christian population in the US grows, more and more people are saying "hey, why do you get Christmas off by law? I celebrate [insert minority holiday here] and I don't get that off." And as that chorus grows, the Christians feel persecuted, as if someone is demanding that something be taken away from them. If we had no official holidays, then people would be free to self-organize. That might, of course, mean that most people demand Christmas and not Kwanzaa, but so be it. At least it would not be entrenched in law.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:05 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Rum wrote:Of course it isn't unfair. As it happens the single biggest indicator of educational achievement is being read to at a very early age. Whole academic careers have been built on research to this end (e.g http://www.education.vic.gov.au/documen ... gchild.pdf )

And of course those who aspire for their families and kids will be more inclined to do so.

It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and make everyone as ambitious for their kids as we might like them to be, but we can try to ensure the system doesn't leave those whose backgrounds leave them with a handicap from the get go.
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.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 15598
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 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:23 pm

I tried to give my daughters a leg up but they kept telling me not to touch them there.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests