Apparently all of it.

Have a good night.

What part of the extremely clear distinction between what was actually said and what you are wsaying is being missed?

ONCE AGAIN I refeerd quite explicitly to the suggestion you made that the only possible and proper course of action is for you personally to dictate that everyone be subjected to the government run school except in the extremely few if any cases where you personally are willing to allow that they be educated instead, yet you still respond with your red herring about whatever PUBLIC school you teach at… Why work so hard to avoid the issues?

As for why argue the point even if I am not part of the system you rail against? Haven’t you ever tried arguing a point for the sake of the argument and not necessarily because you believe it? I find it helpful to occasionally put myself on the side of an argument I don’t actually believe in so that I can try to understand the point of view.

And I do teach at an independent school (their name for the type of school). I am not sure how you would differentiate between a truly private school and a so-called one. I know that our school is not open to anyone who shows up and pays tuition. We have a fairly rigorous admissions process in order to make certain that we have students that fit the mission statement of our school. Additionally, we make a sincere effort to ensure that the parents remain involved. The parent body is very active in many parts of the school, including the board of trustees who are ultimately in charge of the school.

I have enjoyed our conversation, TX. I hope there are no hard feelings.

You say that you left the “public schools” but previously you said were indeed teach. So are you a private tutor? If you teach at the so-called private schools, most likely they are in fact still open to the public, as there are few schools that actually bar the public.

So tell me again… how is my school stealing forcibly from the lifeblood of others? No one is compelled to come to the school I teach at, nor compelled to donate more than the tuition (which, incidentally, does not cover all the operating expenses of the school). I, long ago, left the public schools because I did not like that we were told what to do, and when I tried to do differently, was chastised for it. Just because my school has a program similar (but definitely not the same as) the government schools does not make it one.

I have no idea how you can hold the two contrary points of view, both advocated vehemently, that there needs to be government run schools (not “Public” since almost all schools are in fact “public” regardless of ownership) which necessarily cannot exist without coercion, theft, and violence and at the same time claim that you are not advocating these very characteristics. This is akin to saying that you are all for genocide, but oppose taking the life of an innocent person.

I have not taken the position that helping others is a bad thing, I have simply recognized the difference between the moral ideal of giving of yourself, your time, your property to reduce harm or increase pleasure, and the giving of ANOTHER’S life, time, and property to perhaps help another (though in fact since we know that the government school system is a dismal failure, sadly it is not even to help anyone other than the bureaucrats in power). As I have continued to point out, you have no claim on my life or property, just as I have no claim on yours. So whereas I will refuse to steal from you, directly or by proxy, to forward my own agendas, desires, or objectives, your approach necessitates such theft, coercion, and violence as an integral part of the government program. Do you know of a way to fund these failed efforts without stealing the lifeblood of others?

As to agreement, it is of course unnecessary. Reality depends on neither of us.

What does it matter what I think? I believe it important to take responsibility for oneself, but I also believe that it is necessary to do what we can to help others. If that implies that I know what is best for everyone else in your philosophy, then so be it. I do not advocate force, nor do I feel that my belief in helping others logically implies that I advocate it.

I will continue to teach my students to question, to think for themselves, to accept responsibility for their actions, to try and understand the world, and also impart factual information I feel is necessary for their success. Does this display my arrogance? Probably.

I apologize if you feel I am attacking you personally… I don’t know you. I just do not follow your logic to the ends you have. I like to think I am fairly intelligent (a point not proven, I grant) and able to follow an argument that is carefully made. Possibly it is due to the haphazard way in which this medium has caused you to make your arguments. I’m used to dealing with various attacks on education, but I confess that I have never faced yours. Possibly I reacted with more vehemence then necessary, but then I feel strongly that what I am doing is an important job and one worth doing.

You say that, “The facts I have stated are correct and the reasoning offered is sound.” I don’t believe all the facts you have stated. Granted, I have not the time to run them all down, but I definitely don’t agree with the data you have shared about literacy pre-public schools, and I don’t support the conclusions you come to about what to do. Again, my arrogance probably talking here, but I think they are pollyanna-ish.

Could I be wrong? I am open to this idea. Will I advocate trying it just to see if I’m wrong. No.

You have given me something to think about. I have always felt that a logical approach to everything was best. I am no longer certain. Human beings are not inherently logical beings. We have the capacity to be logical, certainly. But the day-to-day reality is that we often do not make decisions, particularly in the moment, that reflect a logical reasoning process. Well, there may be some logic, but it is rudimentary and not open to debate. It is a reaction.

What you have seen in my posts has probably been more of this ‘reaction’ then a concerted effort at a logical argument. My bad. But as I reread your posts, hopefully in a calmer frame of mind, I still can’t see my way to your conclusions.

Good day.

The ad hominems just don’t stop do they?

I am NOT calling you stupid, and have not even come close to implying it much less stating it.

As for “my position” being “right” therefore “all others are wrong” you begin with nested false assumptions. The facts I have stated are correct and the reasoning offered is sound. Take from that what you will. None of this is original to me, nor dependent upon me. The “who” is unimportant. It does not follow that everyone else is always mistaken about everything simply because a few of the true statements about the world are noticed.

Amongst the conclusions you draw from your presumptions of omniscience this one stands out for the blatantly dishonest nature of it: “According to you the ‘facts’ lead only to your conclusions.”

You cannot find this position taken by me.

“However, to insist that your views are the only correct ones, and that we should summarily require that all others follow them (i.e., disband the PUBLIC schools and pass education back to the parents, etc.) IS deciding what is best for all others. Maybe you will get around that by saying you are only allowing others to make decisions for themselves, but the reality is that you want to DECIDE to make the do that.”

This is quite simply silly. If we follow your mischaracterizations consistently, then IF you recognize murder is inherently evil, then you are insisting that your views are the only correct ones, that we should summarily require all others to follow them. Or if murder is a grey area for you, let’s return to the spherical shape of the planet. If you recognize this fact, then again by your reasoning, you are insisting that your views are the only correct ones, that we should summarily require all others to follow them.

Obviously the argument form is invalid as it leads to absurd conclusions.

As for “making” anyone do anything, the fact is that I am not, nor would I. I did not make anyone have a child, and thus take on the responsibilities of raising it. In no way do I or would I force anyone to do anything. As long as someone refrains from harming me and those for whom I care, then nothing I do will ever in any fashion dictate any action of theirs. Unless you want to make the case that self-defense is aggression (which of course means denying the law of non-contardiction) then your argument never even gets started, and certainly your claims that I am suggesting forcing anyone to do anything at all remain as false as they are absurd.

Remember that what you are arguing against is 1. Individuals taking responsibility for their own choices. 2. CEASING forcing the one size fits all approach on every individual. 3. CEASING the use of coercion and theft which finance these efforts to remove responsibility from those who make the choices (putting it upon others, innocent others who have no say).

You seem dead set on insisting that CEASING harm is identical to advocating or creating harm, yet these are certainly not merely not identical they are of opposing types.

You’ve labeled me with several differing labels here, none of which fit. I am not an absolutist. I am not a Libertarian. I am not an Objectivist. I am not a Satanist (though I did find that one to be the most amusing of the four). That you go to such lengths to try to discredit me as a person, while wholly ignoring the arguments and the facts, should be a large warning flag for you.. How strong is a position which drives someone to such uncivil, dishonest, arrogant, and antagonistic lengths?

BTW you do realize that satanism is merely a subsect of xnty right? It cannot exist without xnty, but then that is clearly for another discussion.

As for whether your beliefs are close to Libertarianism or Objectivism, or even Satanism, I cannot say, since I make no pretense of omniscience. However I would point out that advocating the use of force against innocent others does put you at odds with all three to one degree or another.

Then you are telling me I am stupid as I do not agree with, or understand, your characterizations of what I said as saying I know what is best for all. You continually appeal, in this post and others, that you merely cite evidence and it is up to us to see that it is true.

My university had a core component of having to take three philosophy courses in order to graduate. The worst (of the four I ended up taking) was the one where, almost without fail, the professor ended each class with the phrase, “I do not expect you to understand everything I talked about yet, but once you go home and think about it you will see that I am right.” If I did not know better, I would assume you were he. The reason I know better is that he was an extremely devout Catholic. He too believed in absolutes, as do you.

If your position is so right, and the rest of us so wrong, why are there other philosophies at all? I do not accept all the premises upon which you build your arguments. Premises which are NOT necessarily verifiable as fact. Or perhaps I need to ask you - How do you define the term “fact?” Maybe this is where things break down. Perhaps we use this term to mean different things. According to you the ‘facts’ lead only to your conclusions. Either the majority of people who disagree are stupid or deluded, or maybe you work from a different set of definitions than the rest of us. Of course, if it is the latter, then we return to the notion that somehow you are privy to knowledge and understanding that the rest of us are not.

If your system is so reliant on people making their own decisions about themselves, should they not, to a certain extent at least, agree with your conclusions? You have said that you are not interested in coercion. However, to insist that your views are the only correct ones, and that we should summarily require that all others follow them (i.e., disband the PUBLIC schools and pass education back to the parents, etc.) IS deciding what is best for all others. Maybe you will get around that by saying you are only allowing others to make decisions for themselves, but the reality is that you want to DECIDE to make the do that.

TX, I confess to having never really looked into either libertarianism or objectivism before our conversation. My understanding of both was limited at best, and that limited understand led me to believe that I shared some fundamental beliefs with these philosophies. Our conversation has caused me to begin looking more closely at both and, although I freely admit that I have not read enough to be anywhere close to being an expert, I now know that my beliefs are not as close to these as I once thought.

By the way, and I am not suggesting this applies to you, I have found that many of the things I understand you saying also apply to those that consider themselves Satanists. Certainly there are other things they also believe I have not heard you talk about (and would probably argue against), but it was an interesting connection I found while doing a little more research on objectivism. In fact, apparently Anton LaVey even characterized satanism as “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.”

I am doing no such thing. I have not so much as implied that you are either evil or stupid. I have pointed out that your claims are simply false, as can be verified quite easily. Whether or not you accept this is entirely up to you, but whether you choose to accept it or not reality will remain as it is, that is to say that the claims will remain false.

As for your assumption that you know what is best for all, I have cited where and how this is a necessary consequence of your stated position. Denying that it is necessitated by your arguments and position changes nothing. Either you are denying your own position, else they are false denials.

You may not be advocating coercion, but you are telling me that I am essentially evil, stupid, or both for not accepting what you tell me as the truth. Wait… isn’t that the way the Catholic Church gets its followers to do what it wants? I know… I don’t need to ‘accept’ anything, I just need to understand the logic.

And you show your own predilection for omniscience when you repeatedly put words into my mouth. At no point did I ever say I knew what is right for everyone and, in fact, repeatedly have said the opposite. But apparently you know me well enough to tell me that I believe it anyway.

I’m in LA, and a big problem here (as well as the rest of the US) is healthcare. Hospitals closing left and right, the ones that are open are understaffed, and this is a CRAZY place for that, and the whole time there are so many medical schools around it’s senseless.
The technology though, is actually where my question comes from.
My wife’s from Japan, and she was scared shitless when I had to go to the hospital and she saw how disorganized it was, and how old the technology was. I didn’t understand until we actually went to the dentist, and it took more than ten minutes to do an X-ray for her.
Even when she was little, a cavity was always zapped clean by a freaking lazer. An X-ray took seconds, and it was a panoramic wrap around view that detailed the entire bottom half of the skull.

Is this just a Japanese thing, or is there even better technology in every hospital everywhere else?

Simply demonstrates the very presumption of omniscience that I had pointed out is inherent in your assumption that you know what is best for others and only you are able to decide what path they can take. You have no basis whatsoever to claim to know what it is I know of Buddhism, not the quality nor quantity. Yet you state that I only know a small degree. Presumptions of omniscience like this will never lead to true conclusions.

As for instructing you, I was clearly not doing so. I stated an obvious and easily verifiable fact. What you do with it is up to you. If you recall I am not advocating coercion at all..

Yeah you are right, ceasing harm to others is an “extreme” position, because after all causing harm to others is the middle way as you call it.

The spectrum is necessarily that of causing harm, refraining from harm, and preventing harm. You are advocating the first of these, which is not in the middle conceptually, literally, or in any honest way of looking at it. Now perhaps you want to deny that you are causing harm by insisting that you set the stage and determine what is allowed and what is verboten, as well as dictating that others will be forced to pay for what you deem to be the proper choice for others, but such denials will necessarily be hollow.

On antagonism, yes I did respond in kind, though far more mildly, to your increased antagonism, though I will continue to avoid the personal attacks and insults which you chose to employ. This is clearly a response to your behavior. Reading anything more into it leads to false conclusions.

You say that you will keep the government system, and perhaps allow (after it has been presented for your personal approval) some few alternatives for some few individuals.

Okay, so then if this is the middle what is the extreme? Well one small step to the right gets you the removal of these extremely few limited cases which you might allow. To the left you have dictating exactly the opposite choices from your own. In the middle? Allowing all individuals to make their own choices for their own lives without dictating to them at all.

So, we see that in fact the middle path is contrary to your suggestion. As I noted previously, no amount of insults and personal attacks will change this fact. Perhaps your explanation was merely projecting?

As for my using ad hominem, you have NO BASIS whatsoever for this claim, but it does reflect strongly on your opinion of honesty.

I have pointed out what is necessarily arrogant, and defended that objectively. This is not ad hominem any more than pointint out michael jordan is tall. If you will notice, the observations concerned the attitudes, the arguments, and the claims. These are descriptors of objectively verifiable facts, not personal attacks such as you have offered. Recall that you dismissed facts about the literacy rate because you simply did not like the political views of the author. The two are not related, yet because you wanted to hold onto your view so tightly you were willing to attack the individual. So too with your attacks on me as a person. Since your argument has no validity, since your premises have been shown to be false and unsupportable, you resort to personal attacks.

One need not visit every classroom to know of the standardized systems. This is yet another red herring you offer, and is equally dishonest as your other personal attacks have been.

I am in no way taking an extreme position, no matter how many times you make this absurd claim. I am arguing for the middle path, the path that ALLOWS for choice, rather than dictates to others how they must lead their lives. I am arguing against theft, coercion, violence, and of course the presumptions of omniscience which are the very core of your suggested approach.

I agree that this medium will not suit your purposes, as it leaves a trail which can be followed, and clearly records your claims so that you cannot deny them, though you have tried.

If you look back through the posts you will find that I have to repeatedly correct you as to your claims about my position, about what you believe has been said, though nothing remotely similar to what you pretend was said, was actually said. This should tell you something.

Why do you oppose personal responsibility so strongly? Why do you have such an emotional reaction to the suggestion that individuals should be allowed to determine what is best for their own children?

Why is it that you immediately attack the individual who suggestes that theft is wrong, that coercion is not education, and that every child is not identical and their parents are not all idiots? Do not answer this for me, for I already know the answer, but ask it of yourself.

From where you stand the middle way is not visible. The eight-fold path is not under your feet any more than the knowledge of what is best for all children is in your head. Take that as a friendly observation or as an objective fact, it matters not one whit to me. No amount of denial, nor any amount of further insult to me will change those facts.

You have convinced me of one thing, and one thing only. Your position is as distasteful to me, and as extreme, as the government holding all the cards is. Oh yes, let me once again remind you… I DON’T WANT A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SYSTEM SUCH AS YOU DESCRIBE EITHER. Again, sorry for the shouting.

I will continue to strive for a middle way. I can abide neither extreme, nor do I appreciate the name calling (oh wait, isn’t that what an ad hominem attack is?) you have engaged in. Sorry… I’m sure there are logical reasons for your calling me arrogant or celebrating injustice. I have enjoyed this give and take until now when it has become clear to me that this medium is not adequate to carry on the conversation.

Once you have visited every school and every classroom out there can you dare tell me that it is a one-size fits all system. And if you attempt to do so without visiting them all, then you are stereotyping based on your own prejudiced view of the current system.

I’m done.

All I can do is point out that you maintain the profoundly arrogant attitude that you know what is best for all children. Sure you will allow a few individuals to maybe sway you from your choice, but first and foremost everyone is to be subjected to your will, in this case the will of the state. This combined with your statements about parents being unable to bear the responsibility of having a child, clearly makes the position profoundly arrogant, not to mention inherently unjust.

“However if you define it as making decisions that are occasionally based on practical considerations rather than in a lofty plane of pure ideals, then I will accept that.”

The first problem with this assertion is the very dishonest nature of it. Contrary to your repeated claim, this is not a difference between the pragmatic and the idealist, neither of these is on the side of the state run “school” which you dictate is to be the final solution for all, unless they come hat in hand, begging you for the privilege of educating their children…

“I would say that you too fall to the idea that you presume what is best for everyone as well. You have decided that it is best for all parents to educate their own children at all times. I don’t care what your reasons for this statement are because we probably won’t agree, but you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.”

Quite the opposite, which I suspect you know. I am simply removing the barriers to choice, barriers to education. I am in no fashion dictating what choice any individual should make with regard to their child. You are confusing knowing what has failed and what is unjust, with knowing what is best for all. The two are not identical, nor even similar.

“Your argument that the choices are unequal is a prejudiced point of view and implies that you have some knowledge that we do not have.”

Again this is simply dishonest. There is no prejudice, as the sound arguments presented demonstrate. This is yet another ad hominem offered in the absence of support for your desired position.

” Who will define which of the choices I make are real choices, and which ones are fake or illusory ones?”

This question makes no sense. The choices exist or they do not. Under the state run system choice does not exist, merely the illusion of it as I cannot choose to educate my child as I desire, unless I coincidentally desire to indoctrinate rather than educate and so give over the child to the state. Even then I really have not made a choice because to do otherwise is to face down the barrel of a gun. There is no individual deciding what qualifies as a choice as your question necessitates. I strongly suspect that this is merely another red herring tactic.

“I’m not talking about the mistakes that are education related. I’m talking about the things some parents allow their children to do that have absolutely nothing to do with schools.”

So you get to lord over people on all areas not merely education? So those who have a different lifestyle, say that they are Jewish, or homosexual, can been deemed as unfit to educate a child, as you have argued here, simply because you do not like their lifestyle? Seriously this is one of the very practical reasons why power should not be consolidated into the hands of a few.

Life is about who can prosper, where “prosper” is defined by each individual with regard to his life ONLY. For instance I do not care for wealth, so I do not pursue it. I do care for peace, knowledge, and truth so I do pursue it. Your one size fits all, government controlled and dictated system, which necessarily steals from innocents to support the whims of a few, does not allow for this sort of choice. That said, this is of course a tangent to which I should not have responded, as it is merely another red herring.

Can you seriously not see how profoundly arrogant your suggestions, your claims, and your positions are? Do you not see that you are devaluing individuals based not upon any objective standards but upon your own desires, your own values, and your own motivations. Also do you not see that your last two full paragraphs are in direct contradiction? You say that you agree that parents will do the best that they can and that you do not know what is best for them based upon your experience, yet the very next paragraph you go into how you do in fact know best, that your standards are the only ones that count, etc. (These are necessitated by your arguments as opposed to being stated explicitly.)

BTW as long as the government controls the school, it is by definition a “government school.” Calling it a public school is misleading since it is not open to the public, and other schools are not barring the public.

An aside I want to mention simply because it is ironic, your use of the phrase “survival of the fittest” was probably offered as an appeal to a Darwinian notion, yet Darwin actually took the more modest position of survival of the fit. One need not be the best to survive, only fit enough to survive. “Survival of the fittest” actually originates with Herbert Spencer (who if you research a bit, will provide the real irony..)

You mistake the frustration. It has nothing to do with convincing you, or with “winning” but rather the frustration did not appear until the falseness and profound arrogance appeared. The lack of intellectual honesty, the increased use of not merely fallacies, but the dishonest fallacies of red herrings, ad hominems and the like. The near celebration of injustice, the dismissal of the value of others, and the presumptions of near omniscience coupled with the assumptions that your own personal values are infinitely superior to any others, give rise to the frustration. Whether or not we agree on areas of opinion is trivial, but thus far we have not ventured into that area.

You state, “I can know a great deal, but *I* am not presuming to know what is best for every child in every situation and dictate to parents that they are incompetent, so I will choose for them. This IS what you are suggesting.” Nope. Read what I wrote again. Try to give me a specific example. If a parent comes along and tells me, as a teacher, that something else will work for their child within the constraints that I have I will gladly do it. And if I can’t, I will explain why and try to reach a compromise. I’m not fool enough to think I can please everyone all the time, nor arrogant enough to think I know what is best for everyone all the time. If you are getting something else from what I’m writing, then it is my poor writing skills and not what I intend.

Apparently I did not word my answer in an appropriate way. There is no private and magical knowledge. What knowledge I gain is from my experience. Secondly, you presume that I am saying all parents are idiots. I did not say that, nor ever would.

Maybe I am being intellectually dishonest as you put it. However if you define it as making decisions that are occasionally based on practical considerations rather than in a lofty plane of pure ideals, then I will accept that.

You said, “BTW you employ appeal to (false) authority here, which is of course yet another fallacy, and in fact reinforce the presumption of arrogance, of knowing what is best for everyone else.”

I would say that you too fall to the idea that you presume what is best for everyone as well. You have decided that it is best for all parents to educate their own children at all times. I don’t care what your reasons for this statement are because we probably won’t agree, but you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.

Your argument that the choices are unequal is a prejudiced point of view and implies that you have some knowledge that we do not have.

You also said, “When faced with real choices, parents just as everyone else, will do the best that they can. Will they make the choices YOU want? nope. But that does not mean that you know what is best for them.” I think you may not realize but on this point we agree almost completely. However, the point of discrepancy comes from the world ‘real.’ On what basis are some choices considered ‘real’ and others are not? Who will define which of the choices I make are real choices, and which ones are fake or illusory ones?

Additionally, you say, “You assume from the failures of the governmental system that necessarily parents are incapable of teaching or chooseing how to educate their children.” You misunderstood my previous comments (probably from my trying to write briefly). I’m not talking about the mistakes that are education related. I’m talking about the things some parents allow their children to do that have absolutely nothing to do with schools. Are you telling me that a parent who lets their 12 year old child come and go as they please, join a gang, steal things (if not outright encourage them to take things), and so on knows how or cares to educate their children in anything more than a “survival of the fittest” type of environment? Or are you blaming “government schools” as you insist on calling them for parents allowing this to happen? Or is the ideal of personal liberty nothing more than those that can make the right choices (not necessarily good ones) will survive and prosper, and those that can’t will disappear?

Regardless, thanks for the conversation because I like thinking about all this. Sorry if I am frustrating in that I am not easily won over.

False, strawman and false dichotomy as well.. I can know a great deal, but *I* am not presuming to know what is best for every child in every situation and dictate to parents that they are incompetent, so I will choose for them. This IS what you are suggesting. Nor am I pretending that failing to steal from innocent individuals is identical to stopping another from killing..

“I don’t know what kind of public schools you have worked in, but the ones that I and my wife have first hand personal experience with have colored our decisions about what might and might not work. The decisions that some (not all, or even a majority) parents have ALREADY MADE with respect to their children are what I use as a basis for saying that your solution is too idealistic, at least to be implemented quickly.”

You assume from the failures of the governmental system that necessarily parents are incapable of teaching or chooseing how to educate their children.

BTW you employ appeal to (false) authority here, which is of course yet another fallacy, and in fact reinforce the presumption of arrogance, of knowing what is best for everyone else.

When faced with real choices, parents just as everyone else, will do the best that they can. Will they make the choices YOU want? nope. But that does not mean that you know what is best for them.

Dismissing the pragmatic and the principled for being “too idealistic” is simply intellectually dishonest.

I notice that you did not answer my last question, probably because it drives to the central point: Where does one get this private and magical knowledge, and how does one avoid the idiocy that is necessarily part of being a parent in your world view?

By your accounts it is impossible to know anything about anyone other than yourself. Where does one go to gain knowledge? One lives their life, experiences it, and draws inferences from it. Are they perfect inferences that are true for all time? Of course not, although that does not stop some from trying to impose their beliefs on others. I’m not falling into that trap. However, based on my experience, there are some things that I can be reasonably certain of happening given many different circumstances I have experienced, and therefore I will base my actions, choices, decisions on those understandings… until something comes along to change those understandings.

I don’t deal in absolutes. Grey is the color of the world when it comes to decision making. I certainly have rules and morals that I live by, like don’t kill, don’t steal, etc. However, if the situation arose where someone was about to kill hundreds of people and it was in my power to stop them, but only by killing them, then I believe I would do it. I would accept the consequences of that decision, but I would do it.

I don’t know what kind of public schools you have worked in, but the ones that I and my wife have first hand personal experience with have colored our decisions about what might and might not work. The decisions that some (not all, or even a majority) parents have ALREADY MADE with respect to their children are what I use as a basis for saying that your solution is too idealistic, at least to be implemented quickly.

I don’t live in a magical world… I am aware of the real world. You have said before you are a student of logic. You must be aware then that people are not inherently logical.

BTW, I don’t remember that I said ALL parents anything. Like I said, I shy away from absolutes… when it comes to human nature there are way too many exceptions to say ALL.

Cheers!

Where does one go to get this magical and exclusive ability to know what is best for other people’s kids, and yet fall victim to the idiocy that must befall all parents by your stipuation?

I honestly don’t know if this statement by you is dishonest or just extremely confused. ” However, the decision to impose this on parents (and don’t be mistaken, it would be an imposition at first, regardless of how correct an action it would be in the long-term) would be authoritarian. Making a unilateral decision for parents (who may be pleased with what the current system provides) would be a very top-down type of decision.”

This assumes that first and foremost that the responsibility for educating children lay NOT with the parents, but with those of us who are responsible instead. There is NOTHING even remotely similar to authoritarianism in CEASING to prevent responsibility. By your reasoning it was “authoritarian” when slavery was abolished, or when a rape is stopped, or when any negative action is ceased. Clearly this is necessarily mistaken or dishonest. No other alternative exists.

The ONLY relevant decision in this issue is the decision to have children. That is the decision of the parents, so NO decision I make has any bearing nor can create any “authoritarian” consequence.

As for ad hominem attacks, when you dismiss facts, and contrary to your misuse of the word, I do mean facts, because of what you FEEL about the author, you are in fact employing an ad hominem attack. What it literally means is “attacking the man.” In this case you are dismissing facts, yes facts, which you dislike MERELY because you FEEL that the author holds a political view (which has NO BEARING AT ALL on the facts) with which you disagree. Nothing was said about the argument, or the facts but rather ONLY about the person. As such this is a text book case of ad hominem attack. It was not your comparison (though that was clearly intended to be insulting) which was bothersome, rather it was the nature of the fallacy itself. Ad hominems simply emphasize the disrespect for others that their authors feel.

BTW contrary to your claims I need not to have been in place X to know facts about it. I have no personal experience of the worlds as sphere, yet it remains a sphere…

“On the other hand, to require responsibility from those that have not been asked to shoulder it is a dangerous gambit.”

I am more than a little confused by this statement. It seems that you should be arguing against the coercive failed system that exists now, but you seem to offer this statement as if it could possibly apply to the case of personal responsibility. In the current system there exists the situation in which those who have been responsible are forced to shoulder the burden of the choices of others, but in the situation of responsibility, those who make the choices, those who choose the responsibility can choose whether to shoulder it or not, so your complain has nothing to do with that which you seem to want ot criticize.

“I know you would ask who would decide when the parents were ready for the responsibility…”

Actually no, I would ask upon what do you base your presumptions of infinite superiority. I would ask why the use of arrogance, profound and baseless arrogance, in determining what is right..

The choice to have children is itself an adult choice. You are literally stating for the record that everyone who has children are no better than children themselves, and only bureaucrats can determine when if ever they are mature enough to handle the responsibility. I point out that you have exactly no basis for this attitude, and you necessitate that you yourself, as a parent, have no ability to understand much less make decisions in this area by your own reasoning… (Which is only to point out the self-defeating nature of your argument, not to make any claims about you as a person. I’ll not walk with you down the path of ad hominem.)

“Finally, having the ability to choose also means the ability to make the wrong choice and face the consequences. Giving parents a choice between the current system and the one you propose may be unequal, BUT THE CHOICE WOULD STILL BE THEIRS. To make the choice for them, i.e., tell them they are now solely responsible for their child’s education, seems to go against the whole idea of making your own choices and accepting the responsibility.”

Again you seem to be VERY confused.. The choice would be between abdicating responsibility, that is to say forcing it upon innocent others who never made the choices and therefore should not be foreced to accept the responsibilities, or simply being responsible for their own choices.

Contrary to your misrepresentation, it is your approach which forces obligations upon those who are innocent, who never had a say in any of the choiecs. The parents can choose to have children or not. They can choose how to educate their children. In your scheme, those who choose to be responsibile are not allowed a choice in the matter, but they are forced at gun point to accept those responsibilities that the parents don’t feel like accepting…

As for agreeing or not, we have not delved into an area in which there is any confusion, or in which the answers are not perfectly clear and objective. You can believe that the world is flat, and argue for it vehemently, but it will never be flat… If it seems that I have lost a bit of patience, in truth I have. I do not care for dishonesty, profound arrogance, and personal attacks, and I am quite sorry to see these given what was otherwise a pleasant discussion.

First of all, you misunderstood me. I was not saying that your idea of parents teaching their children was authoritarian. However, the decision to impose this on parents (and don’t be mistaken, it would be an imposition at first, regardless of how correct an action it would be in the long-term) would be authoritarian. Making a unilateral decision for parents (who may be pleased with what the current system provides) would be a very top-down type of decision. Regardless of your motives (that in the end, parents educating their children is better) there would be many parents who would despise your decision as much as you despise the ‘government’ educating children. But then, the ends justify the means, don’t they?

Secondly, I am dismayed that you would characterize my comments about the source you quoted as an ad hominem attack. Unless I completely misunderstand what that means. Unless you have first hand data to support the “historical facts” then I’m afraid you can’t label them as facts. Besides, as any historian knows, even the “facts” are open to interpretation. I would never dismiss FACTS because they were unappealing. But to cite a source that has a particular position as the source of “facts” at the very least begs the question of the veracity of the information. If my comparison to a Christian using the bible was bothersome, then I apologize.

I would also agree that the choices I mentioned may not necessarily be equal, but I would also dispute the disparity between the choices. I know you despise the current system, while I do not see it as quite the evil entity you do, although I willingly admit is not the best we can do by a long shot. On the other hand, to require responsibility from those that have not been asked to shoulder it is a dangerous gambit. Anyone who has raised children knows that have to be careful how much responsibility you give them at any one time. My young daughter may want to stay home by herself for the day… but I know she is not ready for that, so I give her smaller responsibilities until she is capable. I know you would ask who would decide when the parents were ready for the responsibility… I don’t know. But your suggestion is akin, at least to me, to giving a young child a gun, the keys to the car, and a bottle of vodka and saying it’s your responsibilty to stay safe. Have a good day.

Finally, having the ability to choose also means the ability to make the wrong choice and face the consequences. Giving parents a choice between the current system and the one you propose may be unequal, BUT THE CHOICE WOULD STILL BE THEIRS. To make the choice for them, i.e., tell them they are now solely responsible for their child’s education, seems to go against the whole idea of making your own choices and accepting the responsibility.

I’m willing to let you have the last word, since this is an argument that could continue forever since I’m relatively certain neither of us will agree.

BTW I am sure you realize that you are employing an ad hominem attack to dismiss historical facts you find unappealling…

When you accuse me of taking the stand of knowing what is best for all children you are of course making a false assertion. But also you are pretending that the choices are of identical value, when objectively speaking we know that in fact they are not.

Choice 1. Coercive system which forces everyone to pay for the choices of others to have children, to fund a completely failed scheme that indoctrinates rather than educates.

Choice 2. Be responsible for yourself and your choices.

Gee.. one is aggressive relying upon violence or the threat of violence, as well as theft, to force the will of a group of mindless bureaucrats upon the whole, the other allows for personal responsibility and choice, which of course comes with person responsibility.

Ceasing violence is not the initiation of violence, though your claim necessitates otherwise.

As for knowing what is best, we know that no individual is omniscient, and that the bureaucrats presume their own omniscience in proclaiming what is best for every child. This gives us teh knowledge that their claims are false. Knowing these facts is not identical to knowing what is best for each student. What I have suggested allows those who do indeed know the student best to know what is best for that student. This is a far cry from pretending to know what is best for all students, and then assuming that one approach is best for all students.

So you ask how does one choose? Easy. Either choose honestly, and responsibly, or choose to force others to take responsibility for your kids and put them in the hands of government.

A similar question might be You can steal drugs for your immediate pleasure, or you can work to bring about a better life for yourself. How do you choose?

Sure some will choose the easy and mindless path of government schools if they are allowed, but that will not make government schools effective, nor will it make that choice just. No one has any right to my life or my time but me, and the same is true of you. I have no right to force you to work for me, or to steal the proceeds of your labor, no matter what I appeal to (”but it’s for the children….”)