When the Iraq war began, I, naturally, talked to friends and co-workers about it. As they were of different ages and backgrounds, opinions varied; most saw it as an oil grab and opposed it, while others, while not believing anything about “WMDs” or connections to 9/11, actually thought that Saddam was a problem, and should be taken care of.
I didn’t find one single person - even among those who usually disagree with me in everything - who believed in the Bush administration’s lies about WMDs, terrorist camps, connections to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, or simply that Saddam was a threat to anyone outside Iraq.
No one.
I talked to young people and old people. To men and women. To more educated and less educated people. To Christians and atheists / agnostics. To right-wingers and left-wingers. To people who opposed the war and people who supported it.
And no one believed Bush’s lies.
Bush’s “reasons”, at the time, were so obviously fabrications that I don’t think almost anyone in Europe - except maybe in the UK - believed in them. Even those who actually thought that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a good idea.
Now, the fact that we all lived in Portugal may have had something to do with it. We tend to distrust our politicians; even when they actually improve things, we always realize that they’re doing it to be re-elected, not out of the “goodness of their hearts”. Not because they’re honest or have any principles. Hell, they’re politicians, after all! 
Americans, from what I see, are a different bunch. They idealize and idolize their politicians, almost worshipping them. They believe they’re honest, ethical, and are sincerely trying to do a good job, even when they mess things up.
Yet, from everything I see, they aren’t. Bush has said so much crap, has lied so much, and has insulted the intelligence of the public so thoroughly, that I can’t see how anyone could ever believe in him. Yet, Americans did. They believed his lies.
So, a question to the American readers - and please, don’t feel insulted or take this the wrong way -: did you believe Bush’s lies back in 2003? That Saddam had WMDs, that he had anything to do with 9/11, that he was a threat to the US, that invading Iraq would make the world “safer”?
And, if so, why?
I’m not calling you guys “gullible” or anything. I simply want to understand what is, to me, a strange phenomenon.
Related posts:
Certainly not everyone in the US believed the lies, but you are right that a great many did. In part I believe it was simply strategic timing that contributed to the willingness to believe. After 9-11 there was a great deal of jingoism which the powers that be fed and fed upon. They used this to claim that Saddam was part of the problem so he needed to be attacked (never mind the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter) So many people in the US still reeling from 9-11 just wanted blood and if they did not have to think to hard about whose blood that was okay as well.
Part of the problem also is the government school system in the US. Kids are not taught to think, only what to think. They are taught that the government is always right, always good, and can always be trusted. Never mind all of the counter-examples which can be found on a daily basis..
They are fed the whole “most free nation on earth” claptrap and most buy into it since they know nothing of any other country. Since they accept the premise that nothing the US does could be wrong, and they equate the government with the country, they simply go along with pretty well whatever the powers that be want.
But there is a minority of folks in the US who are reasonable, rational, and therefore necessarily anarchists who know that those in power cannot be trusted.
I don’t even think that MOST American’s believed him. I’m sure a lot did.. however, I have yet to actually talk to a person who didn’t think that the fact daddy Bush was in Iraq after Saddam, and now babby Bush was going after Saddam, was a bit too conveniant.
That’s not the only thing that made us weary of his lies either, which is probably the reason I’ve still not heard a good thing about the man. There were too many bad ways to explain his intentions, and bad ways to gues what would come of it.
Since the beginning of his reign, things have only gotten worse too. (an obvious statement)
I’m sure that in Portugal, you guys don’t get to see the campaign comercials. If you haven’t seen them, try to find them on Youtube or something because they are HILLARIOUS.
Evidently getting voted in is completely out of the question if there is a picture in existance with you standing by Bush. That’s the #1 thing running governers and the like are using against thier rivals.
Trust me, nobody in the UK beleived his lies either - apart from Blair.
Sadly some of what you say is true about Americans. But much of the problem lies with our political system. Republicans are taught to not question their Republican leaders and the Democrats do the same. And both demonize the other as the root of all evil. There is no true political discourse, except in rare instances. Most of the commentary is name calling and finger pointing.
I do take some offense, TX, about your reference to the “government schools” that indoctrinate the young about how wonderful the US government is. As a former public school teacher (now in private school) who is married to a current public school teacher I can assure you that this is not true all over the place. Are there teachers who spout the party line and teach kids to listen and not be heard? Certainly. I teach, as does my wife and many of our friends, kids to think, question, and decide for themselves. We are not all churning out little automatons.
You know what… I’m no longer offended. As I started to dig into my argument a bit I realized that the things that frustrate me most about education are those teachers that want nothing more than to teach in the way that is easiest for them… which usually means lecturing and delivering information to the empty vessels in front of them.
I capitulate. The only thing I can say is that not all teachers teach students the way you describe (and I’ve known enough in my career to say that it’s at least more than 5 or 6), but it’s entirely possible that the majority at least teach that the person in authority (i.e., the teacher) is the one in charge, has all the answers, and should not be questioned.
Hell… sounds like G.W. Bush.
Well, to answer your question Pedro, I’m a born and raised U.S. citizen and thought Bush was full of crap from day one. I don’t know if I qualify as an anarchist, TX, but I do think that our government needs a full overhaul. I don’t know if you ever read the Tom Clancy novel, I think it was Debt of Honor, where a plane crashes into the Capitol Building taking out the whole congress and president leaving Jack Ryan in charge. Not that I am advocating mass murder of the government , but I do think a major shake-up needs to occur.
If you guys don’t hear from me for awhile, you’ll know that I’m a guest of our fearless leader.
Jim,
I realize that there are some teachers in government schools who might mean well, but as long as they go along with the program they are necessarily doing harm, even if they do try to do less harm than most. I say that with close family who were teachers, and sad as it is, I must admit to having done my own stint in a government school, albeit at the university level and in the one field which does focus on how to think. The problem is not the individual teachers per se, though the teachers’ unions have done irrevocable harm to the government system. The real problem is government involvement at all. No bureacrat can ever know how to teach any child, anywhere, much less all children everywhere.
As I am sure you already know, different individuals learn differently. The only way to know how an individual learns is to know the individual, and no bureaucrat will ever or can ever stoop to regocnizing individuals as worthy of respect, much less get to know them. The very existence of a bureaucrat is to turn people into meaningless numbers and data.
So get government out of schooling (it is already out of teaching!) and let parents know once again that the responsibility for raising their kids lay upon their shoulders. This solves a great many problems, including education.
As to the Demican and Republicrats, there is no difference between the two. There is one party in the US, the party of power. Even so, multiple parties only increase the illusion of having a voice without adding any liberty. You are dead on about political discourse. I cannot recall the last time there was any real discussion and consideration of ideas and princples in politics, but then this should not be a surprise to any of us over the age of 12. After all the goal of politics is not truth, liberty, ideas, justice, or any of the things which politicians pay lip service to in order to get elected, it is purely about power over innocent others and nothing more. This is the sole reason for existence of government, and the only thing it can ever be.
I was never a Clancy fan, for the same reason I do not care for romance novels or stephen king.. I like my formulas in my math texts..
That said, my impression of him went down when a trusted associate pointed out in one of his books he advocates for gun control in the form of weapons only in the hands of the state. Still, were congress, the admnistration, the courts, the military, the police, the prosecutors, etc. all to disappear, this would indeed be a fine start.
I believe it was H Beam Piper who wrote a story about New Texas where it was legal to shoot politicians.. if it were not for my strong peaceful nature, I could really see some satisfaction from this approach. Certainly one could make the case that this is purely self-defense!
I doubt you’re going to get any takers. Someone who believed that there were potentially WMDs is likely to believe Bush made a mistake, not that he lied, if a lie is the willful misrepresentation of a justified true belief. Such a person would certainly be put off by your calling Bush a liar five times in the space of a single blog posting… it sounds too much like the US’ mindless far-lefties chanting their mantra.
TXStorm,
I have agreed with much of what you have said in previous posts, but I fear this is where we will need to part company for at least a time. There are some points you made above that I can agree with. I too feel that the teachers unions have done harm to the institution of public education, as has the bureaucratic administration. However, to make a blanket statement that no matter how well intentioned one is they are still doing harm seems to overstate the case.
You imply that it is the bureaucrats in the classroom teaching each child. If that were the case then I would agree that the system is defunct and we must give it up. However, there are many teachers whose interest is in helping minds develop and learn and question and think. I may be flattering myself, but I believe that is what I attempt to do. Of course, there are other teachers of the bureaucratic type, and I find myself in conflict with them on occasion. I don’t see myself as doing harm to these students (yes, I can hear the objection that I can’t see it because I am in the system).
I would be open to hearing a reasonable alternative, but I confess your solution of telling the parents to do it is not. It does not ’solve the problem of education’ as you so glibly stated. If we were to turn around and say “okay, no more schooling, it’s your job” to the parents we would have many students who never did another thing to even try and learn. And don’t tell me that’s their problem. The world is not an ideal place where everyone is prepared to teach their children. It’s not enough to say, “then they should not have children.” The fact is, they have them. My wife teaches students who have been technically expelled from the district she works for, but are being given one last chance. To a person, everyone of these students would spend their days on the streets gang-banging if she was not working with them. Of course there are bureaucrats above her that are telling her what she should teach and how much curriculum to get through, but she recognizes, as you so clearly stated, that each kid needs to be reached from where they are and given the tools they need. If her lesson plan needs to be dropped for the day because something of more importance comes up with a kid… then it gets dropped.
Of course, another argument against forcing education back on the parents (I should say formal education since only an idiot would say that parents are not at least somewhat involved in educating their child) is that schooling can also help open students eyes to experiences other than own. For instance, there are still enough adults out there that are anti-Semitic (or pick your favorite prejudice if this does not resonate). I would much rather their children at least have to go to a school where they might rub elbows with some Jewish students and learn that they aren’t all that different from them. Could those kids still turn out as anti-Semites? Of course, but I would say if all they had were their parents views day in and day out (and don’t tell me these parents would be responsible enough to give their kids experiences with other types of kids) then they would be virtually guaranteed to grow up as bigots.
As I have said before, I learn when I am questioned. You could also say challenged. People don’t really learn if they do not experience some level of discomfort. Staying comfortable (physically, emotionally, or mentally) means the status quo works and there is no reason for growth. Having the opportunity to have your views challenged and questioned at least gives you the chance to learn something because you can’t remain complacent.
Finally, another argument I find in favor of some type of centralized schooling system is the opportunity to learn what holds us together as a community, country, and world. I am not a huge E.D. Hirsch fan (Cultural Literacy), but I do recognize that there is some truth in what he says. How can we have conversations between people without some type of common language? As long as students aren’t taught that this lexicon is inviolate, then it can be very helpful.
TX, there are so many things wrong with the education system today that I can’t disagree with where your ideas are coming from. I look around me and it frustrates me significantly when I see teachers being told what to teach because of some state assessment needed to fulfill NCLB, or teachers that should have retired years ago but go through the motions until their retirement kicks in, or teachers that think students should just listen and regurgitate what they hear, or any number of other annoying things I have seen and dealt with in my time as a teacher. I even advocated for the voucher programs in various states, not because I necessarily thought they were the solution, but I was certain they would have significantly shaken up the current system.
And maybe I’m no better than the born-again Christians who refuse to accept the possibility that the bible is a load of contradictory garbage. I mentioned faith in an earlier comment to another post. I have faith… faith that I am making a difference in my students. Faith that when they leave my class they have learned to question and think for themselves. Faith that even if the next group of teachers tries to beat them down with bureaucracy, something about what I taught them will remain. By the way, this may not make a difference, but I teach mathematics.
Maybe the system by itself is harmful, but I would rather fight from within than throw spears from without.
I patiently wait for your counterarguments, I know they will be thought-provoking.
Jim,
I usually fail to mention thing of this nature often enough, the ideas being my near tunnel vision focus, but I do appreciate your approach.
First to correct a mistaken impression. I did not imply that it is the bureaucrats in the classroom teaching each child. Though certainly the overwhelming majority of government “teachers” do fall into this category, I had not even thought of that point. I was referring to the entire system which is run by bureaucrats. Those teachers who abide by the regulations, are in fact doing harm regardless of intent. I would like to think that there are some as you describe who buck the system, refusing the standardized testing, the dictates of PCism from above, and teach notions such as validity, soundness, etc. but I know that if such individuals exist, they are one in a million.
As for restoring responsibility to the parents, this is indeed the only solution which even stands a chance of working. As long as we continue to tell parents that it is the government’s job to raise their children, and then lie to those parents and tell them that the government is educating their children, then most of those parents will respond as most have been responding for generations: with apathy and complete abandonment of all responsibility.
You appeal to emotion with the prejudice angle, and I would point out that this is exactly the sort of thing that government schools teach: prejudice against reason! How many times have you heard anarchy mentioned in a reasonable manner as a viable alternative in any class on governments? Even libertarianism is unheard of, essentially verboten, in the government schools. Or personal responsibility? What of simple courses on reasoning? These are all not merely avoided they are derided (if mentioned) so as to make good little sheep…
As for government schooling being the only path for shared experiences, I would point to history all of which except for the last 100 years or so existed without government mandated schooling and yet communities thrived and had a great number of shared experiences, in fact I would contend far more than you will find today. So that line of reasoning simply does not fly.
As for the fighting from within, that is indeed a personal choice. For me to have continued it would have meant living an inauthentic life. I would have to be a hypocrite to claim that I was taking a principled stand on teaching kids how to think, and staying in a government school, or government regulated school (aka “private” schools). So I took the Galt approach and refused to contrbute to the system. I have since tutored, taught logic privately (and some other subjects) and often found myself clashing with “teachers” who are threatened because I gave away the keys to their kingdoms when I taught the kids not merely how to think, but that there is no big secret, it is not difficult, but rather that these “teachers” simply try to make it seem so as to boost their own egos. (It does not follow that all teachers share this trait, but it is certainly extremely common)
I used to be bothered by the old saying that those who can do, those who can’t teach.. but that is a perfect description of any government run system. Political agendas will cause the focus to be on everything else but teaching. Governments cannot survive an educated populace.
Returning briefly to the parental responsibility issue, do you know when the US peaked with regard to literacy? It was PRIOR to government getting involved. During the times of the westward expansion, literacy was at the all time high of 98%. The last figures I saw for the US, where “literacy” means only that one can maybe get through a newpaper (when it used to mean true reading comprehension at an adult level) it was under 70%. This is the legacy of the government schools.. Being educated used to be a point of pride. Now even universities are nothing more than trade schools that students and teachers both game in order to get the illusion rather than the real deal. The student gets a piece of paper that says that he is educated, without any need or requirement of actually being educated, and of course this is true in spades of lower levels.
In 1988, 80+% of high school graduates could not find Washington DC on the map. 90% could not find their own state capitol. Don’t even ask about foreign geography..
One high school grad, who is not stupid, just woefully ignorant thanks to the government schools she attended, once asked me during a discussion on Hitler : “which war was he in?” Another question of this sort I have received when discussing the multiple temperature readings that a stroller used (C and F) was “which do we use?”
These are the norm, not the exception and they speak to the nature of the beast.
Finally, and I apologize for being long winded even for me, look to all of the dire predictions about homeschoolers.. They will be socially inept, they will never learn as much, they cannot excel, etc. The truth has been quite the opposite. They take the highest awards, they excel at interpersonal interaction, and they have a broader set of experiences from whcih to draw in relating to others.
TXStorm,
As always you make me think. I can’t argue with some of the points you make (not necessarily because I agree, but I don’t have all the facts). I do have a few comments though.
I do agree that parents easily give over authority to the schools (well, up until they disagree with what you are doing!). This is a responsibility they should have. Probably some might think twice about having children if they knew this was part of their responsibility.
At the same time I think to just transition to a situation where parents had all the responsibility would be devestating. There are too many parents ill-equipped to deal with this responsibility, and it is many other people in the communities who would pay the price. Also, as far as homeschoolers go, these parents are already highly motivated to provide for their children, is it any wonder their children turn out so well? At the same time I have taught students who were homeschooled until they were in 7th or 9th grade and, with possibly one exception, they did fit the socially inept, unprepared stereotype that some teachers like to hold up as indicative of all homeschooling.
My thought on that is those parents who recognize that they are either unable to really help their children or know what they are doing eventually do choose to put them into school (thus my experiences), while those parents who are really on top of things continue to homeschool and turn out the children who are success stories.
Without something in place, dumping public schools and putting the responsibility back on the parents would probably create far more of the former situations and not as many of the latter.
You also described government regulated schools as ‘aka private schools.’ I don’t know what private schools you are familiar with, but we are not bound by the governmental regulations that public schools teach. We are not bound by the dictates of NCLB. If anything, we are in a free-market system. We can teach what we want and people will continue to come if they value what we do, and vote with their feet if they do not. At the same time, we typically teach the ‘traditional’ spread of courses because its expected.
I have tried fighting this, but I think math teachers are among the most traditional of all. I have finally gravitated to teaching two courses over which I have the most freedom and least grief from my colleagues. Geometry and an advanced calculus class. In the first case I eschew the use of a traditional book and teach them how to reason, question, and logically think through ideas. Of course I have to do a lot of untraining of things they ‘learned’ in previous years. It drives me nuts how many students have completely bought into the idea that there is only one way to do math and have no clue how to actually use math to try and solve an original problem.
I just can’t give up on this system yet. I have seen value in what we do. I have not sold my soul, and I think that what I do is valuable. And if I wasn’t there they would have some teacher who marched them through a cookie cutter textbook and continued to train them to be good little soldiers. I actually praise the students who challenge me… I want the students to challenge what I say. In the past I have changed my own opintions and how I have taught based on what students have said.
I feel guilty about sabotaging Pedro’s original post. Perhaps I should start my own blog so I can rant on.
My, this is a lively discussion!
I remember hearing Bush talking to the UN on why Iraq is a threat and why actions need to be done and need to be done SOON. Afghanistan to… Iraq? That doesn’t seem like a place where a terrorist would want to be, but what do I know?
Initially, I was best phrased as 60:40, sometimes I was for it–just a bit–and other times I’d be more against it than for it. Honestly, I didn’t give a damn. I was a college at the time and everyone had their own “profound and deep” interpretation of the reasons we should or should not go to war. Bunch of fucking idiots. It’s all about oil! It’s all about finishing what Daddy Bush didn’t do! So many protestors, and none of them were able to come up with something catchy. No blood for oil just doesn’t roll off your tounge, know what I mean?
I did agree with the idea that removing him from power was a good thing to do. There’s a lot of crazy people who shouldn’t have the type of power to dictate an entire country. The myth of the UN and its “resolute affirmations” are nothing but shitty political rhetoric. So sanction the people more, because it’s the people you want on your side! Too bad most of these people don’t have anything to begin with! Take, for instance, the recent action by North Korea that the international community has “condemned” and found “provocative.” And always those two: condemned and provacative. The only progress we’ve made by this group of the world’s top ambassadors and all we’ve got are two fucking words to convey our rage? But enough about the North Koreans, I think Kim Jong-Il is the Asian equivalent to George W… they both look funny, talk funny, can’t lead a country, got the country from their dad, they both listen to the wrong people and do stupid things all the time. If NBC or some station like that could talk them into doing a revived “Odd Couple” sitcom… ouuuuuuuu
I think its clear that this war has dragged out long enough, and there’s no way America can look at the situation positively (unless you’re a fanatical republican). Taking one bad guy out of power to draw in thousands of other bad guys who not only kill our troops, but the Iraqis have been shit on BAD because of this. That mantra “We will fight them over there, so they won’t have the chance to fight over here,” has worked out so far. No attacks on the USA since 9/11! The War on Terror must be working! Huzzah! Drawing the terrorists into Iraq, what a brilliant strategy! But, what about all the Iraqis whose lifestyle has become even more bizzare since instead of living under a tyrant you’re living with the snakes who will strike at them in secrecy? They don’t live under an oppresive regieme anymore, but they live in a dangerous society now, and I think the Iraqis have gotten the rawest deal out of it all.
9/11 was a terrible stepping stone to Iraq, only because there was no stone to begin with. They are TWO different things, and bundling them into one package doesn’t work. If you’re going to be a politician in this country, know what the people who actually vote want, and then appeal to them with beautiful words. It’s an ugly, ugly situation now. Looking back at how insistant Bush was about going in under the THREAT of WMDs and looking now at the North Korean NUCLAER TEST we see Bush stressing the importance of diplomacy. We went to war with a country that didn’t have shit to begin with, and we “desire a peaceful resolution to the growing crisis.” Shut up, politicians make me sick.
But looking back, yes, there was a very strange phenomenon that happened in America. We were bolstered and infected with nationalism and “keeping the terrorists on the move!” And if you think about how much a terrorist moves, and how little the average American moves… I think the guy handing people two tripple cheeseburgers and large fries at the drive through (with a diet coke, of course) is more of a terrorist than someone half the world away with a gun. Don’t more people choke to death in this country than die from being shot?
The “real” reason why we went into Iraq is not known. Maybe it was for the oil, maybe it was to remove Saddam, maybe it was to round up ‘dem whacko A-rabs all in one scuttle or sumthin’ like dat, or maybe God told Bush something else when He told him to invade Iraq. Deals with an area talked about in the Bible… maybe I can start something that will be the Second Coming! I’d be a stupid conservative christian NOT to do this! You can make up all the reasons, and be as republican or democrat as you want. But as split as this nation is over our government and its horrificly stupid system of all its madness, I still doubt a third party can rise in a situation like this. We need another party, I think, and I’d like it to be the libertarians. Washington has turned into a sad state of affairs and most of America doesn’t care. They don’t care, and then they wonder why the rest of the world isn’t excited when we make an appearance.
Jim,
Yes parents have been conditioned to give over that responsibility, but the lion’s share of the blame lay upon the shoulders of those who have for generations now asserted that they know what is best for the kids, telling parents not only are they, the parents, not responsible enough, but that the parents do not have the skills to raise kids. Without meaning to give offense, but you express these sentiments yourself in this last post, or so it reads to me when you make comments about parents being ill equipped and unable to bear the responsibility. This is the sort of arrogance that got us into this mess in the first place
As for so called “private” schools being part of the free market, I would point out that this is simply not true, at least not in the US. In the US the government determines what will count as an education. They certify, regulate, and dictate what everyone must do in order to be allowed to operate, even with regard to homeschooling (which unfortunately some states still ban). There are few market forces in play since everyone, especially those without children, is forced to subsidize the miserable failure that is the governemnt school system, so those who may otherwise choose to actually educate their kids in a truly free market school, do not have the funds available to them, as those funds (and much more of course) was stolen from them in the form of taxation.
I appreciate that you are trying to make a difference, and I understand from where you are coming. As I said, I could not make the choice since it perpetuates the system as is, rather than weakening it, but that said I wish you success.
As for “dumping” back on the parents, first this is the RIGHT thing to do morally and practically speaking. Secondly it seems that you have the idea that I am opposed to any and all possible school structures, which I assure you is not the case. We know that in fact truly private schools would take the place of these governemnt institutions, and from what we know of goernment institutions and from private ventures, including the “private” schools that exist now under the shadow of certification and regulations, these new schools would excel far beyond anything the government schools could ever do with regard to true education. Imagine that you would have the freedom to actually teach kids, how much more good could you do in that environment? Furthermore any such situation would get increasingly better over time since the most effective teachers would excel while those from government schools would have to find jobs slinging burgers (assuming that the registers told them how to make change!)
(Yes I know there will be a small percentage (or fraction of a percentage) of those in government schools who could actually transition and learn to teach..)
I too feel a bit bad about having gone down a side road, though I do enjoy the discussion.
TXStorm,
Ok… I will quit trying to defend my position because I think I recognize that in my heart I agree with you, but in my head I’m too much of a coward to completely admit it. They say acceptance is the first step.
Also, you are right that my wording could be construed as arrogant, and for that I apologize. At the same time I consider what I have seen when I was a public school teacher, and what my wife deals with on a regular basis and I will admit to a lack of faith that some parents would be able to do what you are suggesting. And my use of the word “dumping” was poor. As a parent myself I could hardly consider it that way.
Unlike the zealot, I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong. I guess I’m still too cynical to believe it though.
And I am somewhat relieved to hear your comments about truly private schools. I would give nearly anything to teach in one (assuming I’m good enough). Although here is my last question. As “truly private” schools would there not be an increase in the number of religious schools that felt it necessary to teach their own brand of bigotry (a strong word, but one I stand by) and ignorance (thoughts of creationism and intelligent design masquerading as science come to mind)? Under your system they must be allowed as stepping in to stop such things would smack of governmental involvement. And in the U.S. there would be no shortage of parents ready to send their children there. In fact, certain religious groups have advocated for exactly what you are suggesting with this plan in mind.
Jim,
I understand the concern about religious “schools” and while I would hate to see them exist at all, much more so increase, that is a far lesser evil than what we have now. Fortunately when freedom is allowed, the market will indeed control such schools. Students who go through such schools simply will not be able to compete with educated individuals.
There would also be religious schools that did not focus on the mindlessness of religion, such as Jesuit schools. While the religous aspect is still abhorent, they do teach worthwhile material as well.
I did not mean to accuse you personally of being arrogant, but rather to point to the attitude that parents are incapable of making the right choices for their children, which is sadly the most common response from governemnt school defenders/officials. All of history demonstrates that most of the times parents when they realize that they are in fact responsible, will choose what they believe is best for their child. Certainly the fact that parents (and other family) insisted on teaching children even during the arduous cross contry wagon trips speaks loudly to the ability of parents. And this was in a time when education was not mandatory.
I have no doubt that you would have an easy time of finding a job in such a situation. Being aware of what it really takes to think is almost more important than knowing a particular set of data in a given subject.
One more thought on the teaching of gibberish in religous schools, we should keep in mind that under the current system it is not merely the kids of the parents on the extreme fringes who are being forced creationism and “intelligent design” but rather since all power is centralized and ciriculums mandated by the state, when such parents get control of the reins of power, all kids are subjected to this nonsense. Kansas is a fine example of this approach put into practice.
Am I suggesting a utopian solution? Nope. There will be drawbacks, there will be kids who could excel who never get the chance. There will be religious families who create ignorant hate-filled kids. We have these now and worse. I am simply suggesting a more free, more effective, more just solution that has the additional benefits of reminding us all that we are responsibile for ourselves and our (choice to have) children.
So while the religous nutters would be free to entice other religous nutters into sending their kids to their “schools” so too would you and I be free to create wonderful schools that day in and day out prove that teaching how to think works. When the day is done, most parents want to see their kids have good jobs and be able to take care of themselves. This means that they will most often choose the places and methods that work. Barring this, the market will handle this problem for it would take only a few instances of those coming out of these religous schools being unable to find work, or only able to find drudge work, for most parents to see the light..
TX,
Sorry… one last question. I have shared some of the things you have said with my wife, who has a degree in history, and she is very curious as to where you are getting your statisticts on literacy or education by parents. The number of children alone that were essentially forced into labor does not seem to support your data. Could you cite some sources?
Unfortunately I have been unable to get my hands on the book on education which goes into the detail about the development of government schools. I have actually been looking for it for months now because of a previous discussion I was in. I understand that this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is all I have at this time. As for the other stats, about high school seniors not being able to find DC on a map, I am referring to a massive study completed in 1988.
Being “forced into labor” (btw that is something I’d like to see explained) in no way prevents education. For instance, I was working from age 10 and yet I put myself not only through grade school, but college and graduate school. One could equally claim that traveling all day across the great plains is evidence that kids could not be educated, but to make this claim one must have the assumption that the rigid government school model is the only one which edxucates (which of course is begging the question).
I may be mistaken, but I believe the book is Freedom Builders: Great Teachers from Socrates to John Dewey by Rose Friedman.
TXStorm,
I think we will need to disagree. While I cannot dispute the study you cite from 1988… I too have heard of this and read pieces of it… I find that the only other source you do cite is written by a well-known libertarian. I find that a little too much like a Christian quoting the bible to make their point.
Although I know that your proposal to turn education back over to the parents seems to be altruistic, it would be authoritarian in its implementation. Parents, now you are responsible for your educating your children, deal with it. The government (and those that support public education) thinks it knows what is best… and so do you. How does one choose? I support allowing schools to be created outside of government control (or homeschooling for that matter) to begin to move toward your vision. But give the parents the choice. If the “free schools” are truly better, then people will vote with their feet and the government sponsored schools will close.
That’s the closest I think I will come to an agreement on your ideas, good as they may be.
Wow Jim I have to say that you are WAY off the mark. Necessarily if parents are indeed responsible for educating their children it CANNOT be authoritarian in (in the sense you use the word). There would not BE an overarching dictatorial government agency anymore, so from where would this authoritarianism arise?
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….”)
TXStorm,
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.
Jim,
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.
Jim,
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?
TXStorm,
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!
“By your accounts it is impossible to know anything about anyone other than yourself.”
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?
TXStorm,
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.
Jim,
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.
FOR THE LAST TIME, I DO NOT AGREE THAT A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SYSTEM IS NECESSARILY THE BEST SYSTEM. I hate yelling, but you seem to keep assuming that I have said this. Your own comments are, to me at least, as arrogant as you claim mine are. I’m sure you will logically tell me how I am sorely mistaken.
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.
Without the extreme you cannot have the government controlled system you are explicitly advocating. Forcing others to support you, or to use the violent weapon of government against others, is NOT a middle way, it is necessarily the extreme. Assuming that you know what is best for every child is not a defensible position, nor is it a middle way, it is an extreme. Dictating that others will support you and your desired ends is not a middle way, it is an extreme.
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.
TX, I can only assume that as your rhetoric has become more antagonistic it is because you realize, deep down, how extreme your own position is. Oops. Another personal attack. By the way, I was using the concept of ‘middle way’ in a strictly secular manner. Don’t presume to use your little knowledge of Buddhism to instruct me. Good day.
Jim,
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?
BTW [quote post="157"]Don’t presume to use your little knowledge of Buddhism to instruct me.[/quote]
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..
I have a question for Pedro, or anybody else who doesn’t live in America.
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?
TX,
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.
Jim,
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