Given I am not a parent, I can only try toimagine how I'd be were i to become one. But I am as sure as I can be without actually going through it, that any doubts I had about being able to teach my child morals would not lead me to want someone to fill their heads with falsehoods.

And if there were no religion, all we would have left would be:

the Home Shopping Network

Cute, but that idea doesnt support a belief in god. The belief in a god(s) began from a primitive mind that didnt understand its enviroment. To still base a religion on that today is really silly.

Like still believing in Santa Claus.

Dang, and here I was hoping to convert millions of atheists with a single recycled image.

Stop taking shit so serious.


Please.

:eyebrow:

I could say the same thing to you. You are taking my response to your post pretty seriously...over-sensitively, in fact.

:p:

Thats just one of my hot buttons Grave.

My mistake.

Warning: Step back and keep away from the buttons...

Of course it is. That's what people do. The fact that the average person's actions make you want to put a gun in your mouth should not be news to anyone. :)

I understand the point both of you are making, Flint and Zen ... I'm trying to reconcile the trashing of all the principles I lived by for so many years, and not managing very well. I didn't let go of what I firmly believed to be right, and I almost got myself and my kids killed for it. I stuck it out for more years than should ever have happened ... and in the end, now that I'm out, I don't know anymore that objective truths exist. Or that anything, or anyOne, objective, exists. I think it makes inherent sense that this should be, yet my experience denies it. I'm left floating in philosophical, religious, and ethical limbo.

I'm not talking about formal religion. I think human beings corrupt that to the point that, if anything Objective exists beyond us, it must cause the Objective to throw his/her/its hands up in despair. I'm just talking about whether it's even possible to live by principle, or whether, when the chips are down, principle is the first thing that kills ...

You've laid it out quite elegantly...but despite how harmless it sounds, some of us just aren't capable of doing that. Maybe we're stubborn and misguided, maybe we're idealistic visionaries. Who knows what the "right way" to live is. Some people can stomach "fitting in" and some can't.

We all make compromises in life. But we are all different in which compromises we are and are not prepared to make.

Imma steal this.
Some of us do enjoy running into brick walls our whole life and that turns out to be good for society.

Forgive me for offering unsolicited psychological speculation, but this ...

... reminds me a lot of the behaviour of a person I knew who had formally diagnosed PTSD from a psychologically abusive relationship.
After having your narrative about reality so messed with, after a while you begin to doubt your own connection to it. Writing and occasionally rereading a journal is supposed to help. Repeated affirmations.
And frankly, being a bit of an ornery bitch and not allowing ANYONE to bullshit you, seems to be part of the process.


Philosophically, I am convinced that there is an objective reality independent of human existence or thought, and that our senses and science at least approaches knowing some of this.
I'm very doubtful about this having any kind of consciousness or unified thought.

But that's not what you're focusing on.

Compromises Vs Principle is a heck of a tricky issue. Maintain core values, but don't be a jerk about little things, is my best guess.


(Philosophically, I focused on metaphysics, epistemology and phil of mind - not ethics and such. Shows, don't it? ;) )

The emotional roller coaster over a bed of eggshells that was life with j left me doubting my sanity and grip on reality. Because the ground is constantly shifting, explosions come from nowhere and your own reality and understanding of events is denied, revised, rewritten or even reversed by the other constantly.

Yeah, that's it ...


... but WTF are we doing in the funny political pictures thread??? :lol:

Yep, that's it, pretty much. Living in constant fear, trying to anticipate and forestall rages and verbal assaults, ignoring death threats so as to keep functioning but then finding myself unable to sleep for years ... and having everything I believed to be right and true turned upside down and jettisoned in favor of survival.

I know these things have affected me, Zen. Doing better, these days. Still working on becoming a bit of an ornery bitch who doesn't tolerate bullshit!

Wow, major thread hijack! And now, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming ...

Yep; agree; and, yes, it shows ;)
I've avoided even thinking, much less talking, in philosophical terms for a number of years - but it's nice to watch from the sidelines. Maybe that's progress of a sort.

When I saw that cartoon, it made me wonder how many of them were in states that permitted concealed carry (Colorado does, and has "stand your ground" as well).

Hey! Remember Lookout in the Subway?

Ok, perp had a bat, not a gatt, but I'm still counting it as a case of armed-citizen-preventing-violent-crime.

Those kind of events don't fit the narrative and lack a body count for the press, so they may as well have never happened.

~

~

Who's the artist for that first one? That caricature looks nothing like Obama.

Well...it's more or less the right colour...

That and the ears are about all he got right...

I agree. Could be any faceless corporate type dude.

This is the best political cartoon in ages.




[eta] meant to show the Romney - Obama speech bubble cartoon :P

Just an aside to those of you debating the whole "god thing" as it were,

All of you seem to be fairly intelligent (even Zengum) yet you are engaging in a debate about god without ever agreeing on a definition of god.

That seems stupid and pointless to me.

How do you define god? <-- see my new thread, coming soon to a forum near you.

He should probably be a bit more specific...


Attachment 39953

That's awesome!

We have one of those "My-business" sign-guys in our town
... a computer repair store run by "Kevin, the Geek"

It hasn't dawned on him yet that his entire livelihood is based on the development of the transistor.

Ummm.... I don't think Kevin invented the transistor... at least not all by himself.

Didn't Bell Labs (RIP) invent the transistor?

The left exaggerates the value of government and the right minimizes it, but both use its violence for their parochial goals.

Every human who ever sees that sign knows what Mr. Gaster meant.

"I don't like Obama".

That's pretty much all it meant.

"I've got so much work that I can afford to turn 50% of my potential customers away."

I think it's quite amazing how the Republicans (and/or Right) can come up with short phrases that define their point of view.
The Democrats (and/or) the Left get all involved in explaining why that phrase is misleading or wrong.

The Dem's haven't learned yet that if you have to explain it (a joke)... it ain't funny.




... See there, I just did it too. ;)

You would think so, but if you look at the picture, he in a fairly rural area, so most people there will be conservative. Also, he's in the building supply industry, and from what I've gathered visiting bulletin boards for home builders, they tend to be more conservative than your average person.

I'd bet that his customers closely mirror the Chick-Fil-A demographic. He's probably only turning away about 10-20% of his customers, and he might be attracting an equal number of new customers.

I suspect you're probably right Glatt.

Only the ones who learned how to read.

Guess they all taught themselves, eh? ;)

point

His customer's may not have convenient alternatives, and probably are more concerned with price than his politics.

Oh, and probably much of that lumber he's selling was cut on government land.

The only thing it would tell me, as I drive by, is that the man who owns the lumber yard was not competent enough to run a tape measure in between those two poles, and order a sign that fits the space. That, and he didn't realize the tiny script would be illegible from the road. Total miss.

Did you know people can be taught to read by their parents? A lot of things that the left attributes to government are simply appropriations of existing machinery. Yes, we have to have government schools to produce wage slaves for our corporate masters, but do we need them for humanity? (only half kidding)

That kind of depends how good a teacher the parent is. Somewhat devalues what can be quite a difficult skill. Teachers may be people with natural aptitude for teaching, but they still had to learn how to do it effectively. Not all parents can teach. Not all parents will teach. Nations do not reach 100 % (or nearto) literacy rates by leaving it to parental efforts. Not all children will be taught if governments don't force the issue in some way.

And another thing about Ray Guster, I guarantee his store is LOADED with tools and parts made in China. 100% guarantee it.

It's amazing that human beings managed to survive as a species all the way up to the mid 1800's when formal schooling became popular.

What's survival got to do with anything? I was talking about literacy and education. Plenty of people around the world survive just fine without either. Not sure I'd want that life for myself or any child I cared about.

The 1% have always managed to do better. ;)

You just have to choose your parents wisely.

I'm saying, for between 50,000 and 200,000 years, we've been learning from non-professional teachers. If they are as ineffective as you suggest, the species wouldn't have lived long enough to be blessed with modern "education."

All depends on what is being taught and in what context. I was talking about reading. As a specific skill, reading isn't always something that can be taught by watching and copying, which is how most pre-industrial skills were taught.

All parents teach their children. However. Not all the things the children learn are what the parents intended for them to learn. And OF COURSE parents play a major role in a child's literacy. It can be done without the parents and it can be done without professional teachers, sure. But it can be done better, much better with both of them supporting and reinforcing the work of the other.

As for history, yes, there have been countless generations that have grown from childhood to adulthood without the benefit of professional teachers. Today, here, literacy is infinitely more important than it was hundreds of years ago. I don't think it's a fair comparison. As you point out Dana, there are many many children today who are illiterate or barely literate. Like you, I would not want that for my children or the children around me. In my "world", literacy counts. Our society has a stake in the education of our children. It is that stake that makes it worthwhile for public teachers and free schooling.

Well said V.

Looking back at the last 1000 years or so of history, I see those who cannot read at the mercy of those who can far more often than the other way around. Withotu the ability to read we are dependent upon those who can to interpret and filter through laws, holy texts, scientific ideas, political events etc.

Being unable to read, and to a slightly lesser extent, being unable to write, is a handicap in the world we live in. 20,000 years ago, it wasn't. 20,000 years ago being able to move quietly through the undergrowth was a much more useful skill. But the teaching of that is a whole other matter. Most of what we needed to learn then as humans could be learned pretty much by osmosis. Parents would show and guide, and by doing the children would learn.

Parents continue to show and guide children how to live and how to do the tasks they will need to do in their lives, but many of the skills we've developed as a species require a different kind of learning and a different kind of teaching. Hence the development of teaching specific professions. Which predate the more modern desire for comprehensively educated workers by many centuries.


[eta] there seems to be a tendency in both our cultures to devalue teaching as a profession and view it almost as a form of enhanced babysitting. There's also a tendency to devalue parenting and see it as 'natural'and instinctive and therefore unskilled. It is the devaluing of parenting that leads to the devaluing of teaching. At its core it is a devaluing of the act of raising children. Most probably because that has traditionally been seen as a female role. The level of respect shown to teachers in society seems to reduce the closer to infancy the children they teach sit.

The profession predates government involvement by many centuries. The "modern desire" aligns quite nicely with government involvement.

Well, yes. Because in order to effect mass education of the entire nation government is generally required to be involved.

I think it's really easy for us to question the necessity of mass education. But I also think it is important to remember that this was not simply imposed onto us from above. It is something which had to be fought for. The need for an educated workforce and the need for literacy as a life skill came before any serious government involvement. And when that involvement began it was highly controversial.

Speaking just for Britain, as I am less familiar with what was happening over in America at this time, the early moves to ensure educational opportunity to poorer families (education, incidently, being one of the areas that Adam Smith suggested was an appropriate place for government intervention and even if necessary provision) were something opposed by many on the right as being unnecessary, and likely to make for an unhappier (less obedient) and less settled workforce.

Polemic battles were fought against acts requiring parishes to ensure some sort of education provision was made available. Reading, it was suggested, bred insurrection and unhappiness in the lower orders. What need had they for such things? Theirs was not a world of literature, but of looms, ploughs, hammers and nails.

I have a lot of problems with the education system as it is. The idea of a massified and uniform approach to something as fluid and invidual as learning seems clunky and inadequate. And the insistence on attendance, coupled with sanctions against children and parents for non-compliance seems heavy handed. A one size fits all system is never going to answer the whole question of teaching and learning.

But. Wherever education is left to the private sector it fails or completely barrs the lowest economic strata. Where education is not mandated, gender inequality becomes much greater. It was only in my mother's generation that if a family had enough money to send one child to college and university they'd almost always choose the son, because girls left work when they got married. Without mandated education families forced to choose which children were educated would make a calculation based on many such factors. Such is the way of it in some countries now.

Parents are just people. They know their individual child better than anyone. But they are no more or less likely to make good decisions than anybody else.

Heartily agree.

Heartily disagree. The say 10-20% of children our system fails today have those parents but they rest do not. Those kids were uneducated before and remain uneducated. Public ed gives them the opportunity but few take it.

The system as it is is inadequate for the needs of modern society. Its inflexibility is increasing at just the wrong time. I am in no way arguing for less funding, but I am arguing for more of an open system with more choice.

What good is more choice? How to separate the failing schools from the better ones? Almost every time, the schools with the greatest problems have the most empty parking spaces on Parents-Teacher night.

85% of all problems are, without doubt, directly traceable to top management. That is the parents.

You can often predict the problem students. Observe their parents. Attitude and knowledge comes from top management.