Quote from: JimBobOzFuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

Bob agrees with you, angry flower that he is.....

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but the question is whether you or someone else has more of a right than you do to shape your daughter's opinions and way of looking at the world.  That was the claim.  Even though I don't personally agree with your political perspective, I don't think that teachers or other people (including me) have the same rights as, or even more rights than, you to shape how your daughter thinks (except in cases of gross physical or psychological abuse).  She's your daughter, not mine.

Fundamentally, she's not mine either. I don't have the right to shape her at all, I have the power.

Having been a child, a school student, a parent and a teacher, I can say pretty confidently that unless the parents are really falling down on time with their kid(s), the chances of anything a teacher does counteracting home influence all on its own are pretty remote. At most, you may awaken the most alert brains to another way of looking at things.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineStill mate, you've got to charge out and tilt every once in a while, or else the bastards will think they're the only ones who know what a lance is.

Well, I can respect that. But for me, debates like these will have to wait until I've finished uni. I've got a limited amount of energy for heated debate, and it's all used on academic papers right now.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt may surprise you to learn that dictionary.com - where you got your definition from - is not an exhaustive source of meaning for words in the English language. I wouldn't surprise me, but then, I'm not an idiot.

I'd like you to point out where I claimed it was. I'm merely pointing out to you that I didn't use it.  I used a different source based on the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  So you keep going back to a meaningless side discussion about dictionary.com to avoid the real issue.

And I don't think any single dictionary is an exhaustive source of the meanings of word in the English Language.  It might surprise you that it is a valid source of meaning for words in the English Language.  It doesn't surprise me, but then I'm not a cowardly fucktard trying to derail an argument based on my own criteria I add to words (say, adding the "in a dogmatic way" requirement being added to indoctrination) so that they don't really mean what they really mean. This is also often referred to as moving the goal posts.

"Well, it would be indoctrination if they did it in a dogmatic way."
"But that would be adding a requirement to the defintion of indoctrination. Most people would not require being dogamtic, it not being part of the standard definition of the word."
"Yeah, well, I see it as a pejorative description that requires dogmatic, so it's not indoctrination."

Umm...ok...that's one way to debate a subject.  It's a stupid, meaningless, cowardly way to.  But if it's all you got, you go for it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Collectivism" is a useless term used by people on the internet who want to pretend to know what they're talking about.

Or, it could be a real term about how some people think the society should approach issues of ownership, particularly the means of production, which in this instance seems to describe the teachers' perspective.

"I don't like the term collectivism.  Yeah, there's a definition for it with a meaning and everything.  But in my personal opinion it's only used by people who want to pretend they know what it's talking about."

Again, a fucktard argument, but if it's all you've got, you go for it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAnd yes, your terms being pejorative is a problem - because you are using terms that do not accurately describe anything in reality. Instead, you appear to be playing some variation of "libertarian boggle", trying to pack as many loaded and inaccurate terms into a single statement as you can.

OK.  Can you explain to me, being an idiot and all, where you've made one argument about how the terms do not apply to the teachers or their perspective? I mean, they say so themselves!

Quote from: articleOur intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSee, James, this is why you're just not paying attention. I'm very judgmental, and I see nothing wrong with being so in these kinds of debates. But I demand correct judgments, not bullshit ones. You are spouting bullshit ones.

Ohhh...the "I'm smart and you're a poopyhead" argument.  Again, if it's all you got, you go for it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because we know what I'm talking about when I say "capitalism" in regards to the article, because the teachers identify the aspects of capitalism they consider important. The word "collectivism" does not appear in the article, and was introduced by Spike. I have no idea what he means by it, since this discussion started when I pointed out that he was being inconsistent in his evaluation of what constituted collectivism.

See above, where they specifically use the word "collectivity."  Or maybe you didn't read the article?  Ya know, it's pretty stupid to try and discuss an article you haven't read.  I mean, I wouldn't do it, but I'm not a fucktard.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, they didn't hide that fact at all. That kind of basic inaccuracy undermines your arguments.

They hid it from the children.

Quote from: articleWe knew that the examination would have the most impact if it was based in engaged exploration and reflection rather than in lots of talking. We didn't want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a "community of fairness" about Legos?

Notice how they never tell the children what's going on?  Oh, they like to say things like they didn't want to just exchange a set of rules for a different set.  But does that preclude them from telling the children, up front, what the goal was? No, we'll remove the Legos- as a "bold" decision that will "demonstrate our discomfort." Yeah, nothing to see here.  Move along.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe last part is a lie. It's not even consistent with the doctrine of human development that Marxism claims is true, let alone being based on anything in the article. Marxism holds that the development of individuals is dominated by their environment rather than their nature. Educating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism. There is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

Again, depends on your audience. You don't want to shove it down the kids throats - kids tend to rebel, yeah?  so let them think it's just the natural Truth, come to through their own exploration of power and ownership. The teachers do have a specific ideology.  They are attempting to educate these kids in that explicitly partisan viewpoint. Sounds like, dare I say, Indoctrination.

And WTF is the marxism bullshit?  You pass over the first three statements (which, btw, support the idea of indoctrination - even including your dogma requirement) and focus on the last. I'm not sure whether or not official marxism requires that the people being indoctrinated have to know they are being indoctrinated. But I didn't bring up marxism, you did.  I didn't claim these teachers were marxists.  You just claim it's a lie and then prove it's a lie by insisting marxists wouldn't act a certain way? Talk about spouting bullshit arguments.

You are at least consistent in this regard.

Quote from: Nazgul

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Bob agrees with you, angry flower that he is.....

Try reading the book and then review the cartoon.  You'll see that while there are certainly things to criticise about Objectivism, the point behind this cartoon is not among them.

I was responding to Jim's rage with something funny. Not making 'deep political statement'.

Lighten up.

Quote from: WerekoalaDid you notice the only two without hats were a female and an Asian child?

I think this is a good teaching opportunity regarding White Male Oppression, personally.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Puh-lease! You can't have Oppression without statistics.

Probability of White Male Oppression = 10/19 * 9/18 = 26.32%

So the REAL lesson is that White Male Oppression is fair 26.32% of the time.

DISCLAIMER: I can't identify the sex or race of the kid being eaten by the face-hugger-hat but I figure he's not an Oppressive White Male since he couldn't even oppress his way out of a paper hat! :keke:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEducating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism.

Which is why the phrase "political correctness" is so spot-on and such an effective smack-down.  It identifies their attempts to impose their partisan viewpoint on language in an often fairly lame and sometimes unintentionally humorous attempt to force people to come to the conclusions they consider "politically correct".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

No, but they did invent the phrase "politically correct" and now complain when it's applied back at them by others.

Just in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

Quote from: GabrielJust in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

Not until we have a porn day and pictures of kittens.

Quote from: GabrielJust in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

Nobody has gotten banned yet.
Er, well, the joke was obvious, so...
But I have to admit I thought the same thing, but it's not a bad thread as net discussions tend to go.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich is why the phrase "political correctness" is so spot-on and such an effective smack-down.  It identifies their attempts to impose their partisan viewpoint on language in an often fairly lame and sometimes unintentionally humorous attempt to force people to come to the conclusions they consider "politically correct".

Marxists didn't invent the term "political correctness". A bunch of university students and administrators broadly on the left, but holding a fairly wide variety of theoretical and political commitments did.

QuoteNo, but they did invent the phrase "politically correct" and now complain when it's applied back at them by others.

They probably do. This doesn't seem particularly relevant to our discussion though.

James, your last post is just the most ridiculous and incoherent hypocrisy. I don't think you even know what you're arguing anymore, since you loop around contradicting yourself from one segment to another. You've clearly lost your head just because I called you an unsuitable parent. Why don't you settle down a bit and figure out a position or two that you actually believe, instead of just trying to contradict me sentence by sentence? You are babbling and ranting now, trying to score points instead of even defend a particular position.

I was unaware you called me an unsuitable parent.  When did that happen?

Or is it just that you've spent all this time basing your ideas on the fact the I was misapplying the word "collectivism" only to be show that the teachers used the term to describe exactly what they were trying to promote.

Yeah...they would tend to want to make me want to leave a discussion, when someone shows the distinct proof that I'm talking out my ass...so I can see why you'd want to leave it alone now.

But you can't make it seem like that, so again, you make assertions you can't back up.  What parts are circular? What positions am I trying to defend and failing?

See, you've staked out a position that's refuted by the very article on which this discussion is based. It's a shitty place to be, but I don't have to worry about it as it's your position. So you go ahead and characterize my response as ranting and babbling if that's all you've got.

I'm now of the opinion that from your first post you have been a troll, nothing more.

James, you haven't held a consistent position in a couple of posts. You ask me what positions you're trying to defend, and I honestly don't know, because you keep on contradicting yourself. You seem like one of those people who gets so caught up the idea of winning an argument that they fail to keep track of what exactly they think about the issue.

You've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You confuse me describing other people's points of view with me advocating a particular point of view, and you don't seem to understand how one rationally justifies an assertion. You make wild and obviously untrue claims like that I am a socialist; You don't understand socialist theory or socialist paedogogy; You whine about the kinds of methods of analysis I use and the methodological points I make, then adopt them whole-heartedly when you think they can give you an advantage.

You called me a troll, but it's you who jumped into a discussion to spout ludicrous, unsupported rants that were only marginally related to the topic. If you want to see a troll, go look in the mirror.