While I'm all for smashing the state and dismantling capitalism as much as the next guy or gal, I can't help but think that trying to indoctrinate 6 to 9 year olds in any sort of political ideology might be a bit counter-productive. I can imagine one of these kids growing up bitter and becoming the Bill Gates of his generation and buying enough green Legos to fill the mall of America...

Really, I think the lesson of "sharing good, not sharing bad" could be taught in a better fashion. Hell, you want to teach them how unfair the "system" is, just let the kids who hog the Legos keep hogging them til it all goes down Lord of the Flies style.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this.

And can you give me an example in the real world were a pure "consensus-based and community-oriented" large scale society has succeeded better in life that a capitalist meritocracy?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article.

Actually, it's not a lie.  Beyond the fact that capitalism isn't rigged nearly as much as the game is (despite the teacher's claims that it "mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy"), you'll notice that in the second round of the point game, there was a third winner.  How did this child manage to rise to the top even though the rules were rigged to keep the winners winning?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system.

Correct.  But what's the alternative to that fundamentally unjust system?  A bucket full of red 2x4 legos that are all the same?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes, really.



The first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this..

rules can have built-in inequities  From the article.  Yes, Capitalism is not 'Life', but that's simply a cheap way to avoid the point.  the 'System is unfair', the 'rules of our society are unfair'.  They are talking about life, if you fail to see that, I don't know what to say to you. Just the absense of that particular word does not invalidate it in the least.   If you hold that they are teaching that consensus based and community oriented actions are the keys to success in life it falls on you to prove that not only is this true, but it is more true than personal ambition and effort are keys to success in life. A reasonable look at the successful people in the world today, and through history, succeeded more because they worked at it, not because they gave half their efforts to their neighbors.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article..

A lie?  Prove it.  I can repeat my anecdote about my economics professor, who with 17 dollars in his pocket built a construction company he sold 2 decades later for millions of dollars.  I can point out any number of immigrants who came to our capitalist meritocracy and because they worked hard and were smart wound up living good lives.  Playing smart and workign hard DO let you win, that's the fucking point of our society.  And if 'keep trying' leads only to frustration, you obviously hate the 'If at first you don't succeed, try try again' catchism.  I didn't make it up, but I do believe in it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system. This is why they discuss things with the children afterwards, and attempt to smooth things over between them..

And you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.  The teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour viewpoint is unjustified. Stop asserting things without any proof or justification. It's annoying, and it's a clear sign that you've been subject to some "shitting[sic] teaching" yourself.

If your attacks against the arguements are weak, attack the author.   I feel pretty damn justified, and I've given you quotes from the article itself.  What more proof do you want?

Quote from: SpikeAnd you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.  The teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Heh.  Capitalist society may or may not be fundamentally unjust.  What I can say with certainty is that the game those teachers made is a pretty pathetic game.  It's not unjust in any entertaining way ... it's just a bad game.

I love-love-love the way that the teachers choose to interpret the report of actual play:

• The winners propose rules that are disadvantageous to them, but which clearly make the game more interesting?  Do the teachers say "Oh ... I guess they're more interested in having a fun game (or possibly even in being fair!) than in winning"?  Noooo ... they say "Well, that was surprising ... uh ... let's not think about it!"
  
• Kids who are getting screwed say "This game stinks, there's nothing interesting for us to do!" ... do the teachers say "Oh ... maybe we didn't make a very good game"?  Noooo ... they say "Now we see the violence inherent in the system!  Behold the children expressing the frustration of the disenfranchised working class throughout the world!"

These people are sadly blinded by (a) their particular Deep Political Message and (b) their rock-solid certainty that everything must have a Deep Political Message.  They even come out of the whole sequence of events thinking "The kids have learned the importance of fairness and collectivism" instead of the far more obvious lesson of "The kids have learned that we, the teachers, have a bug up our collective butt about power and ownership, and are therefore showing us the behavior we want to see so that we won't force them to play another badly designed game."

Heh.  JimBob should set up a fund to ship cheetos to this school

*Headspin*
O.C.P. Does not compute.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd can you give me an example in the real world were a pure "consensus-based and community-oriented" large scale society has succeeded better in life that a capitalist meritocracy?

No, because you haven't clarified what you mean by "succeeded better in life" or how a society has a "life" to "succeed" in. I am uninterested in listening to mealy-mouthed rants about the glories of your favourite form of political organisation. Please save them for your blog.

QuoteActually, it's not a lie.  Beyond the fact that capitalism isn't rigged nearly as much as the game is (despite the teacher's claims that it "mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy"), you'll notice that in the second round of the point game, there was a third winner.  How did this child manage to rise to the top even though the rules were rigged to keep the winners winning?

I am doubtful that the number of winners in a classroom game increasing from two to three demonstrates the fundamental fairness of capitalism itself, everywhere and throughout all time.

QuoteCorrect.  But what's the alternative to that fundamentally unjust system?  A bucket full of red 2x4 legos that are all the same?

There are plenty of potential ways that we could organise our political economy. Capitalism is certainly one of those ways, but not the only way. I am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience. I am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou object to "collectivism" and insist that authority and force must be used to combat it, or possibly proactively to prevent it from developing.

Authority and force were used to create collectivism here, and it didn't "develop" at all.

Quote from: KoltarViva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

Fuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

The teachers were abusing their power. Teachers, like parents, have power and authority so as to guide children towards maturity - maturity means a balance of individual responsibility and credit, combined with co-operation with the group. These teachers were experimenting with the children, much like the teacher who did the famous blue/brown eyes division in her classroom. Except she at least had some real-world lessons to teach; they did not.

Notice that they always took the most negative view of things when they were naturally developed by the children. For example, one kid claimed he should have a fine house since he'd built the fire station. In their imaginary city, he'd made efforts towards the public good - making the effort to build a fire station, which could prevent the destruction of other buildings. He didn't build just a mansion, he built a public building, and then as his reward claimed the right to build a mansion.

A decent society is not about absolute equality, about everyone having a house of the same size and appearance; a decent society is about equity, fairness. Those who contribute a lot to their society should be rewarded for it, those who contributed little or simply hoard things should receive nothing. Children in play instinctively have this sense of equity and fairness, they prefer games where everyone has an equal chance of winning, whatever their personal ability.

The teachers then imposed a system where everyone had the same regardless of effort, where nothing distinguished anyone from anyone else. If you built the fire station you got the same reward as the guy who built nothing. Which is communism, the street sweeper getting the same pay as the carer for orphaned troubled kids.

Equity and fairness - children understand it, even if those teachers didn't.

If the teachers were interested in teaching the children to share and include, they could have taught the lesson in other ways. "Okay, Fire Chief, aren't you going to hire some firemen? How about these kids over here with no lego bricks? You can't put out any fires unless you hire some firemen." This would have generated a little exchange of bricks, and right of control over the little figures being firemen, encouraging social play over individual play. The excluded children would have been included.

But the teachers didn't want equity and fairness, or sharing and socialising and inclusion. They just wanted everyone to be the same and indistinguishable. That's like Stalinisn, or modern corporatism, everyone the same like a factory product.

No.

Quote from: SpikeYou do realize, having read the article, that there are two seperate events involving legos going on. One involves sharing (the cityscape) the other involves a trading game where Green blocks were the most valuable peices.  Obviously, in the trading game one would not simply hand wave sharing, as that violates the concept of 'trading game'.

Once again, you have misread the article. The trading game is thought up by the teachers in response to a situation involving re-establishing the cityscape, when a number of students in a clique assert that they own all the LEGOs and that other students must be deprived of using them. The purpose of the trading game bears directly on that situation, by demonstrating how certain kinds of assertions of ownership of valuable resources can lead to unfair outcomes.

QuoteWhy does everyone 'against me' here seem to think that telling me that I advocate authority excercising that authority is somehow an arguement?

That sentence doesn't make any sense. It also fails to accurately describe my position. The charge I have made is summed up in my first response to you quite clearly. You claim to abhor collectivism and indoctrination, but advocate the use of authority and force to compel children to act in certain ways. I pointed out that the objection to collectivism is normally to be found in a rejection of authority and force, and you have not yet responded to that.

QuoteYes. Authority, being exercised by those who have it, is not inherently good or bad. In this case, it would have been good to do it.

To do what exactly? Use one's authority and the threat of force to bully the children into sharing, rather than demonstrating to them why sharing is preferable over not sharing? Authoritative demands are preferable to reasonable discussion?

QuoteThis isn't an arguement about authority.  It's not even an arguement about the inherent values of collectivism.

Then why did you bring it up and write so many words on that very subject? Please be consistent.

QuoteIt's about teachers doing creepy bad stuff with children's minds.   They, at no point I can find, made any effort to actually teach the children to share prior to destruction of the cityscape or in its aftermath.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The written report does not provide information either way. Since it is typical in most elementary school classes to be taught that sharing is good, we have more reason to consider it plausible that the author simply did not record this information rather than to assume, as you do, that they did nothing at all to teach children to share.

I should also point out that it is peculiar that you consider using authority and the threat of force to be reasonable, but playing games to be "creepy".

QuoteInstead they taught them that Capitalist Meritocracies are unfair places to live.  Funny thing, that, I know my fair share of immigrants who would vehemently disagree with that position.

Jesus Christ agrees with my position, not yours. Please don't bring in irrelevant authorities who cannot be questioned. It's also inconsistent, since you said earlier on in the same post that you didn't think that the merits of individualism or collectivism were relevant. Please make up your mind.

QuoteOh, so I'm the only one with a horse in this race and I'm not currently holding two seperate arguments with people who apparently are on radically opposite sides of my position? Really now?

I am not ideological. I don't know or care who the other person you're referring to is.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience. I am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

So let's talk about this particular situation. These teachers had a specific goal - to teach the glories of collectivism - to a bunch of eight years olds.  If you can't see that this was their purpose, or if you don't see the problem with trying to instill a particular ideology in eight year olds that aren't your own children - then I'm at a loss as to how we could continue other than to hurl unsupported talking points at each other.

So, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

Are you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

Would you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")?  To eight-year-olds?

If they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a problem with these teachers because their world view matches your worldview...

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThey are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions.

Which is, of course, an objective Truth...

I could be wrong, but I try to go by what people write...

Quote from: Spikerules can have built-in inequities  From the article.  Yes, Capitalism is not 'Life', but that's simply a cheap way to avoid the point.

No, it's an example of how you are abusing language.

Quotethe 'System is unfair', the 'rules of our society are unfair'.  They are talking about life, if you fail to see that, I don't know what to say to you. Just the absense of that particular word does not invalidate it in the least.

That last sentence does not make sense. You are the one who conflated life with capitalism. Many people would disagree. They would not use the two as synonymous. They might refer to "life under capitalism" or something like that instead. "The rules of our society" whether capitalist, communist or whatever else, do not exhaust the extension of the term "life".

QuoteIf you hold that they are teaching that consensus based and community oriented actions are the keys to success in life it falls on you to prove that not only is this true, but it is more true than personal ambition and effort are keys to success in life. A reasonable look at the successful people in the world today, and through history, succeeded more because they worked at it, not because they gave half their efforts to their neighbors.

That's a sweeping statement without justification. It's preceded by an inaccurate summation of my position, and the position of the teachers. Please justify the latter and correct the former.  

QuoteA lie?  Prove it.  I can repeat my anecdote about my economics professor, who with 17 dollars in his pocket built a construction company he sold 2 decades later for millions of dollars.  I can point out any number of immigrants who came to our capitalist meritocracy and because they worked hard and were smart wound up living good lives.

The structure of this argument is a basic fallacy well known since the 18th century. Please do not use it. I am also uninterested in arguing whether collectivism or individualism, socialism or capitalism, is superior. You yourself said earlier that this point was irrelevant. Please be consistent.

QuotePlaying smart and workign hard DO let you win, that's the fucking point of our society.  And if 'keep trying' leads only to frustration, you obviously hate the 'If at first you don't succeed, try try again' catchism.  I didn't make it up, but I do believe in it.

I am uninterested in your thrilling testament of personal belief in the merits of hard work. Please stick to relevant matters.

QuoteAnd you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.

Do you mean "capitalism wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was"? The trading game certainly was unjust. Do you wish to change your statement that the merits or demerits of capitalism are irrelevant?

QuoteThe teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Not really. If the teachers had made up the game's rules to benefit themselves somehow it would be suspicious. The main problem you seem to have is just that they disagree with your opinions on political economy, and that rather than rely on authority and coercion to make the children do what they want, they played a game to convince them.

QuoteIf your attacks against the arguements are weak, attack the author.   I feel pretty damn justified, and I've given you quotes from the article itself.  What more proof do you want?

You are not justifying your arguments. It is beginning to seem questionable if you understand what I mean when I ask you to do so. I mean that I would like it if you provided rational arguments that show your assertions to be true. plausible or reasonable to presume, rather than just asserting very contentious things, and then, when pressed, asserting them again, but now couched in irrelevant material.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe teachers then imposed a system where everyone had the same regardless of effort, where nothing distinguished anyone from anyone else. If you built the fire station you got the same reward as the guy who built nothing. Which is communism, the street sweeper getting the same pay as the carer for orphaned troubled kids.

It's what Marx calls 'crude communism'.

QuoteUniversal envy constituting itself as a power is the hidden form in which greed reasserts itself and satisfies itself, but in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the urge to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure.

Quote from: James J SkachSo let's talk about this particular situation. These teachers had a specific goal - to teach the glories of collectivism - to a bunch of eight years olds.  If you can't see that this was their purpose, or if you don't see the problem with trying to instill a particular ideology in eight year olds that aren't your own children - then I'm at a loss as to how we could continue other than to hurl unsupported talking points at each other.

I do agree that the teachers wanted to teach the children that consensus-based communities and resource sharing were preferable to communities based on private ownership and control of resources. I don't think "collectivism" is a particularly useful term to describe this though, nor "ideology".

I also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

QuoteSo, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

There is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

QuoteAre you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

The words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

That to me, by the way, is what I would hold to be the most important question here: Was the method the teachers took dishonest in some way? Was it outside the bounds of ordinary persuasion? People have asserted opinions both ways, but only JimBobOz has actually provided a justification for his opinion.

QuoteWould you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")?  To eight-year-olds?

Yes. As I said earlier, I am not a "collectivist" or even a socialist. I am not defending the teachers because I agree with their specific positions.

QuoteIf they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

Now that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

QuoteI have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a problem with these teachers because their world view matches your worldview...

As I've said several times, that's pretty ridiculous. I am not a socialist, whereas they are. Actually, if you look at my posting history in the discussions here, you'll see that I assert the necessity of individual human freedom and dignity more stridently than just about anyone else.

QuoteWhich is, of course, an objective Truth...

If you say so. I like consensus-based communities, but I am unconvinced that there is something called "succeeding in life" which they do, or that it is an objective "Truth" that they do this activity.

QuoteI could be wrong, but I try to go by what people write...

That's doubtful. I've said several times on this thread alone that I am not a socialist or "collectivist" prior to this post. Heck, did you read the list of names I dropped when correcting Spike about his assertions on arguments regarding "collectivism"?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

My own daughter, who has just started school, is continually being exposed to viewpoints (not to mention grammatical constructions) of which I disapprove. And it's not just the teachers.

There's not much to be done except teach her how to think for herself. Maybe I'm all full of shit and she'll tell me why one day.

The more I read it, the more I think it's written so badly and with such a passion for collectivist ideology, that it's impossible to know exactly what happened...

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinThese negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.

OK - the teachers feel the town built on capitalist principles is unjust and oppressive, and they were concerned.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWe assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos.

OK, so the teachers want to get clearer about what hadn't worked in Legotown.

But now go back to the description of the building of the town and reactions to the destruction of it.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinDiscussions like the one above led to children collaborating on a massive series of Lego structures we named Legotown. Children dug through hefty-sized bins of Legos, sought "cool pieces," and bartered and exchanged until they established a collection of homes, shops, public facilities, and community meeting places. We carefully protected Legotown from errant balls and jump ropes, and watched it grow day by day.

So the builders were collaborating?  So the builders were cooperating, it's just that they were not sharing with the other kids.

Now, eight kids "conceived and launched" Legotown. The number must have grown, but we're not sure how many were involved before the end.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinA group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children.

So the originators closed doors after the addition of more chidren - to the point that resources became scarce. If we make a relatively safe assumption of the addition of 4 more children, we have just under half the class involved. How many more wanted to join?  We don't know, we can't be sure.

So we don't know just how many kids felt cheated by the unsharing Legotown builders. But there is an indication about how the rest of the class felt about Legotown:

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWhen the children discovered the decimated Legotown, they reacted with shock and grief. Children moaned and fell to their knees to inspect the damage; many were near tears. The builders were devastated, and the other children were deeply sympathetic.

Now, those are some mature 8 year olds. If they really felt cheated, wouldn't they have been happy at the opportunity to get at the Lego blocks now? Instead, the react with shock, grief, and sympathy for the builders.

What becomes clearer and clearer is that the teachers had a problem with the way things were going. The teachers didn't like the natural conception, launch, and succes of Legotown because it didn't fit their ideology. When given the chance to, as Spike points out, just tell the kids to share more in the rebuilding, they decide to hide their own authoritarian power by making it seem to the kids as if they reached this conclusion as the natural Truth of social structures.

It's sick, actually.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI do agree that the teachers wanted to teach the children that consensus-based communities and resource sharing were preferable to communities based on private ownership and control of resources. I don't think "collectivism" is a particularly useful term to describe this though, nor "ideology".

Wow, and you claim Spike is playing games with the language? Jesus, that's a stretch. Why don't you call it CBS/RS theory and get Edwards to join you?

OK - that's a bit harsh. But man, you're turning cartwheels to keep certain things being labeled a way you don't seem to prefer.  Could it be it strikes to close to home?  Is one's preference for consensus-building blah blah blah so strong that one feels the need to indocrinate 8 year olds not an ideology?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

Ummm...OK.  I dont' have the right to teach my children as I see fit?  I'll tell you what, you raise your children that way, and I'll raise mine the way I see fit, K?  I mean, no offense, but what the fuck would give anyone the right to say I can't "push [my] own political viewpoints on [my] children?"

Now I happen to personally believe in exposing my kids - when the time is right - to various political thoughts.  I'm sure they will go through periods of various perspectives - fight with me sometimes, agree with me other.  But until they are 18, I'm responsible for them and I'll push whatever idea on them that I see fit.

But you, or the article (or both), are missing that ingredient.  Where are the parents in this?  Except for references to demographics and being "socially liberal," we have no idea if they object or not. The teachers simply take it upon themselves - the parents don't even get a chance to object.

Now you may like calling yourself reasonable for not objecting to having your children exposed to these ideas - it's really just a cute way of calling someone who does object unreasonable..so..yeah..fuck you, then, ok?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

Oh...umm...sorry...system of economic organiztion then.  Again with the games.  You know what the fuck was meant.  OK, let's play your game, what word would you use describe your long, biased description? Biased, you say?  When it's consensus or sharing, it's "developing" or "superior."  But when it's ownership, it's "asserting" and "confronting" and "tresspass." You can't see your own bias?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

That to me, by the way, is what I would hold to be the most important question here: Was the method the teachers took dishonest in some way? Was it outside the bounds of ordinary persuasion? People have asserted opinions both ways, but only JimBobOz has actually provided a justification for his opinion.

WTF?  The defintion of indoctrination is "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view."  What term would you use for teachers that "cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature?" I can see why you didn't find their excercise dishonest - look at your response!  You can't respond, so you're calling into question the use of word that are plainly defined in any dictionary.  The entire excercise was dishonest - from the reasons for it's implementation to it's facade of learning over indoctrination.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes. As I said earlier, I am not a "collectivist" or even a socialist. I am not defending the teachers because I agree with their specific positions.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf you say so. I like consensus-based communities,

Hmmm...you can call it what you like.  But "consensus based" "resource sharing" sounds an awful lot like "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively" - the definition of "collectivism."

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs I've said several times, that's pretty ridiculous. I am not a socialist, whereas they are. Actually, if you look at my posting history in the discussions here, you'll see that I assert the necessity of individual human freedom and dignity more stridently than just about anyone else.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's doubtful. I've said several times on this thread alone that I am not a socialist or "collectivist" prior to this post. Heck, did you read the list of names I dropped when correcting Spike about his assertions on arguments regarding "collectivism"?

Yeah, see, you say this.  And it's why I say you seem to be conflicted.  "Consensus-based" and "resource sharing" and individual human freedom are a bit at odds.  If the consensus says I should give up my property..oh wait..it's not mine, it's the community's...so where again does my indivdual human freedom come into play?  I'm free as long as I don't try to own anything of my own?  Unless, of course, you are assuming the "consensus-based" "resource-sharing" is voluntary - which totally takes you out of the realm of "consensus-based" "resource-sharing."

And drop all the names you like.  It means nothing.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

No, they hid the entire dishonest indoctrination mess behind the facade of "exploring power." Makes the skin crawl.