DeVos confirmed as Ed Secretary

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree, mostly with this, but the right has been on a mission and as a whole, to discredit climate change science, I cannot think of many republican elected officials who not only embrace the science behind climate change, but actively pursue a resolution for it.
I'm sure there are a few, but the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few, especially in this issue.

I truly and honestly believe that they, just like any other politician, don't actually believe 90% of the stuff they say, they just say it and press on those issues because they believe it's what their constituents want to hear. It's like jeans places only selling stretchy denim to women. My GF fucking hates them, but it's all she can buy now. Since that's all that's sold, it's probably assumed that's what people want, so they keep supplying it.

It'll probably change as overall attitudes of our populace change, but it won't be quick. I will say that it's not helping the overall status of our country (perceived or real) to be announcing that science is wrong. Looks pretty bad on us.

 

[jackstar7]

Plenty of indoctrination is good. Only ancient geniuses were able to arrive at society as a logical end. Now we train children to fit into that end. We also indoctrinate them with notions of justice, integrity, thoughtfulness, etc.

I can sort of see people complaining that character should be molded in the home, not in schools, but that's really a backward attitude. Kids won't stay at home and are not meant to. They're going to learn socially beyond the home. Better to have a lot of that learning be positive to their character rather than just the awfulness that kids enact on each other.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Plenty of indoctrination is good. Only ancient geniuses were able to arrive at society as a logical end. Now we train children to fit into that end. We also indoctrinate them with notions of justice, integrity, thoughtfulness, etc.

I can sort of see people complaining that character should be molded in the home, not in schools, but that's really a backward attitude. Kids won't stay at home and are not meant to. They're going to learn socially beyond the home. Better to have a lot of that learning be positive to their character rather than just the awfulness that kids enact on each other.

One could say that it takes a village to raise a child, and in a way that does include the school. Problems come up though when that school is just a monolithic brick, an inhuman construct that people can't penetrate. Parents see the adults in the school as adversaries to be combated instead of fellow village-goers, smacking a kid into line (as they would).

 

[jackstar7]

One could say that it takes a village to raise a child, and in a way that does include the school. Problems come up though when that school is just a monolithic brick, an inhuman construct that people can't penetrate. Parents see the adults in the school as adversaries to be combated instead of fellow village-goers, smacking a kid into line (as they would).

Indeed. It's like there's value in PTAs.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Indeed. It's like there's value in PTAs.

Haha, careful, that sounds like communist talk!

I wouldn't be surprised if at this point, some schools had a 'external relations' group that did the whole PTA thing, so as a parent you still can't interact directly with the people who hang out with your kids for 8 hours a day.

 

[mect]

Tribalism! And not everyone on the right wants or respects those notions. There are a few crazies out there, sure, but I seriously doubt the word 'most' would be applicable here.

There is plenty of indoctrination in the US education system though, IMO. Just in different forms, and up for debate as to whether it's a bad thing or not.

I never said everyone on the right. Just look at the vote on Devos. There were a couple of republicans that demonstrated they share these values for education. But if you want to have a meaningful conversation, you have to make some generalizations. And again referencing back to the senate vote, yes, I do think the word 'most' is entirely applicable.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I never said everyone on the right. Just look at the vote on Devos. There were a couple of republicans that demonstrated they share these values for education. But if you want to have a meaningful conversation, you have to make some generalizations. And again referencing back to the senate vote, yes, I do think the word 'most' is entirely applicable.

You said 'those on the right', which is sweeping enough to be easily translated to 'everyone'. You can be specific when talking about these things, you don't have to use such a wide brush. Now if you want to say 'those who voted for Devos', there you go, nice and specific and you call out the assbags that should be called out.

Generalizing against a tribe brings the ire of that tribe (for most people), whether they agree with you or not. Human nature.

 

[mect]

You said 'those on the right', which is sweeping enough to be easily translated to 'everyone'. You can be specific when talking about these things, you don't have to use such a wide brush. Now if you want to say 'those who voted for Devos', there you go, nice and specific and you call out the assbags that should be called out.

Generalizing against a tribe brings the ire of that tribe (for most people), whether they agree with you or not. Human nature.

You're still generalizing by saying "those that voted for Devos", just with a narrower brush. So your problem is just with the degree of the generalization? Sorry, I'm writing on a message board, not writing professional paper. Those that are able to think will do so. Check my posting history here from 8 years ago. I was a die hard republican (who thought he was a moderate). But I was willing to think. I don't give a shit about tribes. I care about strength of argument.

 

[agent00f]

lol. I want your own words and thoughts, not a smartass link that isn't even an article and is filled with the likes of infowars. Funny joke though, that infowars and company are good reading. I see why you are what you are now. When asked for your own thoughts, you are an empty shell.

It basically comes down to post-enlightenment western liberalism. That's more or less the political line in the sand for this country. For example, schools these days teach kids not to hate on lower status minorities, and that's pretty obviously an existential threat to conservatism.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You're still generalizing by saying "those that voted for Devos", just with a narrower brush. So your problem is just with the degree of the generalization? Sorry, I'm writing on a message board, not writing professional paper. Those that are able to think will do so. Check my posting history here from 8 years ago. I was a die hard republican (who thought he was a moderate). But I was willing to think. I don't give a shit about tribes. I care about strength of argument.

All I'm trying to get at is that the more specific we can get, the less likely we are to piss off those we're *not* trying to piss off, generally speaking. By all means, if someone's jacked up, call them out on it, if a small group is jacked up, call them out too. But if you lump in all their buddies through careless wording, you make more enemies which erodes the base on which you stand announcing your argument. As we've seen time and time again, the validity of the argument is not the only virtue by which it's considered, it's also the source, and how they are considered. That's part of the reason why those who are considering trump to be the anti-christ won't listen to a thing he says, valid or no (partisanship aside).

 

[mect]

All I'm trying to get at is that the more specific we can get, the less likely we are to piss off those we're *not* trying to piss off, generally speaking. By all means, if someone's jacked up, call them out on it, if a small group is jacked up, call them out too. But if you lump in all their buddies through careless wording, you make more enemies which erodes the base on which you stand announcing your argument. As we've seen time and time again, the validity of the argument is not the only virtue by which it's considered, it's also the source, and how they are considered. That's part of the reason why those who are considering trump to be the anti-christ won't listen to a thing he says, valid or no (partisanship aside).

Fair enough and I get that. I'll admit I was being intellectually lazy. And I concede I do have a few republican friends that opposed Devos, but from my observation, the majority of republicans support her appointment.

While I'm sure there are some that won't listen to a thing Trump says because he is a republican, for me the issue is the frequency and blatancy of his lies. All trust has been destroyed.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Fair enough and I get that. I'll admit I was being intellectually lazy. And I concede I do have a few republican friends that opposed Devos, but from my observation, the majority of republicans support her appointment.

While I'm sure there are some that won't listen to a thing Trump says because he is a republican, for me the issue is the frequency and blatancy of his lies. All trust has been destroyed.

drumpf's political affiliation has zero to do with my total and complete loathing of him. he's just a horrible person, with horrible ideas, who cannot admit mistakes and lies about nearly everything. He's just a shitty, shitty human being who has zero business being in the highest office of the land.

 

[MongGrel]

The goal is to provide students with an education. The tax dollars are used for that purpose. There is nothing that says taxpayer dollars have to be used solely to pay for public education. IMO if taxpayer dollars are used to pay for someone's education, then the taxpayer (ie, the government) has a right to attach some basic conditions (minimum standards of what that education has to include).

BS, if you think the government has the right to screw up the public school system with nonsense indoctrination, tax dollars should not be allowed to be funneled to private schools.

 

[bshole]

BS, if you think the government has the right to screw up the public school system with nonsense indoctrination, tax dollars should not be allowed to be funneled to private schools.

I say that tax dollars should be funneled to private schools WITH THE CAVEAT that students expelled from public schools for behavior problems MUST BE ACCEPTED by those private schools taking taxpayer dollars. If they want the taxpayer money, let them use it to deal with the worst students instead of skimming the best off.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I say that tax dollars should be funneled to private schools WITH THE CAVEAT that students expelled from public schools for behavior problems MUST BE ACCEPTED by those private schools taking taxpayer dollars. If they want the taxpayer money, let them use it to deal with the worst students instead of skimming the best off.

Another authoritarian lefty. Why would you want to force ANY school, let alone a private one to accept trouble making scum and criminals?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Judge much? There's reasons behind behaviors. You're taking the easy way out

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Judge much? There's reasons behind behaviors. You're taking the easy way out

No, i'm taking the path that it should be up to the schools whether or not to have criminals, violent or abusive students. We do a grave disservice to the 90% of students that work at learning to force them to try to work alongside problem students.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, i'm taking the path that it should be up to the schools whether or not to have criminals, violent or abusive students. We do a grave disservice to the 90% of students that work at learning to force them to try to work alongside problem students.

That's fine when it's not the taxpayers' dime. We have the right to demand that schools we pay to support do the best they can with the worst students.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That's fine when it's not the taxpayers' dime. We have the right to demand that schools we pay to support do the best they can with the worst students.

No we don't.

 

[MrPickins]

No we don't.

Federal money often comes with strings attached. I see no reason why this would be any different.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Federal money often comes with strings attached. I see no reason why this would be any different.

Then please state where the Constitution says :

"We have the right to demand that schools we pay to support do the best they can with the worst students."

Is it an enumerated Right? I was educated in a public school, maybe i missed it.

 

[MrPickins]

Then please state where the Constitution says :

"We have the right to demand that schools we pay to support do the best they can with the worst students."

Is it an enumerated Right? I was educated in a public school, maybe i missed it.

Show me how these private schools are being forced to accept federal funds.

This is no different than the feds threatening to withhold highway funds if a state lowers it's drinking age below 21...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

 

[ch33zw1z]

No we don't.

Actually yes we do. And if they cant, then it's an out of district to a school that can work with the students specific needs.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Show me how these private schools are being forced to accept federal funds.

This is no different than the feds threatening to withhold highway funds if a state lowers it's drinking age below 21...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

Pretty circuitous way around answering my question, but thanks.

 

[Jhhnn]

No we don't.

Of course we do. It's not an issue of the Constitution rather than an issue of the law & the will of the people. We want & expect public schools to help create the best citizens we can get. That's part of what we pay for, not just for our own kids like a private school.