Schools, Liberalism, and Society

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,287
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. For most of us, experience is the path to learning, and the absence of actual experience of the world opens the student to the formation of some conclusions which have either no, or only harmful, application outside the halls of ivy. There, he is rewarded in pleasing the teacher by repeating an endorsed behavior, he is going to take his ‘learning’ with him, out into the world.

a. George Washington, Father of our country….have a pellet of food.

b. Thomas Jefferson, third President, owned slaves and kept a mistress…have an appointment as a graduate instructor!

c. Pull the lever: It’s a racist country. America is an exploiter. Capitalism is bad. Israel is a Nazi nation. Get a pellet.

d. But to keep pulling the trigger to get the food pellet after the instructor has gone is called the Cargo Cult.


2. One can say that once the student leaves the ‘lab,’ no pellet. True, except that in society the Left supplies the pellet for the ex-student: the pellet is no longer a grade, now it is the protection of the herd. [Coulter refers to it as ‘the mob.’] The ultimate reward may be status, or position.
Or a Nobel Peace Prize.

a. To put a fine point on it, the ex-student has to supply a correct phrase to get his reward.

b. He, of course, comes to prize the ideas and phrases whose repetition rewarded him. He generalizes the idea that the idea is good rather than the reward.


3. Such is the lot of the student raised in captivity. Why should he examine the context or the consequences of his learned phrases?

a. Take 'Racism'. The Liberal is of the group that recognizes that racism is bad. But everybody knows this. So what is the benefit or merit of being able to repeat it?
Simple: it is a recognition symbol that allows the utterer access to those whose thinking process is similarly limited.
A far better analysis is to be found in "The Secret Knowledge," by Mamet.

4. This is the explanation for the more left-leaning members of this board remaining, for the most part, impervious to to logic, data, experience or debate. Rectitude offers no pellet, no grade, no reward.

But, if rectitude serves as its own reward....one wouldn't be Liberal.
 
Last edited:
Propagandists are so boring.

Propagandists versus Propagandists are even worse.

The trouble is we don't get enough information and ideas into children's heads in grade school is the problem. But I don't think the propagandists on either side want that because propagandists are full of crap.

Give kids some thought provoking stuff in grade school and they may realise all of the propagandists are talking trash.

A Short History of the World by H. G. Wells (not sci-fi but an SF writer's perspective)
Wells, H.G. 1922. A Short History of the World
There Will Be School Tomorrow, by V. E. Thiessen
www.feedbooks.com/userbook/11643.pdf
All Day September by Roger Kuykendall
All Day September - Roger Kuykendall | Feedbooks
Eight Keys to Eden by Mark Clifton
Index Sensational Mysteries ... of the Mysteries-of-the-World.info (also known as {a.k.a.} 'myWorld'). Anomalous Artifacts, Cryptids, Puzzling Phenomena & Places, Mysterious Megaliths, Strange Stuff, Unsolved Crimes, and all other Unusual & Unexplain
"Eight Keys to Eden" by Clifton Mark Free Download. The book is added by Todd M. Tysseling (Des Moines, IA United States) Read online books at OnRead.com.
The Fourth R by George O. Smith
"The Fourth R" by Smith George Oliver Free Download. The book is added by David (Idaho) Read online books at OnRead.com.
Subversive by Reynolds Mack
"Subversive" by Reynolds Mack Free Download. The book is added by K. Havard (Texas) Read online books at OnRead.com.
The Year When Stardust Fell by Raymond F. Jones
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Year-When-Stardust-Fell/dp/1935774409]Amazon.com: The Year When Stardust Fell (9781935774402): Raymond F. Jones: Books[/ame]
Read The Year When Stardust Fell Online, Free Books by Raymond F. Jones - ReadCentral.com
Omnilingual by H. Beam Piper
LibriVox » Omnilingual by H Beam Piper
Omnilingual - Henry Beam Piper | Feedbooks
Badge of Infamy by Lester del Rey
Badge of Infamy by Lester Del Rey - Books Should Be Free

psik
 
Well would you like schools to teach how great our country is and our forefathers were and all the rest of that NONSENSE? This air of "american exceptionalism" has been exposed for what it is. Garbage.
 
Well would you like schools to teach how great our country is and our forefathers were and all the rest of that NONSENSE? This air of "american exceptionalism" has been exposed for what it is. Garbage.

"Garbage"? Did you say "Garbage"?

This is my very favorite kind of post, because of the opportunity it gives to dump folks like you right back in the garbage can...
...ready, Oscar?

1. The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

2. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

3. "American superiority in all matters of science, economics, industry, politics, business, medicine, engineering, social life, social justice and, of course, the military was total and indisputable. Even Europeans suffering the pangs of wounded chauvinism looked on with awe at the brilliant example the United States had set for the world as the third millennium began." Tom Wolfe, “Hooking Up”

4. Even Karl Marx accepted the image of America as a land of boundless opportunity, citing this as an explanation for the lack of class consciousness in the U.S. "The position of wage laborer," he wrote in 1865, "is for a very large part of the American people but a probational state, which they are sure to leave within a longer or shorter term."

Read more: As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls


5. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdiYXltAmOM]Is America An Exceptional Nation? Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! - YouTube[/ame]

Dick Morris outlines his ideas on American Exceptionalism...
...if you have no time to watch, here's what it says:

1. America is the Mass Citizenry Nation! It was designed from the bottom up to give freedom and political participation to all. While this began giving said rights to white males, it was eventually extended to all. This is not to ignore the fact that Britain was the first to outlaw slavery, but had and still has a recognition of class that America doesn’t.

2. Free enterprise system began in America in a way unique when compared to other industrial nations. In most, feudalism and then mercantilism were first steps, and free trade was able to flourish as government regulation and control was pulled back…and not fully so. This less than total free enterprise was an impediment, as compared to the spontaneous movement in the United States, where it began without government design or regulation. It was this freedom of endeavor that shaped modern democracy, and gave the character of America’s desire for liberty.

3. With the possible exception of Argentina, the United States is the only nation entirely composed of immigrants. Who were those folks? They were the brave, the optimistic go-getters who would face hardship and the vagaries of luck to build a new world. Those less inclined to work hard, take a chance and seek their fortune in a new world stayed home!


So....feel like the ungrateful wretch that you are?
 
I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?
 
I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?

You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?
 
I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?

You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?

Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.
 
I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?

You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?

Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?
 
You understand that evolution is a theory...

You know what a theory is, don't you?

Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?

Only people like Limbaugh are totally conservative or liberal, but I'm mostly liberal.
What has securlarism have to do with evolution, or chemistry or the world is round? That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me any more than the flat- earthers believe differently than I do. Perhaps some people should stay out of museums, planetariums, and science labs, but should we keep young people out too?
 
I'm not a great conspiracy fan but I have to think at times that there is a conspiracy by some politicians to keep Americans uneducated. Why are do so many in the South believe Obama is a Muslim while less in the north believe he is a Muslim? But it's not just the Muslim bit, but evolution, the world is round and so on.
What do I believe that is not true?
Maybe it's because obama himself has been touting his muslim faith for years with his own mouth. Why would anyone NOT believe he's a muslim when he's SAID HE IS HIMSELF?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY]Obama Admits He Is A Muslim - YouTube[/ame]
 
Well would you like schools to teach how great our country is and our forefathers were and all the rest of that NONSENSE? This air of "american exceptionalism" has been exposed for what it is. Garbage.

You FILTHY, PUSS SUCKING, PIMPLE ASSED, GUTTER LICKING, HUMAN TRASH...

FUCK OFF AND DIE!

You are NOW at the TOP of my SHIT LIST you RANCID PILE OF DOG SHIT.
 
Last edited:
Yes. a scientific theory which is different than the theory definition the average person uses.
It's possible that the atom is still just a theory, the atomic theory that they use to build the bombs, power electric plants, power ships, use in chemistry and so forth. Might want to check on that theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory as was the atomic theory which means it's pretty much accepted as fact. Not all the evolutionary pieces are in yet, and the pieces that are in, are subject to being placed and replaced but as a science it's accepted as a factual puzzle still being worked out.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?

Only people like Limbaugh are totally conservative or liberal, but I'm mostly liberal.
What has securlarism have to do with evolution, or chemistry or the world is round? That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me any more than the flat- earthers believe differently than I do. Perhaps some people should stay out of museums, planetariums, and science labs, but should we keep young people out too?

"That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me..."

Good enough.
 
"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com


Is it copasetic with you that not everyone is as convinced as you are "it's pretty much accepted as fact"...or are you a Liberal?

Only people like Limbaugh are totally conservative or liberal, but I'm mostly liberal.
What has securlarism have to do with evolution, or chemistry or the world is round? That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me any more than the flat- earthers believe differently than I do. Perhaps some people should stay out of museums, planetariums, and science labs, but should we keep young people out too?

"That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me..."

Good enough.

But should we deny to young people the opportunity to know of scientific theories because we don't agree? Is it wrong to pretend science does not exist, or that the world is round or the earth travels about the sun, because we don't approve of science? Even the Church no longer disagrees with Galileo and sort of pardoned him after 300 years.
 
Only people like Limbaugh are totally conservative or liberal, but I'm mostly liberal.
What has securlarism have to do with evolution, or chemistry or the world is round? That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me any more than the flat- earthers believe differently than I do. Perhaps some people should stay out of museums, planetariums, and science labs, but should we keep young people out too?

"That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me..."

Good enough.

But should we deny to young people the opportunity to know of scientific theories because we don't agree? Is it wrong to pretend science does not exist, or that the world is round or the earth travels about the sun, because we don't approve of science? Even the Church no longer disagrees with Galileo and sort of pardoned him after 300 years.

Of course not.

A science class should offer what is considered to be the scientific theory, along with the evidence thereof.

A parent should offer the context, the moral and or religious basis for his/her beliefs.
This should include the reasons for the hostility of some scientists toward religion.

No reason the child shouldn't be conversant with both.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

BTW....today is Einstein's birthday.


As for you're query "...because we don't approve of science..."
Surely you know that this is a fabrication...I know of no major religion that propounds same....
....do you?
Is it a suggestion of bias on your part?
 
"That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me..."

Good enough.

But should we deny to young people the opportunity to know of scientific theories because we don't agree? Is it wrong to pretend science does not exist, or that the world is round or the earth travels about the sun, because we don't approve of science? Even the Church no longer disagrees with Galileo and sort of pardoned him after 300 years.

Of course not.

A science class should offer what is considered to be the scientific theory, along with the evidence thereof.

A parent should offer the context, the moral and or religious basis for his/her beliefs.
This should include the reasons for the hostility of some scientists toward religion.

No reason the child shouldn't be conversant with both.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
"
Albert Einstein

BTW....today is Einstein's birthday.


As for you're query "...because we don't approve of science..."
Surely you know that this is a fabrication...I know of no major religion that propounds same....
....do you?
Is it a suggestion of bias on your part?

Einstein had a few things wrong in his lifetime. I suspect the above was another of them
 
"That all people do not believe in evolution is of no consequense to me..."

Good enough.

But should we deny to young people the opportunity to know of scientific theories because we don't agree? Is it wrong to pretend science does not exist, or that the world is round or the earth travels about the sun, because we don't approve of science? Even the Church no longer disagrees with Galileo and sort of pardoned him after 300 years.

Of course not.

A science class should offer what is considered to be the scientific theory, along with the evidence thereof.

A parent should offer the context, the moral and or religious basis for his/her beliefs.
This should include the reasons for the hostility of some scientists toward religion.

No reason the child shouldn't be conversant with both.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

BTW....today is Einstein's birthday.


As for you're query "...because we don't approve of science..."
Surely you know that this is a fabrication...I know of no major religion that propounds same....
....do you?
Is it a suggestion of bias on your part?

Some religions do not approve of certain aspects of science being taught and believe their beliefs should also be taught to make young people conversant with both science and their beliefs. If that were not true would we be posting?
 
But should we deny to young people the opportunity to know of scientific theories because we don't agree? Is it wrong to pretend science does not exist, or that the world is round or the earth travels about the sun, because we don't approve of science? Even the Church no longer disagrees with Galileo and sort of pardoned him after 300 years.

Of course not.

A science class should offer what is considered to be the scientific theory, along with the evidence thereof.

A parent should offer the context, the moral and or religious basis for his/her beliefs.
This should include the reasons for the hostility of some scientists toward religion.

No reason the child shouldn't be conversant with both.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

BTW....today is Einstein's birthday.


As for you're query "...because we don't approve of science..."
Surely you know that this is a fabrication...I know of no major religion that propounds same....
....do you?
Is it a suggestion of bias on your part?

Some religions do not approve of certain aspects of science being taught and believe their beliefs should also be taught to make young people conversant with both science and their beliefs. If that were not true would we be posting?

The religions are not the source of the dispute...the anti-religious group of scientists who take gratuitous swipes at religion and religious folks are the cause of the friction.

The anti-religion aspect of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution are responsible...and are central to the idea of Liberalism.

Science detached from religion, or at least from morality, lacks humanity.
In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?
 
Of course not.

A science class should offer what is considered to be the scientific theory, along with the evidence thereof.

A parent should offer the context, the moral and or religious basis for his/her beliefs.
This should include the reasons for the hostility of some scientists toward religion.

No reason the child shouldn't be conversant with both.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

BTW....today is Einstein's birthday.


As for you're query "...because we don't approve of science..."
Surely you know that this is a fabrication...I know of no major religion that propounds same....
....do you?
Is it a suggestion of bias on your part?

Some religions do not approve of certain aspects of science being taught and believe their beliefs should also be taught to make young people conversant with both science and their beliefs. If that were not true would we be posting?

The religions are not the source of the dispute...the anti-religious group of scientists who take gratuitous swipes at religion and religious folks are the cause of the friction.

The anti-religion aspect of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution are responsible...and are central to the idea of Liberalism.

Science detached from religion, or at least from morality, lacks humanity.
In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

Or burning at the stake, or the crusades or the hundred year war or.... Maybe Napoleon said it best if it weren't for religion the poor people would have killed all the rich people long ago.
 
Some religions do not approve of certain aspects of science being taught and believe their beliefs should also be taught to make young people conversant with both science and their beliefs. If that were not true would we be posting?

The religions are not the source of the dispute...the anti-religious group of scientists who take gratuitous swipes at religion and religious folks are the cause of the friction.

The anti-religion aspect of the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution are responsible...and are central to the idea of Liberalism.

Science detached from religion, or at least from morality, lacks humanity.
In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

Or burning at the stake, or the crusades or the hundred year war or.... Maybe Napoleon said it best if it weren't for religion the poor people would have killed all the rich people long ago.

I'm surprised at such a cliched response....

...and that you didn't think it through:


1. For scientists persuaded that there is no God, there is no finer pleasure than recounting the history of religious brutality and persecution. In “The End of Faith,” Sam Harris gives the lurid details of the torture methods of the Spanish Inquisition. There is no arguing the point: religious fanaticism caused a great deal of suffering. And the Moslem world is quite ready to carry the burden of exuberant depravity.

Yet…there is this awkward fact: the 20th century, while not an age of faith, certainly was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…hardly religious leaders.

2. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
From chapter two of "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski


Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?
How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]
 

Forum List

Back
Top