PDA

View Full Version : Republicans boycotting the AP Exams?


Kimon
02-17-2015, 10:54 PM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/oklahoma-legislative-committee-questions-legality-of-advanced-placement-courses-in/article_2b257556-b62c-5a92-862e-8e9821a29bbc.html

The vote was along partisan lines, which is both unsurprising and really depressing. This sort of insanity once seemed mildly amusing, but the anti-intellectualism on the right is becoming increasingly worrisome. Attacking the concept of Common Core is silly enough, but attacking the AP US History exam because it has the nerve to be more than mere propaganda is alarming.

Nazbaque
02-18-2015, 04:53 AM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/oklahoma-legislative-committee-questions-legality-of-advanced-placement-courses-in/article_2b257556-b62c-5a92-862e-8e9821a29bbc.html

The vote was along partisan lines, which is both unsurprising and really depressing. This sort of insanity once seemed mildly amusing, but the anti-intellectualism on the right is becoming increasingly worrisome. Attacking the concept of Common Core is silly enough, but attacking the AP US History exam because it has the nerve to be more than mere propaganda is alarming.

I am not entirely awake so I'm not sure I understood correctly, but did the republicans basically oppose learning about history because historical facts are unpatriotic?

Kimon
02-18-2015, 06:40 AM
I am not entirely awake so I'm not sure I understood correctly, but did the republicans basically oppose learning about history because historical facts are unpatriotic?

Yes

Khoram
02-18-2015, 06:45 AM
This hurts me.

But why am I not surprised?

Daekyras
02-18-2015, 08:40 AM
Wow. Just wow. Murica!!!!!

Terez
02-18-2015, 09:05 AM
I am not entirely awake so I'm not sure I understood correctly, but did the republicans basically oppose learning about history because historical facts are unpatriotic?
It's more like:

1. Republicans oppose Common Core because Obama.
2. They argue this is because government control of curriculum is bad.
3. Someone pointed out that AP courses have been doing the same thing for years.
4. Now they hate AP courses too, and they argue that this is because [it doesn't really matter].

Nazbaque
02-18-2015, 09:49 AM
It's more like:

1. Republicans oppose Common Core because Obama.
2. They argue this is because government control of curriculum is bad.
3. Someone pointed out that AP courses have been doing the same thing for years.
4. Now they hate AP courses too, and they argue that this is because [it doesn't really matter].

Ah so the unpatriotic is just an excuse and they hate because they hate the only problem for them being the question "what do we hate most?" which invariably is the first thing that they don't understand. So even though in a sort of concentrated vote for top 5 worst things Obama has the most common presense, the top spot of any given list goes to the cloud nearest to the voter.

fdsaf3
02-18-2015, 11:28 AM
No. Republicans are upset because they believe the curriculum being taught in AP U.S. history courses is unfairly biased. From what I remember of my experience in the course (taken during my sophomore year in high school, which I think is universally true across the nation), that assertion isn't entirely without merit.

I think the real issue is with how students are taught U.S. history throughout the education system up to the point of taking the AP course. We're indoctrinated with the high points of our own history: Columbus set sail in 1492 to find a new world, the founding fathers created a new government which replaced tyranny with freedom, blah blah blah. For the first time in my life (and I suspect this is true for most students who take the course), you read books like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. You read accounts of natives who experienced the brutal subjugation perpetuated by Columbus and other early explorers. You read novels like The Jungle by Upton Sinclair which expose the dark aspects of early 20th century manufacturing.

I think students get overexposed to the best parts of U.S. history for so long that the negative aspects are brushed under the rug. I don't think there would be as much backlash against the curriculum of the course if this contrary view was presented more gradually over time instead of all together in one enormous bitter pill.

Davian93
02-18-2015, 12:25 PM
What a freaking joke. Sorry that actual history doesn't subscribe to your hyper-partisan America FUCK YEAH version. Get over it and maybe pick up a damn book and educate yourself.

fdsaf3
02-18-2015, 12:54 PM
It's incredibly presumptuous to say that there's anything resembling an objective understanding of "actual history". Go to North Korea and visit some of the museums there - they actually teach that North Korea "won" the Korean War.

History is subjective. Pretending that it isn't is as intellectually dishonest as what the Republicans in this article are doing.

You don't have to agree with someone to recognize that their position has (some) merit.

edit:

Here (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-historiography-zinn-122012.html) is an article which talks about some of the problems with Zinn's book I mentioned (people's history of the US). I don't mean to pick on Zinn, nor do I mean to imply that the ONLY problems with the curriculum in an AP U.S. history course revolves around how explorers like Columbus treated natives. I'm simply trying to point out that like it or not, there are people who have valid (at least in their minds) criticisms about the content of the course. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.

Personally, I'm a proponent of teaching as many sides of an issue as reasonable and letting students sort it out for themselves. As I said in my previous post, my eyes were opened after taking the course. The U.S. does have some blemishes in its history which need to be addressed.

Ivhon
02-18-2015, 01:01 PM
Were native Americans brutally suppressed?
Did Christopher Columbus commit horrific atrocities?
Did the U.S. Place Japanese American citizens in concentration camps?

To pretend they didn't in order to justify a phantom belief in American exceptionalism is to deny facts. It only has political bias if you believe that facts are biased. I will make no further inferences.

fdsaf3
02-18-2015, 01:10 PM
Were native Americans brutally suppressed?
Did Christopher Columbus commit horrific atrocities?
Did the U.S. Place Japanese American citizens in concentration camps?

To pretend they didn't in order to justify a phantom belief in American exceptionalism is to deny facts. It only has political bias if you believe that facts are biased. I will make no further inferences.

I don't think anyone pretends that these sad events didn't occur. Or, if they do, they are deceiving themselves.

I disagree with the bolded bit. You posted as I was writing/editing my response to Davian. As I was saying to him, there are few objective facts or truths in the fabric of history. What historians lack in fact is replaced with culture and context. The narrative of a book comprised entirely of people who suffered at the hands of Columbus and his band of explorers, while factual, paints an entirely different history than that of a narrative from Columbus' point of view. Where is the objective truth in any of that?

That's my point in this thread. The best possible way to look at the GOP's complaint is that there is a bias in the AP history curriculum which unfairly depicts U.S. improprieties while the successes are minimized. You can agree with that or not. But let's at least give the benefit of the doubt to people who recognize that history is as likely to be biased as anything else.

suttree
02-18-2015, 01:55 PM
History is subjective. Pretending that it isn't is as intellectually dishonest as what the Republicans in this article are doing.

You don't have to agree with someone to recognize that their position has (some) merit.

Not sure where you are going with this. You admit that non-AP History in the past has been extremely biased but you are advocating that there not be a well rounded view introduced? All this because conservatives are complaining about students being well informed on the "negative aspects"?

Also why on earth would you claim history is entirely subjective. Isn't it far more accurate to say it's a combination of subjective/objective?

Frenzy
02-18-2015, 02:50 PM
My brother's a high school history teacher (including AP) in Kansas. i can't WAIT to hear what he has to say about this. (i'll share, once he calms down)

Content: Government input on History content is a multi-million dollar business. All you have to do is lobby to get something included into the standards in Texas and/or California, and it'll spread nationwide because those two states buy the most textbooks and other states typically buy the same versions. i'm not sure how it is elsewhere, but in California you can lobby to get something included into the State standards. That's why the Armenian Genocide is in the state standards.

Subjective vs. Objective: My mom was in Australia for middle school, she said that their teaching and views of the 18th Century British empire were VERY different than what she had been previously taught. Makes me wonder if what's taught about the Civil War is different in places like Massachusetts, South Carolina, etc.

Kimon
02-18-2015, 04:04 PM
Makes me wonder if what's taught about the Civil War is different in places like Massachusetts, South Carolina, etc.

Certainly they wouldn't still call it the War of Northern Aggression...

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

Frenzy
02-18-2015, 04:23 PM
the tl:dr version of my brother's opinion is that it's political, it's non-educators mucking about in education doctrine, and blatantly revisionist. His example was 'they want us to talk about the positives of relations with the natives, like religion and education (he had air quotes around those, i could actually hear them thru the phone), not the negative, like smallpox and cultural genocide.

He also thinks it's about indoctrination and keeping the people compliant and controlled, not teaching kids critical thinking and bullshit detection skills.

fdsaf3
02-18-2015, 04:24 PM
Not sure where you are going with this. You admit that non-AP History in the past has been extremely biased but you are advocating that there not be a well rounded view introduced? All this because conservatives are complaining about students being well informed on the "negative aspects"?

What? No.

I've made this point a few times, but I'll try to clarify it again to make sure we're on the same page. If you take something like Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States (sorry to keep picking on this one example, but it's the easiest to use in my mind), it paints a substantially different view of United States history than the one kids grow up learning throughout middle school. Other academics have criticized his book for being as biased and one-sided as the history textbooks it was written to supplant as "accurate".

This is Davian's post that I was responding to:

What a freaking joke. Sorry that actual history doesn't subscribe to your hyper-partisan America FUCK YEAH version. Get over it and maybe pick up a damn book and educate yourself.

So, putting everything together, what I'm saying is that it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the claims of conservatives who feel the current AP curriculum is in some way biased. Whether you agree with that view or not, it's not unfounded (unlike, say, the argument to teach intelligent design).

For the record, I'm extremely in favor of an education curriculum which is well-rounded. My rebuff of the posts here is that they are tinged with a sentiment of "OMG conservatives are anti-intellecualism". I dislike seeing people dismiss the views of others simply because they don't agree with them politically. I personally don't agree with the law, but I can see where the conservatives are coming from in writing it. There's really not enough effort made here to see things from another perspective; that's been one of the long-running problems of this place. (note: this isn't meant to make me seem superior - it's simply my subjective observation based on years of discussing issues. take this with a grain of salt)

Also why on earth would you claim history is entirely subjective. Isn't it far more accurate to say it's a combination of subjective/objective?

Fair point. I was imprecise with my terminology. History in the sense of "we landed on the moon on July 20, 1969" are objective facts (timezones notwithstanding - sorry rest of the world). What I meant to say is that the tapestry of history, or the process by which historical events are analyzed, are very much subjective. A lot has to do with how much credence you give one piece of evidence or anecdote versus another.

Think about something like your 4th birthday party. If you're like me, you remember that it happened. Maybe you remember some fuzzy details - I think I wore a shirt with a dinosaur on it or something. There are various factual elements I can tell you about what happened. But if I wanted to build a narrative about the historical significance of my birthday and what it meant for my family at the time, I would have to rely on inherently subjective elements (the recollection of my family members, for example).

I hope this clears up what I meant to say originally.

Kimon
02-18-2015, 04:29 PM
the tl:dr version of my brother's opinion is that it's political, it's non-educators mucking about in education doctrine, and blatantly revisionist. His example was 'they want us to talk about the positives of relations with the natives, like religion and education (he had air quotes around those, i could actually hear them thru the phone), not the negative, like smallpox and cultural genocide.

He also thinks it's about indoctrination and keeping the people compliant and controlled, not teaching kids critical thinking and bullshit detection skills.

Yeah, but one would expect that this would quickly draw the ire of any parents whose children were considering applying to any selective out-of-state schools where as a result of this decision, their children would suddenly be at a disadvantage in comparison to kids from states that still had AP classes and Common Core.

Perhaps the larger question however is this - if they are so opposed to Common Core and federalism that they have turned now against AP, will they eventually turn against the ACT and SAT as well?

Davian93
02-18-2015, 08:26 PM
It's incredibly presumptuous to say that there's anything resembling an objective understanding of "actual history". Go to North Korea and visit some of the museums there - they actually teach that North Korea "won" the Korean War.

History is subjective. Pretending that it isn't is as intellectually dishonest as what the Republicans in this article are doing.

You don't have to agree with someone to recognize that their position has (some) merit.

edit:

Here (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-historiography-zinn-122012.html) is an article which talks about some of the problems with Zinn's book I mentioned (people's history of the US). I don't mean to pick on Zinn, nor do I mean to imply that the ONLY problems with the curriculum in an AP U.S. history course revolves around how explorers like Columbus treated natives. I'm simply trying to point out that like it or not, there are people who have valid (at least in their minds) criticisms about the content of the course. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.

Personally, I'm a proponent of teaching as many sides of an issue as reasonable and letting students sort it out for themselves. As I said in my previous post, my eyes were opened after taking the course. The U.S. does have some blemishes in its history which need to be addressed.

To be fair to North Korea, from their perspective they could easily say they did "win" it given that at one point, US troops were either on or nearly at the Yalu River and their country was off the map until the counter-offensive by China. So they exist and thus "won" in the end.

Davian93
02-18-2015, 08:37 PM
Add on to my original point...it is quite true that history always has a bias but to pretend that the US never did anything wrong and that American Exceptionalism is a great thing is just ignorant to the extreme and it leads us down a very dark path of repeating some very bad parts to our history. Hell, its that type of thinking that had us go into Iraq thinking "the war would last 6 months". It's also caused us to do a whole bunch of very bad things to a lot of different people over the past couple centuries.

To ignore that and just go "Ra Ra USA USA USA" is just stupid and it hurts us all.

This is a big part of why the rest of the world hates us.

On a side note, I was giving a training to some new hires at my office and a big part of it had to do with the current situation in the middle east. I mentioned in passing that "As you are probably aware, during the 1980s, we strongly supported both Saddam/Iraq and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan..."

One of the young new employees basically flipped out at me and thought I was crazy because we'd "never support terrorists". I then proceeded to go into detail for 20 min on every single bit of support we gave to such groups and then to propping up right-wing dictators in the name of containing the USSR/Communist bloc. She was also stunned to hear about our support of the Shah in Iran.

Ignorance is scary.

Kimon
02-18-2015, 10:57 PM
On a side note, I was giving a training to some new hires at my office and a big part of it had to do with the current situation in the middle east. I mentioned in passing that "As you are probably aware, during the 1980s, we strongly supported both Saddam/Iraq and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan..."

One of the young new employees basically flipped out at me and thought I was crazy because we'd "never support terrorists". I then proceeded to go into detail for 20 min on every single bit of support we gave to such groups and then to propping up right-wing dictators in the name of containing the USSR/Communist bloc. She was also stunned to hear about our support of the Shah in Iran.

Ignorance is scary.

Hell, if she flipped out over that, what about when she realizes that we just invited a terrorist to address Congress, or that we paid quack psychiatrists millions of dollars to train us in torture techniques to extract useless intel?

suttree
02-18-2015, 11:03 PM
What? No.

I've made this point a few times, but I'll try to clarify it again to make sure we're on the same page. If you take something like Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States (sorry to keep picking on this one example, but it's the easiest to use in my mind), it paints a substantially different view of United States history than the one kids grow up learning throughout middle school. Other academics have criticized his book for being as biased and one-sided as the history textbooks it was written to supplant as "accurate".


But this is a total false equivalence. Why pretend as if Zinn's work is representative of all that's taught in AP? Have a look at a sample test here. (http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-practice-exam.pdf)

There is nothing inherently biased or one sided about the AP history courses and here is zero merit to the Republican National Committee's claim. You seem to be taking a PR soundbite at face value w/o doing a deeper dive. As for the party of "anti-intellectualism" that is exactly what this is and I would be incensed at the disadvantage this would put my child at in preparing for a top university. When one party has people like James Inhofe leading things like the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works such labels would seem to be entirely appropriate.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-19-2015, 01:46 AM
There are two main issues with teaching History - the most pressing one is that *most* people don't really care about the nitty gritty history. They think it's boring - especially the younger population. People want exciting stories about kings and queens and battles and grand victories. Nobody wants to hear or read about the complications of arranging a supply line in impossible conditions. What they want to hear is that whoever won, did so through bravery and justice! And if you're on the losing side, then you want to hear that the winner was evil and cheated somehow.

on a side note: whenever I'm forced to look at how much average people don't care about the complications of a story and want just the highlights, I get so depressed...

The second issue is, given that people want nice stories, which stories should they be told, and who gets to decide that. In a patriarchal society the Eve and Apple story was very popular. In the Cold war period, the West told their kids that commies ate little children; and Soviets told their kids that capitalists ate little children. Point being, whatever the actual historical facts, history is almost always used to indoctrinate the society with a certain ideology. If you tell a story often enough, it becomes true.

Excellent reading material on this:
M. Ferro "The use and abuse of history" (This one actually talks a lot about how history is taught in schools in different countries)
G. G. Kay "Tigana"
G. Orwell "1984"

Daekyras
02-19-2015, 05:31 AM
There are two main issues with teaching History - the most pressing one is that *most* people don't really care about the nitty gritty history. They think it's boring - especially the younger population. People want exciting stories about kings and queens and battles and grand victories. Nobody wants to hear or read about the complications of arranging a supply line in impossible conditions. What they want to hear is that whoever won, did so through bravery and justice! And if you're on the losing side, then you want to hear that the winner was evil and cheated somehow.

on a side note: whenever I'm forced to look at how much average people don't care about the complications of a story and want just the highlights, I get so depressed...



I can never understand why people dont want to know about the bath routines and dress choosing for figures in historical events. All they want is the battles. Phillistines....

yks 6nnetu hing
02-19-2015, 06:13 AM
I can never understand why people dont want to know about the bath routines and dress choosing for figures in historical events. All they want is the battles. Phillistines....

one of my BA mandatory classes was "history of agriculture" - during which I learned, among other things, that an average reindeer grows up to 300 kg heavy and will eat anything. I mean, aside from the 50 different ways to plough a field or the seasons for wheat, oats and fallow; and why you should leave a field fallow every so often; and in which parts of Europe the fallow period was once every 2 years and where it was once every 3 years (which I've now forgotten).

fdsaf3
02-19-2015, 09:22 AM
But this is a total false equivalence. Why pretend as if Zinn's work is representative of all that's taught in AP? Have a look at a sample test here. (http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-practice-exam.pdf)

There is nothing inherently biased or one sided about the AP history courses and here is zero merit to the Republican National Committee's claim. You seem to be taking a PR soundbite at face value w/o doing a deeper dive. As for the party of "anti-intellectualism" that is exactly what this is and I would be incensed at the disadvantage this would put my child at in preparing for a top university. When one party has people like James Inhofe leading things like the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works such labels would seem to be entirely appropriate.

Did you miss the part of my post earlier where I specifically said that the Zinn example is not the entirety of my case but rather a example of the underlying bias conservatives have a problem with? Maybe instead of reading my posts trying to find something to disagree with, you should try reading what I'm saying as objectively as you know how. That way you won't criticize me for saying something I clearly addressed already. Poor form.

My perspective is based on my experience taking the course (albeit 13 years ago). You don't need to link me to a sample test - I took (and passed) the test already. I know what I'm talking about from that perspective. And, if you want my opinion, no AP course I took in high school helped me prepare in any substantive way for college. They are two entirely separate things. It was nice getting college credit for coursework I did in high school, but other than that AP classes didn't offer me any noticeable benefit in terms of preparation.

I'm trying to keep this civil, but I can't help but get frustrated when posts yours and Dav's have such an obvious bias in them. You're cherry picking parts of my posts to respond to, you're putting words in my mouth, and you're even ignoring what I'm saying to make it seem like I'm saying something else.

If you have something constructive to say, I'm all for keeping this conversation going. I happen to think this is an incredibly important issue for a number of reasons. But if you're going to continue along the path you're on, however, I'll politely bow out of this dialogue. Life is too short.

Terez
02-19-2015, 09:31 AM
I can never understand why people dont want to know about the bath routines and dress choosing for figures in historical events. All they want is the battles. Phillistines....
Bath routines and dress can be extremely important if you're studying sexuality. On that note, I spent the night researching some possible inspirations for Chopin's Barcarolle (Venetian gondola song), and I ended up reading about Benjamin Disraeli's penchant for effeminate dress and Turkish baths. He also inherited Lord Byron's gondolier, Tita (a.k.a. Giovanni Battista Falcieri).

yks 6nnetu hing
02-19-2015, 09:45 AM
I'm trying to keep this civil, but I can't help but get frustrated when posts yours and Dav's have such an obvious bias in them. You're cherry picking parts of my posts to respond to, you're putting words in my mouth, and you're even ignoring what I'm saying to make it seem like I'm saying something else. actually that's the perfect example of how history is written and re-written and analyzed and then written again. In most cases, you're lucky if you get an account that has... oh, let's say 10% of the facts actually be facts, the rest is just opinion.

Bath routines and dress can be extremely important if you're studying sexuality. On that note, I spent the night researching some possible inspirations for Chopin's Barcarolle (Venetian gondola song), and I ended up reading about Benjamin Disraeli's penchant for effeminate dress and Turkish baths. He also inherited Lord Byron's gondolier, Tita (a.k.a. Giovanni Battista Falcieri).

ooh, Disraeli! I like Disraeli, together with Gladstone maybe one of the best PM's UK's ever had - well, considering the time period, that is. And, of course the Gladstone-Disraeli opposition was pretty epic, which makes that whole era of political history rather fascinating.

and now I've gone and proven my own point from a few posts back, lol

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 10:29 AM
Of course a huge underlying problem to all education is the widespread notion that once you're done with school you're done with learning when the point is that once done with school you should be able to see to your own learning. It's the old difference between an apprentice and a journeyman.

Of course it's not as if everyone has to pursue learning their whole lives, but this legal stuff is problematic because people who think learning ends with school are trying to set rules for schooling. And that is the old difference between a journeyman and a master. A journeyman can see to his (or her (or would that be a journeywoman?)) own learning while a master can see to someone else's.

Davian93
02-19-2015, 10:54 AM
one of my BA mandatory classes was "history of agriculture" - during which I learned, among other things, that an average reindeer grows up to 300 kg heavy and will eat anything. I mean, aside from the 50 different ways to plough a field or the seasons for wheat, oats and fallow; and why you should leave a field fallow every so often; and in which parts of Europe the fallow period was once every 2 years and where it was once every 3 years (which I've now forgotten).

Am I weird that I think that would be fascinating to learn?

on a side note: whenever I'm forced to look at how much average people don't care about the complications of a story and want just the highlights, I get so depressed...

~nodding~

Yes.

Davian93
02-19-2015, 10:58 AM
Hell, if she flipped out over that, what about when she realizes that we just invited a terrorist to address Congress, or that we paid quack psychiatrists millions of dollars to train us in torture techniques to extract useless intel?

She also didn't know why I said "Alot of this goes back to actions taken by France and the UK in the immediate aftermath of WWI"

"Why would France matter?" Was the immediate response I got there.


I mean, I was just giving a broad overview here too, not going into any real detail.

Terez
02-19-2015, 11:05 AM
ooh, Disraeli! I like Disraeli...
I don't know much about him. I have ordered a biography by a guy named Kuhn which focuses on his sexuality and which was panned by the London Times, but I found a summary article (http://www.glreview.org/article/article-981/) by the author online and it appears as though he deals in facts, so maybe the Times was a bit defensive as is customary with this kind of thing. It appears that Disraeli and Byron had a lot in common, aside from Tita and Turkish baths.

Khoram
02-19-2015, 11:10 AM
Am I weird that I think that would be fascinating to learn?

Yes.

My focus has always been on wars and the military. Recently it shifted over to the Soviet Union and all aspects of life therein during the 20th century. And from there, a combination of military history and Soviet History culminated in my studying the Space Race.

I've always focused on the aspects of history that appealed to the masses - that's how I got hooked on it. Studying the various viewpoints within that mass-appeal history made it more interesting, and helped me develop my abilities. Then I moved on to the study of History, and furthered my abilities from there.

Military history opened up the greater aspects of History to me. I still consider myself first and foremost a student of military history, but that doesn't keep me from reading other histories.

suttree
02-19-2015, 12:53 PM
My perspective is based on my experience taking the course (albeit 13 years ago). You don't need to link me to a sample test - I took (and passed) the test already. I know what I'm talking about from that perspective.


So anecdotal evidence from 13 years ago verse actually researching what the sample test looks like now(despite this new frame work only being developed a couple years back). Clearly we are the ones with poor form. :rolleyes:

Look you seemed to be arguing that the new frame work has an equal underlying bias as the old, just in the opposite direction and that complaints from the right were valid. If that's not what you meant fine, but please just study up on the topic. There is no validity to the National Republican Committee's stance here and a defense of such without even digging into the material is head scratching to say the least.

Frenzy
02-19-2015, 02:22 PM
i don't know about the history taught in today's high schools, but back in the early 90's when i took World History it was western European-centric and it started with the Renaissance and ended in the middle of WWI. US History started around 1700 and ended in the middle of WWII. So everything after 1943 i learned on my own, and i'm a self-professed hater of history so i don't know much.

Because of how the standards are set for public instruction, i know more about the Trojan War than the Koran and Vietnam Wars combined.

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 03:20 PM
i don't know about the history taught in today's high schools, but back in the early 90's when i took World History it was western European-centric and it started with the Renaissance and ended in the middle of WWI. US History started around 1700 and ended in the middle of WWII. So everything after 1943 i learned on my own, and i'm a self-professed hater of history so i don't know much.

Because of how the standards are set for public instruction, i know more about the Trojan War than the Koran and Vietnam Wars combined.

Test! What caused the Trojan war according to mythology?

Kimon
02-19-2015, 03:41 PM
My perspective is based on my experience taking the course (albeit 13 years ago). You don't need to link me to a sample test - I took (and passed) the test already. I know what I'm talking about from that perspective. And, if you want my opinion, no AP course I took in high school helped me prepare in any substantive way for college. They are two entirely separate things. It was nice getting college credit for coursework I did in high school, but other than that AP classes didn't offer me any noticeable benefit in terms of preparation.



The AP courses today are much more strenuous than they were back when I took them in the mid 90s. Back then calling them college equivalent was a complete joke, or certainly at least they were nothing like the college courses I then took one year later at MIchigan. Much of the prep work in class for the AP History exams in their courses (sophomore for World and junior for US) is essay writing. I don't remember doing any essay writing in class in AP World or US History, and I don't really recall even doing much in-class timed essay writing in AP English. Seemed like way back then the courses were just harder levels of the regular, with a lot more discussion, harder tests, smarter kids, and basically just something snazzy to have on our transcripts.

Those classes are much harder now, though admittedly the only AP class that I personally teach is AP Latin. That exam however is very difficult. Much harder than anything say from the fourth semester Latin class I took in college.

Kimon
02-19-2015, 03:44 PM
Test! What caused the Trojan war according to mythology?

Paris "kidnapped" Helen. As for why Frenzy might know about it better than say the Korean (I think she must have meant that, and not the Koran) and Vietnam Wars, well in the Trojan War's defense, it is way more interesting than those other wars. Of course a Latin teacher's opinion here is rather obviously biased...

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 03:51 PM
Paris "kidnapped" Helen.

Incorrect. It happened yes, but there was something before that.

Kimon
02-19-2015, 03:52 PM
Incorrect. It happened yes, but there was something before that.

The Judgment of Paris, though technically that caused the abduction of Helen, which then caused the war...

I suppose you could go even a step further back and say the Golden Apple, or two steps and say the decision not to invite Eris.

Kimon
02-19-2015, 03:57 PM
Here's a harder one though Nazbaque - What was the most immediate cause of the Peloponnesian War?

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 04:01 PM
The Judgment of Paris, though technically that caused the abduction of Helen, which then caused the war...

I suppose you could go even a step further back and say the Golden Apple, or two steps and say the decision not to invite Eris.

Bingo! And the morale of the whole thing is: "Never snub a petty minded god."

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 04:32 PM
Here's a harder one though Nazbaque - What was the most immediate cause of the Peloponnesian War?

I'm hazy on the actual facts or at least what is believed to be facts of the Ancient times. I find the mythology fascinating as that tells you so much more about people. But iirc Peloponnesian war was what you might call the civil war of the ancient Greece, except that the concept of a country hadn't yet matured. The Roman Empire wasn't a country in the same sense as countries are today; it literally meant the power of the city of Rome to which the other cities were like slaves. In much the same sense there was Athens and its vassals against Sparta and its allies. I know it was about 450-400 BC i.e. about four centuries before the campaigns of Julius Ceaser and the rise of Rome and you could say it was in a sense sailors (Athens) against farmers (Sparta), but I don't know the exact details of why they were at odds with eachother.

suttree
02-19-2015, 05:39 PM
Oklahoma already backpedaling on the AP issue... (https://news.vice.com/article/oklahoma-reconsiders-nixing-ap-us-history-for-focusing-on-what-is-bad-about-america)

"This debate, and the resolution itself, has been marred by misinformation," Trevor Packer, the College Board's senior vice president of AP and instruction, said in a statement. "The redesigned AP US History course framework includes many inspiring examples of American exceptionalism," he added, referring to the version of the course that the College Board implemented in 2012. "Because this is a college-level course, students must also examine how Americans have addressed challenging situations like slavery. Neither the AP program, nor the thousands of American colleges and universities that award credit for AP US History exams, will allow the censorship of such topics."

Kimon
02-19-2015, 06:05 PM
Oklahoma already backpedaling on the AP issue... (https://news.vice.com/article/oklahoma-reconsiders-nixing-ap-us-history-for-focusing-on-what-is-bad-about-america)

Suttree, the quote you pulled is confusing. College Board is the AP, so that spokesman that you quoted is the AP's response, not an Oklahoma legislator's. It does however appear that your essential point is correct, but these quotes would have been more helpful in pointing that out...

But a blistering outcry from teachers, students, and the general public over this attempt to remodel state education — including the creation of a petition on Change.org titled "Don't Ban AP Courses" — has forced lawmakers to backtrack on the wording of the bill, which Fisher said would be changed before it goes before the full House.

"We're trying to fix the bill," Fisher told The Oklahoman on Wednesday. "It was very poorly worded and was incredibly ambiguous, and we didn't realize that, so it's been misinterpreted. We're going to clear it up so folks will know exactly what we're trying to accomplish, and it's not to hurt AP. We're very supportive of the AP program."

Fisher did not elaborate on the changes that would be made, and did not respond to VICE News' requests for comment on Thursday.

Kimon
02-19-2015, 06:08 PM
I'm hazy on the actual facts or at least what is believed to be facts of the Ancient times. I find the mythology fascinating as that tells you so much more about people. But iirc Peloponnesian war was what you might call the civil war of the ancient Greece, except that the concept of a country hadn't yet matured. The Roman Empire wasn't a country in the same sense as countries are today; it literally meant the power of the city of Rome to which the other cities were like slaves. In much the same sense there was Athens and its vassals against Sparta and its allies. I know it was about 450-400 BC i.e. about four centuries before the campaigns of Julius Ceaser and the rise of Rome and you could say it was in a sense sailors (Athens) against farmers (Sparta), but I don't know the exact details of why they were at odds with eachother.

Try again...

suttree
02-19-2015, 06:27 PM
Suttree, the quote you pulled is confusing. College Board is the AP, so that spokesman that you quoted is the AP's response, not an Oklahoma legislator's. It does however appear that your essential point is correct, but these quotes would have been more helpful in pointing that out...

Yeah my bad, was linking to the article which touches on the backpedal and the College Board quote was just to clear up any misconceptions about the AP content. It was confusing the way I presented it.

Oh and that Senator who introduced the bill sounds like a right piece of work.


Baptist minister and Republican State Rep. Dan Fisher has remarked that the course gives short shrift to "American exceptionalism" and instead focuses on "what is bad about America." He is heavily involved in the Black Robe Regiment, a group that works to resist what it perceives as a "growing tide of special interest groups indoctrinating our youth at the exclusion of the Christian perspective."

Frenzy
02-19-2015, 06:42 PM
Oh and that Senator who introduced the bill sounds like a right piece of work.

Fisher said, "...We're going to clear it up so folks will know exactly what we're trying to accomplish, and it's not to hurt AP. We're very supportive of the AP program"

His bill was all about de-funding AP History. i'd love to hear him explain away this apparent inconsistency.

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 08:44 PM
Try again...

Oh you can give better than that.

Kimon
02-19-2015, 09:10 PM
Oh you can give better than that.

Give? I wasn't trying to insult you, only pointing out that your initial answer was wrong.

If it's a hint you want, Thucydides and Aristophanes, the two sources, disagree. The former pointing to Spartan and Corinthian complaints, the latter pointing to a Megarian issue.

As for your other posits - Rome played no role in this struggle, though the Persian Empire did; it wasn't a civil war (Sparta and Athens both spoke Greek, albeit different dialects, but a war between them was no more a civil war than a war between America and Canada, two English speaking nations, would be); you're near on the date, but off by twenty years for the beginning - it lasted 30 years, not fifty; it's Caesar, not Ceasar; it wasn't really Athens + allies vs Sparta + allies, it was Athens (plus the tiny city of Plataea, and a few ships contributed by Corcyra) vs the Peloponnesian League (basically Sparta + Corinth, and very briefly, due to a colossally stupid decision, Syracuse), and with the Persian King financing both sides, since this fighting between the Greeks obviously was massively beneficial to Persia; Athens was a naval power and Sparta a land power, but by the end Sparta was a naval power as well - that's how they were able to finally win, well that and the disaster of decision after Arginusae. But the Spartans weren't really farmers, they were landowners, but they didn't work the land, that was what the Helots were for.

If you want a clearer answer on the original question:

-Most Immediate Cause = Megarian Decree
-Other Immediate Causes = Corinthian issues (Corcyra and Potidaea)
-Background Spadework = Spartan anxiety at rising power of Athens

Nazbaque
02-19-2015, 09:38 PM
Give? I wasn't trying to insult you, only pointing out that your initial answer was wrong.

If it's a hint you want, Thucydides and Aristophanes, the two sources, disagree. The former pointing to Spartan and Corinthian complaints, the latter pointing to a Megarian issue.

As for your other posits - Rome played no role in this struggle, though the Persian Empire did; it wasn't a civil war (Sparta and Athens both spoke Greek, albeit different dialects, but a war between them was no more a civil war than a war between America and Canada, two English speaking nations, would be); you're near on the date, but off by twenty years for the beginning - it lasted 30 years, not fifty; it's Caesar, not Ceasar; it wasn't really Athens + allies vs Sparta + allies, it was Athens (plus the tiny city of Plataea, and a few ships contributed by Corcyra) vs the Peloponnesian League (basically Sparta + Corinth, and very briefly, due to a colossally stupid decision, Syracuse), and with the Persian King financing both sides, since this fighting between the Greeks obviously was massively beneficial to Persia; Athens was a naval power and Sparta a land power, but by the end Sparta was a naval power as well - that's how they were able to finally win, well that and the disaster of decision after Arginusae. But the Spartans weren't really farmers, they were landowners, but they didn't work the land, that was what the Helots were for.

If you want a clearer answer on the original question:

-Most Immediate Cause = Megarian Decree
-Other Immediate Causes = Corinthian issues (Corcyra and Potidaea)
-Background Spadework = Spartan anxiety at rising power of Athens

I wasn't taking it as an insult just wanted a bit more detail on what was wrong and what was right.

I was only using Rome as an example on how the world was different. And I know how Caesar is spelled that was a typo. And I misspelled it as "Ceaser" not "Ceasar" :p

Kimon
02-19-2015, 09:55 PM
I wasn't taking it as an insult just wanted a bit more detail on what was wrong and what was right.

I was only using Rome as an example on how the world was different. And I know how Caesar is spelled that was a typo. And I misspelled it as "Ceaser" not "Ceasar" :p

I've circled both of those variants many a time while grading papers and tests. For some reason kids also often misspell soldier. I've circled "solider" a depressing number of times. That and the i before e except after c rule clearly isn't getting ingrained well enough anymore in grammar schools...

Davian93
02-20-2015, 06:51 AM
ve circled both of those variants many a time while grading papers and tests. For some reason kids also often misspell soldier. I've circled "solider" a depressing number of times. That and the i before e except after c rule clearly isn't getting ingrained well enough anymore in grammar schools...

They should start using corporal punishment again.

Hell, half of the "college graduates" we hire at my office can't even craft a coherent email message despite supposedly having a 4 year degree. They also can't spell at all even with spellcheck. I mean, for spellcheck to work, you have to get it fairly close. They type emails out like they're sending a text message to a friend.

It's embarrassing to see. I weep for the future.

Khoram
02-20-2015, 08:01 AM
They should start using corporal punishment again.

Hell, half of the "college graduates" we hire at my office can't even craft a coherent email message despite supposedly having a 4 year degree. They also can't spell at all even with spellcheck. I mean, for spellcheck to work, you have to get it fairly close. They type emails out like they're sending a text message to a friend.

It's embarrassing to see. I weep for the future.

Well, if the military doesn't work out, wanna hire me? I can guarantee that I can spell much better than your current new hirees, and I know more about the past, too. :p

fdsaf3
02-20-2015, 08:14 AM
So anecdotal evidence from 13 years ago verse actually researching what the sample test looks like now(despite this new frame work only being developed a couple years back). Clearly we are the ones with poor form. :rolleyes:

Look you seemed to be arguing that the new frame work has an equal underlying bias as the old, just in the opposite direction and that complaints from the right were valid. If that's not what you meant fine, but please just study up on the topic. There is no validity to the National Republican Committee's stance here and a defense of such without even digging into the material is head scratching to say the least.

You did the exact same thing I criticized you for in my last post in your response to me. Either you're functionally incapable of comprehending what I'm saying, or you're one of those "have to be right by cherry picking someone's posts online" kind of people. Either way, thanks for letting me know that I don't have to take anything you have to say seriously in the future.

Nazbaque
02-20-2015, 09:04 AM
I've circled both of those variants many a time while grading papers and tests. For some reason kids also often misspell soldier. I've circled "solider" a depressing number of times. That and the i before e except after c rule clearly isn't getting ingrained well enough anymore in grammar schools...

I still claim there is no grammar mistake worse than a then/than mistake. That one scratches the blackboard of my soul with steel claws.

Terez
02-20-2015, 09:25 AM
I just found a self-published monograph about Tita the Gondolier, written by one of his descendants. It appeared some time since the last time I searched for info about him. Turns out he was gondolier to Monk Lewis as well as Byron and Disraeli. Anyway, the book is not badly written, but it's full of terrible errors, including possessive pronouns with apostrophes, "Me and my (whatever)" as sentence subject, and plural family names with apostrophes (e.g. "the Shelley's" in reference to Percy and Mary). It's driving me nuts.

suttree
02-20-2015, 10:29 AM
You did the exact same thing I criticized you for in my last post in your response to me. Either you're functionally incapable of comprehending what I'm saying, or you're one of those "have to be right by cherry picking someone's posts online" kind of people. Either way, thanks for letting me know that I don't have to take anything you have to say seriously in the future.

Whoa Captain Peevish, nice dodge. If you want to clarify your point feel free to to do so at anytime. Otherwise come back when you want to stop backpedaling(or when you've bothered to read the material).

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2015, 11:35 AM
I still claim there is no grammar mistake worse than a then/than mistake. That one scratches the blackboard of my soul with steel claws.
You may be right their, but its not really certain I think. After all, using then when than is called for could be a spelling error rather then a grammatical one. :p

fdsaf3
02-20-2015, 12:45 PM
Whoa Captain Peevish, nice dodge. If you want to clarify your point feel free to to do so at anytime. Otherwise come back when you want to stop backpedaling(or when you've bothered to read the material).

Couple of clarifying points before I wrap up my involvement in this with you:

1. My point has been clear, and is not subject to your inability to thoroughly read what I've been saying. If you don't (or can't?) understand what I'm saying at this point, I'm ok with that. I feel I have sufficiently explained my thoughts and don't really want to try again.

2. You have selectively responded to what I've said at least twice in an effort to somehow "win" - once after I specifically called you out for doing so. This happening once is forgivable, but twice is too much. Maybe our definitions differ, but as far as I'm concerned it's not peevish to dismiss someone who blatantly disregards what I've said and pretends I've said something totally different.


Glad we got this out of the way, though.

suttree
02-20-2015, 01:02 PM
So that's a no on researching the material, a double down on the shrill responses and more dodging in laying out your actual point. Well done.

You flat out stated the Republican position "has some merit" and that there is a "underlying bias conservatives have a problem with." Again how one can reach that conclusion without even knowing the material is frankly baffling.

My perspective is based on my experience taking the course (albeit 13 years ago). You don't need to link me to a sample test - I took (and passed) the test already. I know what I'm talking about from that perspective. And, if you want my opinion, no AP course I took in high school helped me prepare in any substantive way for college. They are two entirely separate things. It was nice getting college credit for coursework I did in high school, but other than that AP classes didn't offer me any noticeable benefit in terms of preparation.

Using an anecdotal fallacy such as the above based on material that has zero bearing to the current discussion doesn't help your cause much. Once again...poor form.

As for what you have or have not "called me out" on I have no idea why you think anyone would give that any credence.

Kimon
02-20-2015, 03:33 PM
I still claim there is no grammar mistake worse than a then/than mistake. That one scratches the blackboard of my soul with steel claws.

Then/Than, effect/affect, they're/their/there, its/it's are all pretty glaring, but the one that bothers me the most is could of...

Khoram
02-20-2015, 04:27 PM
Then/Than, effect/affect, they're/their/there, its/it's are all pretty glaring, but the one that bothers me the most is could of...

... or "should" of. *shudder*

Any form of obvious misspelling hurts me to no end. Or using the wrong word entirely. I can allow certain things - I make mistakes, too. Especially when I'm using my phone, and typing quickly. I still try, however, to read over what it is that I've written just to make sure there are at the very least no spelling mistakes.


Just looking at some of my past posts here irks me.

Nazbaque
02-20-2015, 05:17 PM
You may be right their, but its not really certain I think. After all, using then when than is called for could be a spelling error rather then a grammatical one. :p

Gonzo, all spelling errors are grammar errors. They are an error sub-category. And you should have used "there" not "their" and "it's" not "its".

Then/Than, effect/affect, they're/their/there, its/it's are all pretty glaring, but the one that bothers me the most is could of...

Effect/affect I can live with as neither word is all that common, but the comparative particle than is bound to turn up quite a few times in any given text. And I should perhaps clarify that it's the repetitive mistake that ticks me off; as in the author actually thinks that it should be "then" instead of "than". Read a 5k word chapter of fanfiction where it turns up in every paragraph and you'll know what I mean.

Kimon
02-20-2015, 06:26 PM
Effect/affect I can live with as neither word is all that common, but the comparative particle than is bound to turn up quite a few times in any given text. And I should perhaps clarify that it's the repetitive mistake that ticks me off; as in the author actually thinks that it should be "then" instead of "than". Read a 5k word chapter of fanfiction where it turns up in every paragraph and you'll know what I mean.

You might be surprised by the frequency of repetition both in the effect/affect mistake, mostly due to the fact that few Americans seem to realize that the former is a noun and the latter a verb (well at least most of the time - hence part of the problem). The mistaken substitution of "of" for "have" however also appears far too frequently. It's a phonetic mistake caused by the contraction, since Could've sounds like could of. It really annoys me far more than any of the others.

Terez
02-21-2015, 01:39 AM
You might be surprised by the frequency of repetition both in the effect/affect mistake, mostly due to the fact that few Americans seem to realize that the former is a noun and the latter a verb (well at least most of the time - hence part of the problem).
I use "effect" as a verb sometimes, but people who can't tell the difference between affect and effect probably never use the latter as a verb, or the former as a noun. I only use "affect" as a noun when discussing classical music.

GonzoTheGreat
02-21-2015, 03:07 AM
And you should have used "there" not "their" and "it's" not "its".
No, I shouldn't. That would of entirely defeated the purpose of my post.

Nazbaque
02-21-2015, 05:51 AM
No, I shouldn't. That would of entirely defeated the purpose of my post.

Your post had a purpose? Who are you? And what have you done with the real Gonzo?

Kimon
02-21-2015, 09:34 AM
I use "effect" as a verb sometimes, but people who can't tell the difference between affect and effect probably never use the latter as a verb, or the former as a noun. I only use "affect" as a noun when discussing classical music.

How would you use affect that way in classical music? The only noun usage of affect that I'm aware of is in reference to emotion, similar to affection and affectation. Is that how you're using it with classical music? In general I tend to find that most people who make the mistake just always use effect, even when they should have used affect.

GonzoTheGreat
02-21-2015, 10:22 AM
How would you use affect that way in classical music?
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect?s=t) gives the following example (amongst others):
Psychiatry. an expressed or observed emotional response:
"Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia."

Kimon
02-21-2015, 10:32 AM
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect?s=t) gives the following example (amongst others):
Psychiatry. an expressed or observed emotional response:
"Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia."

That's the one that I mentioned, emotion. Was wondering if there was another, though it looks like that is the only accepted use. Effect by contrast is much more likely to be used as either a noun or a verb, which is why, at least here, it often seems to be devouring uses of affect entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if affect becomes an entirely archaic, if not obsolete, word within a hundred years.

Terez
02-21-2015, 10:33 AM
How would you use affect that way in classical music? The only noun usage of affect that I'm aware of is in reference to emotion, similar to affection and affectation. Is that how you're using it with classical music?
It's a common enough usage in musicology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_affections

Kimon
02-21-2015, 10:38 AM
It's a common enough usage in musicology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_affections

Quick glance makes clear that this use is the same sort of technical reference to emotions. The technical use in psychiatric circles likely is the one that people tend to think of since most would have more familiarity there than in technical language for music, but seems to be the same essential concept, just applied to two different fields.

Daekyras
02-22-2015, 09:11 AM
My phone leads to all manner of spelling mistakes.

most of the time I don't bother fixing it.

I dont like it though.

Lupusdeusest
02-22-2015, 09:18 PM
This almost had relevance two pages ago, but I remember at my private secondary school we learned more about the everyday life of the Sioux than we did about our own indigenous cultures. Seriously, guys.

This massacre of memory is worse than the massacres of flesh and dignity.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-23-2015, 02:41 AM
They should start using corporal punishment again.

Hell, half of the "college graduates" we hire at my office can't even craft a coherent email message despite supposedly having a 4 year degree. They also can't spell at all even with spellcheck. I mean, for spellcheck to work, you have to get it fairly close. They type emails out like they're sending a text message to a friend.

It's embarrassing to see. I weep for the future.

I've been seeing a few bizarre ones lately: wrung instead of rung (past tense for ring), peaked instead of peeked... just weird stuff.

This almost had relevance two pages ago, but I remember at my private secondary school we learned more about the everyday life of the Sioux than we did about our own indigenous cultures. Seriously, guys.

This massacre of memory is worse than the massacres of flesh and dignity.

agreed.

Lupusdeusest
02-23-2015, 04:40 AM
I've been seeing a few bizarre ones lately: wrung instead of rung (past tense for ring), peaked instead of peeked... just weird stuff.

Wrapped/raped/rapped can make for some extremely black laughs on Twitter especially. (And naturally leads to many awkward Christmas tweets...)

Daekyras
02-23-2015, 05:05 AM
Wrapped/raped/rapped can make for some extremely black laughs on Twitter especially. (And naturally leads to many awkward Christmas tweets...)

Oh god, I love Christmas I just hate all the raping...

Urgh!

Kimon
02-23-2015, 06:46 AM
I've been seeing a few bizarre ones lately: wrung instead of rung (past tense for ring), peaked instead of peeked... just weird stuff.



How were they using them? Wrung is the past tense of wring, as in wring out clothes. I'd be surprised if they confused peaked for peeked, but less so if for piqued...

yks 6nnetu hing
02-23-2015, 06:52 AM
How were they using them? Wrung is the past tense of wring, as in wring out clothes. I'd be surprised if they confused peaked for peeked, but less so if for piqued...

I'm aware of that ;) someone wrung a bell.

more plausibly, someone was hiding in bushes or something and peaked out to check if the coast was clear.

I felt like asking for my money back... were it not a free website for aspiring writers to publish and get feedback on their stories. It's most jarring if something like that appears in an otherwise quite ok prose... I mean, no Shakespeare but no EL James either. That's when these things stick out like a soar thumb. Well, that, and the fact that if the prose is really bad, then I don't bother reading past a chapter or so. And therefore am (thankfully) not privy to further improvisations on the English language.

Daekyras
02-23-2015, 07:22 AM
I mean, no Shakespeare but no EL James either. .

Both good authors....Im sorry, I couldn't actually leave that. Her books are laughably bad.

Nazbaque
02-23-2015, 09:41 AM
This massacre of memory is worse than the massacres of flesh and dignity.

Dignity is just an illusion, but if it means that no one is beaten, raped or killed ever again then by all means let's forget all of history. I can't see how it could mean that, but saying that a massacre of memory is worse than a massacre of flesh is only a step away from holy war mentality and I can't let that one pass.

GonzoTheGreat
02-23-2015, 11:01 AM
Why don't you want anyone to ever get wrapped again?
I mean, if they're into that, let them.

Nazbaque
02-23-2015, 11:27 AM
Why don't you want anyone to ever get wrapped again?
I mean, if they're into that, let them.

It's unpatriotic and we can't have that.

Kimon
02-23-2015, 05:08 PM
This is slightly off-topic, but probably closer to on-topic than the last few pages of spelling and syntax analysis...

Anyway, if there was ever any doubt as to why Republicans love Netanyahu so much...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

There are some other interesting nuggets in there. Apparently the South Koreans tried to whack the leader of Greenpeace.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-24-2015, 01:17 AM
There are some other interesting nuggets in there. Apparently the South Koreans tried to whack the leader of Greenpeace.

well. given the chance I would too. Perhaps not "whack" but somehow make sure that that thuggish and wasteful organization would somehow become truly environmentally conscious. in a responsible way.

Lupusdeusest
02-24-2015, 02:38 AM
Dignity is just an illusion, but if it means that no one is beaten, raped or killed ever again then by all means let's forget all of history. I can't see how it could mean that, but saying that a massacre of memory is worse than a massacre of flesh is only a step away from holy war mentality and I can't let that one pass.

A loss of memory leads to a potential loss of learning/progress from that memory. Better a (also perceived) loss of perceived dignity on the part of the perpetrator so we can all advance.

A reasonable example: google "Cumberbatch coloured". Some intelligent discussions there.

Nazbaque
02-24-2015, 02:45 AM
A loss of memory leads to a potential loss of learning/progress from that memory. Better a (also perceived) loss of perceived dignity on the part of the perpetrator so we can all advance.

A reasonable example: google "Cumberbatch coloured". Some intelligent discussions there.

I was objecting to the flesh part. Dignity is just what people pretend to have when they have already sold their honor.

Res_Ipsa
02-24-2015, 09:05 PM
Man, life gets busy right before these fun threads pop up.

The US secondary education system needs one big change; students should have the ability to do trade school in lieu of continuing on with the traditional academic route. The basic gist is that everyone goes to grade 10 with a set of core classes: math, grammar, science, and civics/history. Then, during years 11 and 12, students can pursue advanced cores or focus on trades, which would also include art and music. Any thoughts?

I know that this is not what this thread is about, but I think it is an important issue in the U.S. that does not seem to get enough attention.

Kimon
02-24-2015, 09:49 PM
Man, life gets busy right before these fun threads pop up.

The US secondary education system needs one big change; students should have the ability to do trade school in lieu of continuing on with the traditional academic route. The basic gist is that everyone goes to grade 10 with a set of core classes: math, grammar, science, and civics/history. Then, during years 11 and 12, students can pursue advanced cores or focus on trades, which would also include art and music. Any thoughts?

I know that this is not what this thread is about, but I think it is an important issue in the U.S. that does not seem to get enough attention.

Hauptschule?

There's a lot to like about the German model, but unless we actually directed traffic, it would be unlikely that the trade schools would maintain enough numbers to remain viable economically. And if we did direct traffic, could you imagine the reaction from parents if their little angel wasn't placed in the Gymnasium, or if they didn't pass their Abitur?

Res_Ipsa
02-24-2015, 10:18 PM
Hauptschule?

There's a lot to like about the German model, but unless we actually directed traffic, it would be unlikely that the trade schools would maintain enough numbers to remain viable economically. And if we did direct traffic, could you imagine the reaction from parents if their little angel wasn't placed in the Gymnasium, or if they didn't pass their Abitur?

Well, I would think that the funding would be part of the public school system. I guess I would say that academic as well as trade would both get full consideration as part of the new system. So I do not believe it should be like the German system you mentioned with one being considered a "lower" branch. Both would be equal.

Kimon
02-24-2015, 10:36 PM
Well, I would think that the funding would be part of the public school system. I guess I would say that academic as well as trade would both get full consideration as part of the new system. So I do not believe it should be like the German system you mentioned with one being considered a "lower" branch. Both would be equal.

But it would need numbers to remain viable. In Germany testing leads to placement. If it was choice, would students (and parents) choose to attend the lower, less prestigious, trade school. The Hauptschule at least has the benefit of completing its sequence at grade 9. It, and the Realschule (the middle tier - equivalent essentially to our high schools), were both criticized often for reinforcing class stratification, as the Gymnasium obviously tends to draw its ranks more often from the upper class than the lower, and with University enrollment requiring an Abitur, unless one has gone through the Gymnasium, advancing in society is nigh impossible. Of course that isn't really any different than here. Poor areas here have crappy public schools, and richer communities understandably have nicer schools. Not to mention that the middle and upper class have more disposable income to afford college, or at least an expectation in their family that taking out college loans is important enough to pay for college. The trade off in Germany is free college, but only if you attended Gymnasium and passed your Abitur.

Davian93
02-25-2015, 01:41 PM
Man, life gets busy right before these fun threads pop up.

The US secondary education system needs one big change; students should have the ability to do trade school in lieu of continuing on with the traditional academic route. The basic gist is that everyone goes to grade 10 with a set of core classes: math, grammar, science, and civics/history. Then, during years 11 and 12, students can pursue advanced cores or focus on trades, which would also include art and music. Any thoughts?

I know that this is not what this thread is about, but I think it is an important issue in the U.S. that does not seem to get enough attention.

I would support this type of idea 100%...I recall my HS doing something similar with the Tech HS annex where many of my friends when into tech/blue-collar type areas of focus starting in 9th grade and becoming a larger and larger portion of their core studies as HS went on. NOt to the extent you are proposing but still a good option for people that shouldn't be going to college.

Sarevok
02-26-2015, 05:02 AM
unless one has gone through the Gymnasium, advancing in society is nigh impossible.

Considering the Dutch and German models don't differ very much, I'd like to point out that this is just plain false.
Each of the different tier of high schools have their corresponding tiers of tertiary schools. True, you probably won't become a doctor, but going to a school after hauptschule to become a carpenter or nurse is totally possible (and even expected).

Daekyras
02-26-2015, 09:37 AM
well. given the chance I would too. Perhaps not "whack" but somehow make sure that that thuggish and wasteful organization would somehow become truly environmentally conscious. in a responsible way.

We had some greenpeace protestors block the halls of our Lab once as they thought we were developing weapons. In our college Lab. In the centre of Dublin. The undergrad lab.

When the situation was politely and clearly explained to them they refused to leave until "the media arrives". They didn't arrive so the protestors just kinda drifted off one by one until just the leader was left. He still wanted to make a scene so we obliged by letting the security guard "escort" him out. He actually looked grateful!!! One of the funniest things I have had happen at work.

Nazbaque
02-26-2015, 10:43 AM
We had some greenpeace protestors block the halls of our Lab once as they thought we were developing weapons. In our college Lab. In the centre of Dublin. The undergrad lab.

When the situation was politely and clearly explained to them they refused to leave until "the media arrives". They didn't arrive so the protestors just kinda drifted off one by one until just the leader was left. He still wanted to make a scene so we obliged by letting the security guard "escort" him out. He actually looked grateful!!! One of the funniest things I have had happen at work.

This is a very proud moment for me as a past life parent

Davian93
02-26-2015, 12:04 PM
We had some greenpeace protestors block the halls of our Lab once as they thought we were developing weapons. In our college Lab. In the centre of Dublin. The undergrad lab.

When the situation was politely and clearly explained to them they refused to leave until "the media arrives". They didn't arrive so the protestors just kinda drifted off one by one until just the leader was left. He still wanted to make a scene so we obliged by letting the security guard "escort" him out. He actually looked grateful!!! One of the funniest things I have had happen at work.

Notice how he never denied that they were indeed developing weapons?

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, DAEK!!!!

Daekyras
02-26-2015, 12:59 PM
Notice how he never denied that they were indeed developing weapons?

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, DAEK!!!!

Erm....I mean that is to say....LOOK! Over there! Is that a baby seal with its head stuck in a six pack holder??!!!

* runs to pull out the motherboards of our servers (because that always seems to destroy data in movies despite the fact it makes no sense).

Kimon
02-26-2015, 03:30 PM
Considering the Dutch and German models don't differ very much, I'd like to point out that this is just plain false.
Each of the different tier of high schools have their corresponding tiers of tertiary schools. True, you probably won't become a doctor, but going to a school after hauptschule to become a carpenter or nurse is totally possible (and even expected).

Are these due to recent reforms, or the ways things were say two decades ago?

I was under the impression, or so at least the system was explained back in my high school German class back in the mid-90s that you needed an Abitur to attend university, which only the Gymnasium could award, while the abschluss awarded by Hauptschule and Realschule could only be used for entry into apprenticeships and further vocational training, and while one could seek transfer into a Gymnasium after completing the Realschule path, that doing so after Hauptschule was nigh impossible. As for your nursing comment, how would nursing not be considered a professional field requiring university training? I would have assumed that nursing, like all other obvious professional careers would have required a university degree. Is that considered a possible trade school path in The Netherlands and Germany? Do the Hauptschule, or equivalent, still exist in The Netherlands? As far as I'm aware, they were more or less phased out in some Germany cities, like Berlin, just in the past few years, but are still quite prevalent in Bayern.

Am I just wrong about how things are, or how they are and were?

Davian93
02-26-2015, 06:33 PM
Erm....I mean that is to say....LOOK! Over there! Is that a baby seal with its head stuck in a six pack holder??!!!

* runs to pull out the motherboards of our servers (because that always seems to destroy data in movies despite the fact it makes no sense).

Funny, when I was in the army, our destruction drill for classified hard drives included sledgehammers and thermite grenades...those work a bit better IMHO.

Khoram
02-26-2015, 09:11 PM
Funny, when I was in the army, our destruction drill for classified hard drives included sledgehammers and thermite grenades...those work a bit better IMHO.

Sledgehammers seem to be a little overkill, no? :rolleyes:

Daekyras
02-26-2015, 09:25 PM
Sledgehammers seem to be a little overkill, no? :rolleyes:

You need to break them up for the grenades to be effective....;)

Khoram
02-26-2015, 10:49 PM
You need to break them up for the grenades to be effective....;)

But thermite can burn through pretty much anything. :p

Nazbaque
02-26-2015, 11:44 PM
In my experience when burning a computer you can't get a decent marshmallow unless the hard drive is full of lolcats.

tworiverswoman
02-27-2015, 02:54 AM
y'know - the way discussions here veer is quite ... entertaining. Yes, entertaining - let's go with that one.

Daekyras
02-27-2015, 03:07 AM
But thermite can burn through pretty much anything. :p

I know.

GonzoTheGreat
02-27-2015, 03:14 AM
But thermite can burn through pretty much anything. :p
Termites can eat through pretty much anything, they are eco friendly, cheaper than the same weight of thermite, come in all sorts of amazing shapes and colors, and, if really needed, you can even eat them.

Daekyras
02-27-2015, 04:37 AM
Termites can eat through pretty much anything, they are eco friendly, cheaper than the same weight of thermite, come in all sorts of amazing shapes and colors, and, if really needed, you can even eat them.

Termites are killing this planet. KILLLLLLIIIIINNNNGGGG IT!

http://iceagenow.info/2014/12/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/

GonzoTheGreat
02-27-2015, 05:15 AM
Termites produce far less Global Warming than an equivalent weight of thermite would do.

Daekyras
02-27-2015, 05:25 AM
Termites produce far less Global Warming than an equivalent weight of thermite would do.

Oh gonzo,

Why do you deny the problem? Do you work for "Big Termite"?

Davian93
02-27-2015, 08:32 AM
But thermite can burn through pretty much anything. :p

Bashing it up with the hammers makes sure that it likely won't contain recoverable data even if the thermite grenades don't burn it completely.

Khoram
02-27-2015, 09:33 AM
Bashing it up with the hammers makes sure that it likely won't contain recoverable data even if the thermite grenades don't burn it completely.

So a contingency plan. Gotcha.

GonzoTheGreat
02-27-2015, 09:50 AM
Funny, when I was in the army, our destruction drill for classified hard drives included sledgehammers and thermite grenades...those work a bit better IMHO.
What was suggested as the best way of retreating (running away in military parlour) in case the hard disks resisted destruction?
With termites, "nuke them from orbit" seems the best option, though not all military manuals agree on that.

Davian93
02-27-2015, 12:09 PM
So a contingency plan. Gotcha.

Yeah, for destruction of classified hardware. We didn't mess around. When we were deployed overseas, we had a weapons safe full of thermite grenades within 30 sec distance from the equipment just in case the fenceline was breached and/or we had to destroy everything.

Lupusdeusest
02-28-2015, 04:32 PM
Man, life gets busy right before these fun threads pop up.

The US secondary education system needs one big change; students should have the ability to do trade school in lieu of continuing on with the traditional academic route. The basic gist is that everyone goes to grade 10 with a set of core classes: math, grammar, science, and civics/history. Then, during years 11 and 12, students can pursue advanced cores or focus on trades, which would also include art and music. Any thoughts?

I know that this is not what this thread is about, but I think it is an important issue in the U.S. that does not seem to get enough attention.

In state schools here, you can often do a trade or cadetship post year 10 with the school's support. I have a mate who started his aerospace mechanic apprenticeship while at our school. Still came back for some classes but as part of the Vocational Education crowd he did not have to take the statewide QCS ranking tests at the end of the year.

Morelikeunwisewoman
02-28-2015, 07:27 PM
Funny, when I was in the army, our destruction drill for classified hard drives included sledgehammers and thermite grenades...those work a bit better IMHO.

How long were you in the army davian93? My brother was in for two "tours". He is still affected by it. :(

yks 6nnetu hing
03-02-2015, 02:40 AM
In state schools here, you can often do a trade or cadetship post year 10 with the school's support. I have a mate who started his aerospace mechanic apprenticeship while at our school. Still came back for some classes but as part of the Vocational Education crowd he did not have to take the statewide QCS ranking tests at the end of the year.

Two simultaneous but conflicting thoughts:
1) Aerospace mechanic is so much better job than aspiring snowflake. For the person him/herself as well as the society!
2) it is a bit scary that a job of such potentially crucial importance requires so little education.

On the other hand, most of the health & safety inspectors running around on building sites and telling people what to do also have the absolute minimum education. Which is even scarier.

Lupusdeusest
03-02-2015, 04:32 AM
Two simultaneous but conflicting thoughts:
1) Aerospace mechanic is so much better job than aspiring snowflake. For the person him/herself as well as the society!
2) it is a bit scary that a job of such potentially crucial importance requires so little education.

On the other hand, most of the health & safety inspectors running around on building sites and telling people what to do also have the absolute minimum education. Which is even scarier.


It was quite a long apprenticeship, but to be honest I'd rather it be an apprenticeship than a university degree.

Res_Ipsa
03-04-2015, 08:09 PM
I would support this type of idea 100%...I recall my HS doing something similar with the Tech HS annex where many of my friends when into tech/blue-collar type areas of focus starting in 9th grade and becoming a larger and larger portion of their core studies as HS went on. NOt to the extent you are proposing but still a good option for people that shouldn't be going to college.

I also think that another important issue is the fly by night colleges that pop up and offer easy financing and degrees that do not hold weight. I know a few state Attorneys Generals are going after them, but that is usually the fly-by-nights paying fines and does not seem to deter the industry much.

Davian93
03-04-2015, 08:32 PM
I also think that another important issue is the fly by night colleges that pop up and offer easy financing and degrees that do not hold weight. I know a few state Attorneys Generals are going after them, but that is usually the fly-by-nights paying fines and does not seem to deter the industry much.

I always feel awful at work when I have to tell an applicant that their degree is BS and unaccredited.

Half the time, they are utterly unaware that they've been had. The same thing happens with people that get screwed by third party credit repair companies that exist to basically fuck people over.

The problem with both is that as soon as they are threatened, they just disband and pop up under a new name a few months later.

Daekyras
03-05-2015, 09:14 AM
I always feel awful at work when I have to tell an applicant that their degree is BS and unaccredited.

Half the time, they are utterly unaware that they've been had. The same thing happens with people that get screwed by third party credit repair companies that exist to basically fuck people over.

The problem with both is that as soon as they are threatened, they just disband and pop up under a new name a few months later.

If they are unaware than they probably wouldn't get the job anyway....

Res_Ipsa
03-05-2015, 08:54 PM
I always feel awful at work when I have to tell an applicant that their degree is BS and unaccredited.

Half the time, they are utterly unaware that they've been had. The same thing happens with people that get screwed by third party credit repair companies that exist to basically fuck people over.

The problem with both is that as soon as they are threatened, they just disband and pop up under a new name a few months later.

Yeah, a bad situation all around. States do have the power to ban these institutions, of course they would have to get past the negative commerce clause challenges. Of course, states do not ban these institutions because of the money involved. I think, without derailing the thread too far, that you and I will always disagree about government revenues. I believe that so long as governments have too much of the peoples' money, special interests and corporations will continue to hold sway. You have to destroy their influence by destroying how much money the federal and state governments have.

Kimon
03-05-2015, 09:08 PM
Yeah, a bad situation all around. States do have the power to ban these institutions, of course they would have to get past the negative commerce clause challenges. Of course, states do not ban these institutions because of the money involved. I think, without derailing the thread too far, that you and I will always disagree about government revenues. I believe that so long as governments have too much of the peoples' money, special interests and corporations will continue to hold sway. You have to destroy their influence by destroying how much money the federal and state governments have.

Upon that consideration, what then is your opinion on Citizens United, lobbying, and campaign finance reform? If you wish to limit private interest, would that not be the logical place to start? By limiting what should clearly be recognized as an institutionalized form of bribery?

Davian93
03-05-2015, 10:10 PM
Yeah, a bad situation all around. States do have the power to ban these institutions, of course they would have to get past the negative commerce clause challenges. Of course, states do not ban these institutions because of the money involved. I think, without derailing the thread too far, that you and I will always disagree about government revenues. I believe that so long as governments have too much of the peoples' money, special interests and corporations will continue to hold sway. You have to destroy their influence by destroying how much money the federal and state governments have.

We agree on the problem, just not on the solution. I think better regulation could solve it better is all.

Terez
03-05-2015, 11:21 PM
The government is literally the only protection we have against private interests. Yes, it's unfortunately easy for private interests to influence government policy, but that doesn't mean that taking away our only means of protection is going to make everything magically okay.

Nazbaque
03-05-2015, 11:29 PM
Yeah, a bad situation all around. States do have the power to ban these institutions, of course they would have to get past the negative commerce clause challenges. Of course, states do not ban these institutions because of the money involved. I think, without derailing the thread too far, that you and I will always disagree about government revenues. I believe that so long as governments have too much of the peoples' money, special interests and corporations will continue to hold sway. You have to destroy their influence by destroying how much money the federal and state governments have.

You are determined to see that influence as negative by default, but I'd say that no matter who has the influence they will abuse it unless they recognize the duties and responsibilities that come with it. How that person has the influence is secondary to how they use it. And the solution to this is in the children. Raise the next generation to be more honorable than we are.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-06-2015, 01:29 AM
The government is literally the only protection we have against private interests. Yes, it's unfortunately easy for private interests to influence government policy, but that doesn't mean that taking away our only means of protection is going to make everything magically okay.

This is so correct I can't even...

GonzoTheGreat
03-06-2015, 03:10 AM
I believe that so long as governments have too much of the peoples' money, special interests and corporations will continue to hold sway.
Simple solution, then: allow people to print their own money. Stop persecuting people for the "crime" of counterfeiting, and whatever money your government has will very rapidly lose all significance.
I wonder why no one else ever thought of this. It is so obvious, after all.

Res_Ipsa
03-06-2015, 12:58 PM
Upon that consideration, what then is your opinion on Citizens United, lobbying, and campaign finance reform? If you wish to limit private interest, would that not be the logical place to start? By limiting what should clearly be recognized as an institutionalized form of bribery?

My response is more cynical and based in constitutional law. I have a hard time being sympathetic with the left on this issue (even though I agree CU was wrong) because this is what happens when you pervert US federalism. Finding new federal powers (for example, rights to privacy or commercial speech and the idea of the person) where there are none without an amendment means that from time to time the application of that extension is going to cut against you. For instance, the 2A is a total ban on federal regulation of firearms, but the states are free to totally ban them. However, now you have it a guaranteed right that extends through incorporation of the BoR to the states. I like it this way of course because I believe personal firearms ownership is a positive thing, but that does not mean I think it Heller and Mcdonald were correct (rather, they were "correct" in the same way that all SCOTUS decisions since the 40s reflect a reality of "correct").

We agree on the problem, just not on the solution. I think better regulation could solve it better is all.

I read Rules for Radicals and thought, good methodology but poor conclusions. That sounds like where we are at.

The government is literally the only protection we have against private interests. Yes, it's unfortunately easy for private interests to influence government policy, but that doesn't mean that taking away our only means of protection is going to make everything magically okay.

I disagree. The government itself is an interest that is keenly interested in protecting its own interests. There is no difference between it and big business. I am an individualist, I want to protect the little guy. Also, the problem with these arguments is that it assumes one is necessarily good and one is evil. Both possess the capacity for either because it is individuals that make them up.

You are determined to see that influence as negative by default, but I'd say that no matter who has the influence they will abuse it unless they recognize the duties and responsibilities that come with it. How that person has the influence is secondary to how they use it. And the solution to this is in the children. Raise the next generation to be more honorable than we are.

Your statement is a fine statement but its the same statement that all western thought has consumed itself with. Socrates was not the first to wonder what is just and his citizen-scholars are nothing more than an idea. So then comes the interesting development of what do you do about people that you deem to be ignorant or not as enthusiastic for your way of life? Me, I say do nothing. I have no right to enforce my way of life on anyone.

Simple solution, then: allow people to print their own money. Stop persecuting people for the "crime" of counterfeiting, and whatever money your government has will very rapidly lose all significance.
I wonder why no one else ever thought of this. It is so obvious, after all.

Bitcoins. And other crypto currencies demonstrate that people are "printing" their own money.

Kimon
03-06-2015, 03:56 PM
My response is more cynical and based in constitutional law. I have a hard time being sympathetic with the left on this issue (even though I agree CU was wrong) because this is what happens when you pervert US federalism. Finding new federal powers (for example, rights to privacy or commercial speech and the idea of the person) where there are none without an amendment means that from time to time the application of that extension is going to cut against you. For instance, the 2A is a total ban on federal regulation of firearms, but the states are free to totally ban them. However, now you have it a guaranteed right that extends through incorporation of the BoR to the states. I like it this way of course because I believe personal firearms ownership is a positive thing, but that does not mean I think it Heller and Mcdonald were correct (rather, they were "correct" in the same way that all SCOTUS decisions since the 40s reflect a reality of "correct").


Your references to the 2nd Amendment point out just how open to interpretation, and re-interpretation the second amendment is. Not too long ago, the idea of restricting certain kinds of weapons was widely accepted as constitutional, now it is verboten. So what really has changed? Only the fact that more of the justices are conservative, and the NRA is actively financing a campaign to overturn all support for gun control. This same premise applies to a variety of important issues. If two more justices on the court had been appointed by dems this silly case on whether "state" can only refer to an individual state or also to the federal govt would have been laughed at rather than threatening to uninsure (disinsure?) tens of millions simply because politics hold more sway than actual legal interpretation in the court. Certainly the present court would have been unlikely to decide as its more progressive predecessor had on Roe v Wade. Can we really even assume that it would have made the same decision on Brown? I have zero faith in the jurisprudence of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. And nearly zero in Roberts and Kennedy. For all your talk of standing up for the individual and protecting the little guy, you do realize that those 5 men clearly stand instead in defense of corporate interests rather than for the individual, and certainly not in defense of what is best for society.

Nazbaque
03-06-2015, 06:23 PM
Your statement is a fine statement but its the same statement that all western thought has consumed itself with. Socrates was not the first to wonder what is just and his citizen-scholars are nothing more than an idea. So then comes the interesting development of what do you do about people that you deem to be ignorant or not as enthusiastic for your way of life? Me, I say do nothing. I have no right to enforce my way of life on anyone.

Scholars? Hardly. It's actually very simple. The price of a functional society is duty. If that duty is not fulfilled the society eventually collapses and reverts to anarchy. Understanding this cycle is a key point in living with honor.

Terez
03-06-2015, 07:34 PM
I disagree. The government itself is an interest that is keenly interested in protecting its own interests. There is no difference between it and big business.
There is a huge difference: democratic control. We have absolutely no control whatsoever over the decisions of private interests no matter how much they might affect our lives; no matter how compromised our influence over government might be, it's still much, much better than nothing. And the main thing that is preventing us from controlling government better is people like you who believe that government is inherently bad.

Southpaw2012
03-07-2015, 10:27 AM
There is a huge difference: democratic control. We have absolutely no control whatsoever over the decisions of private interests no matter how much they might affect our lives; no matter how compromised our influence over government might be, it's still much, much better than nothing. And the main thing that is preventing us from controlling government better is people like you who believe that government is inherently bad.


It's bad when you have a lawless president who doesn't follow the rule of law that is in place to keep a check on too much power. Many people, such as 99% of people on here, believe the government should control everything is possibly can, and that is terrifying for those who know anything about history.

Southpaw2012
03-07-2015, 10:33 AM
All a bunch of sheep. You'd all buy the same type of toilet paper if the government said to. Hell, children have to eat certain food because of nasty Michelle Obama's need to try and make us all healthier because "government knows best!"

Kimon
03-07-2015, 10:47 AM
All a bunch of sheep. You'd all buy the same type of toilet paper if the government said to. Hell, children have to eat certain food because of nasty Michelle Obama's need to try and make us all healthier because "government knows best!"

Did this really require a second, independent post? I'm still not quite sure whether or not you're just trolling, but for your sake I hope it's just that.

Nazbaque
03-07-2015, 11:15 AM
All a bunch of sheep. You'd all buy the same type of toilet paper if the government said to. Hell, children have to eat certain food because of nasty Michelle Obama's need to try and make us all healthier because "government knows best!"

And what exactly is the alternative? Rise up with the arms the second amendment let you have? Assuming you manage to take down the tyrannical and lawless government what will have in its place? The same old system? After a few cycles you're back where you started complaining about your leader plus all the economical trouble the civil war piled on top of it. Set yourselves up with a real tyrant just so you'll know what actual oppression feels like? Live in eternal anarchy until idiot hot heads like you have been culled from the gene pool?

Davian93
03-07-2015, 12:47 PM
For instance, the 2A is a total ban on federal regulation of firearms, but the states are free to totally ban them. However, now you have it a guaranteed right that extends through incorporation of the BoR to the states. I like it this way of course because I believe personal firearms ownership is a positive thing, but that does not mean I think it Heller and Mcdonald were correct (rather, they were "correct" in the same way that all SCOTUS decisions since the 40s reflect a reality of "correct").


Justice Breyer would vehemently disagree with you on the absoluteness of the 2A...as would at least a dozen other well-respected SC Justices. Justice Stevens (retired of course) also vehemently disagreed with that viewpoint as did many of the best legal minds of his generation. There is nothing in the wording of the 2A that prohibits reasonable regulations. And we all know that the BoR of course extends to the states for a variety of reasons stemming from the way it was set up to the wording of the 10th Amendment and then, of course to that of the 14th Amendment (easily the most transformative piece of legislation ever conceived since the founding).

I read Rules for Radicals and thought, good methodology but poor conclusions. That sounds like where we are at

I would imagine that if we both sat down in a room and tried to find common ground and a reasonable compromise that we'd be able to do it. Neither of us is a zealot for our side and we both realize that rationale compromises are almost always necessary for good governance.

I disagree. The government itself is an interest that is keenly interested in protecting its own interests. There is no difference between it and big business. I am an individualist, I want to protect the little guy. Also, the problem with these arguments is that it assumes one is necessarily good and one is evil. Both possess the capacity for either because it is individuals that make them up.

Business exists to profit...gov't can and often will enforce moral standards that do not promote pure profit. One is inherently a selfish creation and meant to be while the other can work for the greater good. Govt is a necessary evil. It'd be great if we didn't need it and we could all live in a commune/libertarian paradise but that's as unrealistic as pure communism once actual human nature is factored in.

Bitcoins. And other crypto currencies demonstrate that people are "printing" their own money.

Have you been keeping current on how "successful" bitcoins have been? It has basically turned into a giant scam that screwed any idiots dumb enough to invest in it. As there are nearly zero controls, it has been easily co-opted by the least reputable among us to screw idiots out of their money.

Davian93
03-07-2015, 12:49 PM
All a bunch of sheep. You'd all buy the same type of toilet paper if the government said to. Hell, children have to eat certain food because of nasty Michelle Obama's need to try and make us all healthier because "government knows best!"

Yeah, just like that bitch Nancy Reagan trying to tell our kids not to do drugs!!! WTF with with that!!!

Davian93
03-07-2015, 12:52 PM
It's bad when you have a lawless president who doesn't follow the rule of law that is in place to keep a check on too much power. Many people, such as 99% of people on here, believe the government should control everything is possibly can, and that is terrifying for those who know anything about history.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png


On any of it, not even all of it. Just come up with one legitimate citation on any of that garbage...

Uno
03-08-2015, 01:02 AM
I disagree. The government itself is an interest that is keenly interested in protecting its own interests. There is no difference between it and big business. I am an individualist, I want to protect the little guy. Also, the problem with these arguments is that it assumes one is necessarily good and one is evil. Both possess the capacity for either because it is individuals that make them up.

This is, of course, very true, and anyone who knows me knows that I have little love for the state and its accumulation of impersonal power. Yet, individuals cannot confront either the state or corporations without allies (and your allies don't have to be your friends), and it's likely that the state may be the best ally available. After all, a so-called democratic state has to pretend (at least some of the time) to respect the populace and to have its best interest at heart, and in order to maintain that illusion, it at least occasionally has to act in ways that are not clearly detrimental to the interest of the majority of people. Corporations do not suffer from such restraints.

Terez
03-08-2015, 01:04 AM
It's bad when you have a lawless president who doesn't follow the rule of law...
That is redundant.

Davian93
03-08-2015, 06:43 PM
That is redundant.

Notice how he hasn't bothered to come back and prove any of his baseless assertions?

Odd that...almost as if he's just a pathetic, idiotic troll that can only post his Blaze/Stormfrontesque talking points and then disappear back under his bridge.

There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion...just try to base it somewhere in reality and defend it once in a while.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-09-2015, 03:05 AM
It's bad when you have a lawless president who doesn't follow the rule of law that is in place to keep a check on too much power. Many people, such as 99% of people on here, believe the government should control everything is possibly can, and that is terrifying for those who know anything about history.

you know, as someone who was born in the Soviet Union and lived through the end of that as well as the transition period towards a more democratic society, I know, for a fact that you're talking out of your ass.

The tell-tale signs of an authoritarian system are as follows. And, in US the party most keen to implement/keep just these? Not the Democrats, for sure:

1) Police state. The Police is all-powerful, all-knowledgeable, can and will shoot civilians at will. Can and will arrest civilians at will, based on what they look like or what they say about those in power. The Police is corrupt, whistleblowers are dead before they get to actually blowing the whistle; there is no punishment for the policemen/women who are proven to have abused their power.
2) Restriction of travel. How many Americans actually own a passport? And, how easy/difficult is it to get one?
3) Restrictions on voting (for eligible voters, i.e. citizens. There should be NO mandatory declaration before or after voting on who you voted for. There should be no mandatory voting. People should not be barred from voting granted they have their proper identification with them)
4) Massive amounts of people in prisons (see also point 1)
5) Nationalist propaganda. Displaying the State emblem(s) EVERYWHERE, always noting how your country is the best at pretty much everything. The most effective rhetoric is "there's an Enemy out there, out to get us. We must stick together". Even better: nationalist militant propaganda. That would go along the lines of "The Enemy wants us all dead, we must attack first!" [btw, don't get me wrong, a moderate amount of nationalism is IMO a good thing, creates a certain unity. it's just that I'm immensely creeped out when I hear that children start their kindergarten day by pledging allegiance to the Fatherland. Or reciting poems about how Patushka Lenin protects us all.]


Next step: absolute control of information. The ultimate goal is, of course, absolute control of the Media; but the best starting point is controlling the national narrative - everything that is unsavoury in a nation's past is glossed over, or discussed from the most positive possible view. Genocide of the native peoples? didn't happen, after all, they still exist and have their little enclaves, no? There was slavery? well, that was bad, but there was a big war and all the bad slave-owners were killed, and all the good slave-owners saw the error of their ways and now where's no slavery. Everyone is happy!

Res_Ipsa
03-10-2015, 01:25 PM
As always, sorry for the late replies and now the hurried responses. Business is good so I cannot complain.

There is a huge difference: democratic control. We have absolutely no control whatsoever over the decisions of private interests no matter how much they might affect our lives; no matter how compromised our influence over government might be, it's still much, much better than nothing. And the main thing that is preventing us from controlling government better is people like you who believe that government is inherently bad.

Two comments. You vote with your dollar for private interests. Isn't a protest a powerful tool against private interests? Second comment, you do not exercise as much control as you think with your vote because of the administrative state, which is only indirectly controlled by whatever party is in charge. While the President controls the agency heads, its the rank and file bureaucrats that are the real power.

Scholars? Hardly. It's actually very simple. The price of a functional society is duty. If that duty is not fulfilled the society eventually collapses and reverts to anarchy. Understanding this cycle is a key point in living with honor.

So what do you do if people refuse to recognize their duty as you see it? I agree in principle that we have duties, but I do not agree with the end result of all these conversations: what to do when people will not abide by another's view of a responsible citizen.

Justice Breyer would vehemently disagree with you on the absoluteness of the 2A...as would at least a dozen other well-respected SC Justices. Justice Stevens (retired of course) also vehemently disagreed with that viewpoint as did many of the best legal minds of his generation. There is nothing in the wording of the 2A that prohibits reasonable regulations. And we all know that the BoR of course extends to the states for a variety of reasons stemming from the way it was set up to the wording of the 10th Amendment and then, of course to that of the 14th Amendment (easily the most transformative piece of legislation ever conceived since the founding).

The listed justices are wrong. Now you might think that is the height of arrogance for some no name lawyer to suggest that such well respected legal minds are wrong, but the Supreme Court in their opinions actually acknowledge that their views are not actually in accord with the US Constitution. Rather, they argue that they reflect the changes of a modern society. They are certainly clever in how they say it, but they know that it is not actually truly correct. The problem is that we live in a Republic and these shortcuts to "truth" are actually the problem. Case in point, we don't like Citizens United,but I do not like it for the right reason, the Federal government does not have the power because incorporation is a legal fiction that 9 human beings decided that they knew better than a democratically elected legislature. Of course, they did it for a good reason, but that is no excuse. The end does not justify the means.

Business exists to profit...gov't can and often will enforce moral standards that do not promote pure profit. One is inherently a selfish creation and meant to be while the other can work for the greater good. Govt is a necessary evil. It'd be great if we didn't need it and we could all live in a commune/libertarian paradise but that's as unrealistic as pure communism once actual human nature is factored in.

I do not think government is a necessary evil. I think it is necessary. We have formed governments since the beginning of time for a reason. What we are talking about is our system of government though and the powers of the federal government. The states are the arbiters in many respects (or should be) of the right and the wrong because our federal government was designed to be limited.

Have you been keeping current on how "successful" bitcoins have been? It has basically turned into a giant scam that screwed any idiots dumb enough to invest in it. As there are nearly zero controls, it has been easily co-opted by the least reputable among us to screw idiots out of their money.

Sure, there is a reason why not even 1% of my investments are in Bitcoins. I was merely addressing Gonzo's question of a currency outside of government control (for now).

This is, of course, very true, and anyone who knows me knows that I have little love for the state and its accumulation of impersonal power. Yet, individuals cannot confront either the state or corporations without allies (and your allies don't have to be your friends), and it's likely that the state may be the best ally available. After all, a so-called democratic state has to pretend (at least some of the time) to respect the populace and to have its best interest at heart, and in order to maintain that illusion, it at least occasionally has to act in ways that are not clearly detrimental to the interest of the majority of people. Corporations do not suffer from such restraints.

Corporations suffer from a serious restraint, the voting power of the dollar. People exercise control over these businesses every day, but then you have monopolies over necessities, which is why we had the trust busting of the late 1800s and early 1900s. So clearly there needs to be some middle ground and that middle ground is regulations. The problem of course is that corporations exercise some very real control over our rights (licenses would be a prime example) in the guise of regulation. This is only possible because of the size of the governments intrusion into private lives via the "modern state." All that is is a power grab in the guise of a safety net and good living. Maybe that is cynical.

Terez
03-10-2015, 01:52 PM
Two comments. You vote with your dollar for private interests. Isn't a protest a powerful tool against private interests?
That depends. For the most obvious example of a situation where it matters not a bit: monopolies.

Second comment, you do not exercise as much control as you think with your vote...
Why make assumptions about what I think?

Res_Ipsa
03-10-2015, 03:47 PM
That depends. For the most obvious example of a situation where it matters not a bit: monopolies.

Addressed in my comment to Uno. The trick is finding a balance. Balance is not found where government controls our lives to such a degree that it makes it easy for moneyed interests to control us by proxy.

Why make assumptions about what I think?

It was more of an impersonal you rather than you, i.e., Terez.

Nazbaque
03-10-2015, 10:38 PM
So what do you do if people refuse to recognize their duty as you see it? I agree in principle that we have duties, but I do not agree with the end result of all these conversations: what to do when people will not abide by another's view of a responsible citizen.

It's more that I want people to think about it and find their own answers. It's not as rigid as you want to make it out to be. You are too focused on what people do. I seek to improve what people are. Call it social evolution. I am not advocating a detailed set of "do this, don't do that" type of honor code, but the honorable mentality of earning what you are given.

Res_Ipsa
03-12-2015, 09:56 AM
It's more that I want people to think about it and find their own answers. It's not as rigid as you want to make it out to be. You are too focused on what people do. I seek to improve what people are. Call it social evolution. I am not advocating a detailed set of "do this, don't do that" type of honor code, but the honorable mentality of earning what you are given.


Right, I get that. But what happens if people refuse to live up to or abide by the "honor code"? Do you let them be? Do you enforce the rules against them? This is a basic question of any political belief, what to do about people who do not abide your utopia.

GonzoTheGreat
03-12-2015, 12:13 PM
Well, the liberal answer is: "it depends on which rule we're dealing with". A rule against jaywalking doesn't need to be too rigorously enforced when there's no traffic around, a rule against arson would be a different matter in many cases.

The conservative answer is "rules are rules, and if you break them, or we think we can claim that you had, then (if you're black) we'll beat you up and fine you for bleeding on our uniform".

Nazbaque
03-12-2015, 12:22 PM
Right, I get that. But what happens if people refuse to live up to or abide by the "honor code"? Do you let them be? Do you enforce the rules against them? This is a basic question of any political belief, what to do about people who do not abide your utopia.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I don't have a set of rules for them to break. Honor is in the decisions you make not in a specific set of rules. It's in the background mentality of those choices in which I want to see improvement, not the rules governing the system. Improve the raw material the system has to work with.

Res_Ipsa
03-13-2015, 09:28 AM
Did you actually read what I wrote? I don't have a set of rules for them to break. Honor is in the decisions you make not in a specific set of rules. It's in the background mentality of those choices in which I want to see improvement, not the rules governing the system. Improve the raw material the system has to work with.

Yes, I read what you wrote. But I am asking you, what do you do about "ne'er–do–well"? How much political theory have you read? What I am asking is the end game of all political theory. I get that you are saying this is a should be, but I want to know what happens if the should be becomes a must be? I am trying to elicit from you a response about the core of your belief. All political theory starts with an idea about what is right and then goes about how to make it right. So, how do you make it right?

If you are still wondering what I am asking, look at Gonzo's post as he understood it (and then answered it in his fashion).

Nazbaque
03-13-2015, 10:04 AM
Yes, I read what you wrote. But I am asking you, what do you do about "ne'er–do–well"? How much political theory have you read? What I am asking is the end game of all political theory. I get that you are saying this is a should be, but I want to know what happens if the should be becomes a must be? I am trying to elicit from you a response about the core of your belief. All political theory starts with an idea about what is right and then goes about how to make it right. So, how do you make it right?

If you are still wondering what I am asking, look at Gonzo's post as he understood it (and then answered it in his fashion).

Since you keep asking that pointless question it just proves that you don't understand the point. This is not something that can be enforced on people. It's not about changing the system but the people. It's a socially healthier way of life. If they don't want it then they don't want it. It's more about ethics and philosophy than politics mainly beccause it really isn't opposed to any current political party as such. Try to get your head around it and stop trying push me to the oppressive dictator slot.

Res_Ipsa
03-13-2015, 10:35 AM
Since you keep asking that pointless question it just proves that you don't understand the point. This is not something that can be enforced on people. It's not about changing the system but the people. It's a socially healthier way of life. If they don't want it then they don't want it. It's more about ethics and philosophy than politics mainly beccause it really isn't opposed to any current political party as such. Try to get your head around it and stop trying push me to the oppressive dictator slot.

Who said anything about political parties? I am asking you about the core thought of all political process. It is easy to say that I do not understand what you are saying, but it is evident that that is more aptly applied to you. If you do not have an answer that is fine, I am just trying to elicit your response to what I see as a problem with any statement about what a good society comprises. Perhaps there is a language barrier here or I am not being clear in what I want, I will assume it is the latter and wish you a good day. I do not really care to continue this conversation.

Nazbaque
03-13-2015, 10:58 AM
Who said anything about political parties? I am asking you about the core thought of all political process. It is easy to say that I do not understand what you are saying, but it is evident that that is more aptly applied to you. If you do not have an answer that is fine, I am just trying to elicit your response to what I see as a problem with any statement about what a good society comprises. Perhaps there is a language barrier here or I am not being clear in what I want, I will assume it is the latter and wish you a good day. I do not really care to continue this conversation.

Well seeing that this isn't a political process the question is pretty pointless.