Louisiana school receiving taxpayer dollars teaches that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution

[missesdash]

Originally Posted by Maxinquaye

I think you're wrong in attributing an organisation with human emotions like altruism or egotism.

Altruism and egoism as I used them are not "human emotions" they are moral philosophies.

Utilitarianism is not interpersonal. It is always systemic. Between an organisation and individuals.

This is false.

[little_e]

No, the gov't is force is pretty much the definition of what gov't is: a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is why gov't has police, armies, etc.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by little_e

No, the gov't is force is pretty much the definition of what gov't is: a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. That is why gov't has police, armies, etc.

And when the government is elected by the citizens, staffed by the citizens, administered by the citizens, subject to replacement by the citizens, who is using the force again? It wouldn't be the citizens?

[clintl]

Chrissy touched on something that's crucial to understand what's really going in a "good" school vs. a "bad" school district with respect to her having to move. It's not really about where the property taxes are highest, but it is related to wealth.

"Bad" School (or actually, a school in a district with high poverty rate)
More kids in poor families -> Less intelletually enriching preschool environment -> Kids not as prepared to start school -> Kids behind their peers immediately -> Below grade level reading skills -> Poor reading skills leads to boredom -> Boredom leads to disciplinary problems -> Disciplinary problems lead to lots of time either disrupting class or being sent out of class -> The whole chain leads to poor test scores.

"Good" School (i.e. school in an affluent area with low poverty rate)
Fewer kids in poor families -> More intellectually enriching preschool environment -> More kids prepared for school when they enter -> Kids equal to the peers immediately -> At or above grade level reading skills -> Not bored because they're able to do work at the level they're asked to -> Fewer disciplinary problems because they're engaged -> More time in class, and class time more productive --> Better test scores

There are certainly some things schools can do to make things better or worse, but almost all of the achievement gap can be traced back to the preschool home environment.

If you want to really attack the problems in a serious way, this is where you need to focus your reforms. On mitigating the effects of poverty on preschoolers. All the other reform proposals - charter schools, vouchers, bashing teacher's unions, standards and standardized testing - are distractions from addressing the real problem.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by muravyets

Considering that all of those links are bibliographies and/or class plans, how do you know they don't address it? Didn't really look at them all that closely, didya?

Also, I'm sure you would have loved to have a tailor-made point that would be framed precisely that way so that you could shape the discussion along the lines you were thinking of yourself, but that's research you can do for yourself. Since I never said anything even remotely like "the majority of the Aztecs didn't actually believe that human sacrifice was necessary," I'm not going to defend that line of argument for you.

Actually, I was looking for some sort of indication that the Aztecs were not a good example of utilitarianism, as Max suggested. For example, if the elite Aztecs forced human sacrifice from the masses of inconsequential Aztecs, which would be more along the lines of authoritarianism or totalitarianism or whatever. (And no, I didn't click on the links within the links.) As it stands, I'll agree with Max.

Clearly, I think you are mistaken. Do we really need to go into all the details on why? I think this thread has been derailed enough. We don't need to pile more derailments on top of the multiple derailments. Let's just score this one as another Chrissy-&-Mura-Disagree and move on, eh?

Okie doke.

[little_e]

Originally Posted by muravyets

And when the government is elected by the citizens, staffed by the citizens, administered by the citizens, subject to replacement by the citizens, who is using the force again? It wouldn't be the citizens?

I am not sure what part of "legitimate use of force" is so unclear. When the police arrest someone for drunk driving, it is generally a citizen. The military generally acts against non-citizens.

But you do not seem to be arguing very genuinely. To sum,
you: But you elected folks and voted for these laws.
me: actually, no I didn't.
you: You sound whiny!

That's not exactly a counter-argument.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by clintl

Chrissy touched on something that's crucial to understand what's really going in a "good" school vs. a "bad" school district with respect to her having to move. It's not really about where the property taxes are highest, but it is related to wealth.

"Bad" School (or actually, a school in a district with high poverty rate)
More kids in poor families -> Less intelletually enriching preschool environment -> Kids not as prepared to start school -> Kids behind their peers immediately -> Below grade level reading skills -> Poor reading skills leads to boredom -> Boredom leads to disciplinary problems -> Disciplinary problems lead to lots of time either disrupting class or being sent out of class -> The whole chain leads to poor test scores.

"Good" School (i.e. school in an affluent area with low poverty rate)
Fewer kids in poor families -> More intellectually enriching preschool environment -> More kids prepared for school when they enter -> Kids equal to the peers immediately -> At or above grade level reading skills -> Not bored because they're able to do work at the level they're asked to -> Fewer disciplinary problems because they're engaged -> More time in class, and class time more productive --> Better test scores

There are certainly some things schools can do to make things better or worse, but almost all of the achievement gap can be traced back to the preschool home environment.

Agreed up to this point. I'd also add that the teachers in the good vs. bad schools can only teach so much, and so far, because they have to consider the whole class. So the kids that happen to be doing well in the "bad" schools don't get the advancement they could utilize.

If you want to really attack the problems in a serious way, this is where you need to focus your reforms. On mitigating the effects of poverty on preschoolers. All the other reform proposals - charter schools, vouchers, bashing teacher's unions, standards and standardized testing - are distractions from addressing the real problem.

On this point, I disagree, but only because I have school age kids who need to learn and I can't wait for reforms to get my kids in a school that will meet their needs. I have to deal with what is. By the time the reforms do anything (IF they do), my kids will have graduated. But on a long-term scale, sure, have at it. Good for my future grandkids, hopefully.

[little_e]

Originally Posted by clintl

There are certainly some things schools can do to make things better or worse, but almost all of the achievement gap can be traced back to the preschool home environment.

But it's so much easier to blame the teachers.

Texas gets a lot of flack for its schools. But a huge % of those kids are Hispanic. (Nationwide, 25% of kindergarteners are Hispanic. Texas obviously has more.) English is not their parents' first language, but they'll be tested in English. Their parents are unlikely to have had much education at all, but are expected to help their kids write papers about Shakespeare and learn calculus.

Is it any surprise that they don't "perform" as well as folks from English-speaking households?

[missesdash]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Actually, I was looking for some sort of indication that the Aztecs were not a good example of utilitarianism, as Max suggested. For example, if the elite Aztecs forced human sacrifice from the masses of inconsequential Aztecs, which would be more along the lines of authoritarianism or totalitarianism or whatever. (And no, I didn't click on the links within the links.) As it stands, I'll agree with Max.

Because human sacrifice doesn't *actually* do any good. If I walked into your house and murdered your children because I was convinced it would cure world hunger, would you consider that utilitarianism? Because if so, Max should add every psychotic serial killer to his list of "reasons utilitarianism is monstrous."

[little_e]

Aztecs: rather hierarchical.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by missesdash

Because human sacrifice doesn't *actually* do any good. If I walked into your house and murdered your children because I was convinced it would cure world hunger, would you consider that utilitarianism? Because if so, Max should add every psychotic serial killer to his list of "reasons utilitarianism is monstrous."

Ha! Yeah, well. That type of thinking is generally not widely accepted today. And re: the Aztecs -- they were convinced it would do good. Doesn't really matter that we now know they were wrong.

It's all about the greater good as per the current ideal. The greater good changes and varies depending upon factors that we *think* can't be addressed or controlled in any other way. It also has a stunning correlation with those in power.

It's also supposed to be about the will of the people, and the majority. Only problem is, like with the Aztecs, the majority can be dead wrong.

So the idea is to have something like a Constitution that can't be changed based upon majority whim or according to those in power who Know What's Best For Us.

[little_e]

The Aztecs were an hierarchical society which certainly did not bother to go polling folks for their opinions on human sacrifice. Most of them probably had no idea what was going on in the cities, anyway.

[missesdash]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Ha! Yeah, well. That type of thinking is generally not widely accepted today. And re: the Aztecs -- they were convinced it would do good. Doesn't really matter that we now know they were wrong.

It's all about the greater good as per the current ideal. The greater good changes and varies depending upon factors that we *think* can't be addressed or controlled in any other way. It also has a stunning correlation with those in power.

It's also supposed to be about the will of the people, and the majority. Only problem is, like with the Aztecs, the majority can be dead wrong.

So the idea is to have something like a Constitution that can't be changed based upon majority whim or according to those in power who Know What's Best For Us.

Are you talking about utilitarianism or is this a derail of your derail of your derail? It has nothing to do with "the will of the people" or what the majority want.

But I really don't want to argue with you about points I never made. Most of your post has nothing to do with mine.

[The Kidd]

The sad thing? This doesn't surprise me at all, and it makes me want to go off on a tangent about how Jindal is completely screwing the school system in our state.

[Yorkist]

I'm impressed by the extent of the derails.

Originally Posted by clintl

There are certainly some things schools can do to make things better or worse, but almost all of the achievement gap can be traced back to the preschool home environment.

If you want to really attack the problems in a serious way, this is where you need to focus your reforms. On mitigating the effects of poverty on preschoolers. All the other reform proposals - charter schools, vouchers, bashing teacher's unions, standards and standardized testing - are distractions from addressing the real problem.

While I see a lot of value in magnet and trade schools (because, yanno, not everyone wants an office job and a society can't support 100% of its citizens in one anyway), I agree with everything you said. Preschool is an enormous advantage. It's often the difference between coming to kindergarten already knowing how to read and do basic arithmetic, or not.

And from the Texas GOP platform:

We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.

Since derailing seems not to be a problem, also from their platform:

We strongly support women who choose to devote their lives to their families and raising their children. We recognize their sacrifice and deplore the liberal assault on the family.

Leaving aside the blatant sexism for a second (hrm, what about men who choose to devote their lives to their families and raising their children? Do they not make sacrifices, too? Do they not deserve support?), how much you wanna bet how little the Texas GOP actually puts their money where their mouth is in this matter?

[clintl]

Well, if the Texas GOP is going to eliminate preschool and kindergarten, and not teach higher order thinking skills, then 12 years is probably adequate for teaching kids how to read and memorize.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by little_e

Why not just get rid of 'districting' and suchall and just let students go to any public school they want? And give the schools leeway to customize themselves. Then the schools with the best programs will attract the most students, and parents won't have to pay $$$ to live in 'good' neighborhoods just to get access to particular schools.

Then for the classes themselves, why not have a range of options available, let the students chose the classes they wish to take, and so long as they can do the work and not make a ruckus, they get to stay? (This is more about "gifted" programs, actually.)

Personally, for all my opposition to spending tax dollars on religion, if the *students* themselves wanted to take a course in the matter, as an extra-curricular of sorts, perhaps in place of PE or Music or Art (I vote for music or PE, I never liked those classes : ) then I would not be terribly opposed. I don't like the idea of religious *indoctrination* done by the state to the students (or by the parents to the children, or by anyone to anyone else,) but if students have a genuine desire to learn something, then I am in favor of teaching it.

And I also know that the chances of getting enough students in any school interested enough to make enrollment is vanishingly small. But the "choice" would be there.

This is exactly what is done in Alberta. Of course, Alberta throws a chink in it that the US can't get away with it: we publicly fund both Public and Catholic schools. It's an artifact from the early 1900s.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by little_e

I am not sure what part of "legitimate use of force" is so unclear. When the police arrest someone for drunk driving, it is generally a citizen. The military generally acts against non-citizens.

But you do not seem to be arguing very genuinely. To sum,
you: But you elected folks and voted for these laws.
me: actually, no I didn't.
you: You sound whiny!

That's not exactly a counter-argument.

I did not say you voted and elected these folks. I said the citizenry of a democratic republic vote and elect their government. It's not the same thing.

In a democratic society of millions of people, there will be people who don't get their way in any given election. There will be people who disagree with the policies, laws and methods of the government. There will be people who do better under some administrations and worse under others. No system can be all things to all people.

But democracy gives all of us the opportunity to change our government without violent uprising. It requires us to persuade our fellow citizens to agree that our way is better and to vote our party or our candidate into power or our referendums into law.

If any of us do not like the system and do not vote or participate in the public arena, then we have no one to blame for our unhappiness but ourselves.

If any of us do not like the system and try to get it to change through the democratic process, but fail because no one else buys into our ideas, then tough luck for us. It's called not having a good idea.

So yeah, between some people who don't participate in or use the system but don't like how it treats them, and others who don't get over losing an election now and then, yeah, I do kind of tend to dismiss their complaints.

I did say it was just my own personal viewpoint and not an argument meant to persuade others.

Also, I don't see what your first paragraph has to do with what I said.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by missesdash

Because human sacrifice doesn't *actually* do any good. If I walked into your house and murdered your children because I was convinced it would cure world hunger, would you consider that utilitarianism? Because if so, Max should add every psychotic serial killer to his list of "reasons utilitarianism is monstrous."

Precisely. Utilitarianism focuses on objectives and outcomes. The objective is beneficial outcomes for the greatest number of people. The outcomes are measured by the effects of policies in implementation. When outcomes of a policy are good for a great many people, utilitarianism says keep doing that. When outcomes are bad or meh for many people, utilitarianism says change or adjust the policy to be better.

The point of contention seems to be on what is considered "good," and that's a legitimate issue. As you said earlier that will vary with the ethics and goals of the given leaders and societies. But that does not make any policy of any society utilitarian because of the second part of utilitarianism, that a policy must promote beneficial outcomes for the greatest number of people.

I mean, obviously, all social or governmental policies are presented as designed to deliver a good outcome on a good objective. Nobody presents a policy on the selling point that this idea is really going to fuck things up for everyone. But since utilitarianism is objective/outcome focused, we have to consider both what the policy promises and what it delivers.

Aztec human sacrifice promised widespread social benefits but it did not deliver them. Instead, it delivered a slow drip of social harm. Thus, it was not a utilitarian policy on the outcomes aspect. If Aztec society had used a utilitarian approach, they would have changed or abandoned that practice based on a conclusion that it wasn't delivering as expected.

Turning to a much less bloody example, the American rightwing policy known as trickle-down economics not only failed to deliver good outcomes, it also did not benefit the greatest number of people. Rather, it only benefited a minority of people. So it is not a utilitarian policy on the objectives aspect. Americans who take a utilitarian approach reject trickle-down policies as harmful to the greater number of people in the country.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by clintl

Well, if the Texas GOP is going to eliminate preschool and kindergarten, and not teach higher order thinking skills, then 12 years is probably adequate for teaching kids how to read and memorize.

Why bother teaching them to read? If the kids learn to read, then the Texas GOP will just have to spend tax money on censoring the press in violation of the First Amendment so they won't read anything that might inadvertently teach them critical thinking. And Grover Nordquist won't like that.

Reciting by rote was good enough in the Dark Ages. Surely it's good enough now.

[vsrenard]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

As you probably know, I have to move; my house is on the market and once it is sold I have to find another place to live. I have to stay in this town if I want to keep my kids in the same schools. I can't move to Stuart and keep my kids in the schools that are better. And they are better. They're A-rated and just over the bridge everything goes to shit. Except, there are some good Catholic schools in Stuart, but I can't afford them.

I HAVE NO CHOICE.

But you do. You may not like these choices (i.e. they may put you in signifiant debt), but you do have a choice.

The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the question: why do you feel you are entitled to take my taxes to subsidize your religious views? I get that in a society, we pay taxes on things we might not care for, but the overarcing idea there is that those taxes go to support a societal benefit. I see the benefit in making sure our citizens have a solid footing in science. I do not see the benefit in seeing they have a solid footing in any particular religious ideology.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by muravyets

Reciting by rote was good enough in the Dark Ages. Surely it's good enough now.

DERAIL: Actually, it wasn't enough. Irish monks in the fifth through seventh centuries still knew Greek and Hebrew, and wrote grammars for those new to the church so they could learn Latin. The Book of Kells is from the "dark ages." The space was invented in the Dark ages by Irish monastics in order to make learning to read simpler.

END DERAIL

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

DERAIL: Actually, it wasn't enough. Irish monks in the fifth through seventh centuries still knew Greek and Hebrew, and wrote grammars for those new to the church so they could learn Latin. The Book of Kells is from the "dark ages." The space was invented in the Dark ages by Irish monastics in order to make learning to read simpler.

END DERAIL

That's true. I was being sarcastic in suggesting the effect of such modern day education policies on society.

ETA: In terms of actual medieval history, "The Dark Ages" seems like a complete myth to me, anyway. A lot of people had it going on back then. Lots of smarts and innovation happening.

[little_e]

Muravyets, while I appreciate the civics lesson, it is a bit unnecessary--I learned the definition of "democracy" some years ago.

The original question (which you posed, in response to Chrissy's comment,) was "How is gov't force?" (Or something very close to that.)

To which I replied that gov't is force pretty much by definition, that gov't has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, when the tax man says, "You must give us $$$ or else," it is seen as legitimate, while if the local mob says so, it is not.

This is force, whether people voted for it or not.

I would love to live in a world where we could all agree on the laws and then follow them willingly and peaceably with no need for force. I'd also love to live in a world where my kids don't try to climb the stove.

"Tough luck" may be your opinion, but it is not a rebuttal to the idea that the gov't exerts force against its citizens (irregardless of who runs the gov't.)

And making dismissive assumptions about where another person's complaints stem from or what they've done in their lives is not only insulting and rude, but also non-productive from a discussion standpoint.

As for my first paragraph, forgive me; I had misread

"And when the government is elected by the citizens, staffed by the citizens, administered by the citizens, subject to replacement by the citizens, who is using the force again? It wouldn't be the citizens?"

as "...who is it using the force against?..." However, I have now answered the question.

Or to badly quote Bakunin, "It doesn't matter if the proletariat wears the boot that stomps on your face: it's still a boot stomping your face.

[muravyets]

little_e: We're just going to disagree on that, because I don't think that's a reasonable use of the word or concept of "force."