15 Most VALUABLE Learning Websites-

@sleepyguy said
I think what some are identifying as disdain for education is actually disdain for left wing "educators" who take perfectly good young people and try turning them into bitter Marxists with gender dysphoria instead of successful happy people. Conservatives do value knowledge and skill, but modern universities have increasingly become an unsafe place to send your kids to get ...[text shortened]... Peterson, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and son on, but I'll bet they don't count for some reason.

Hahaha a perfect example of how someone can be scooped up by a vortex of utter BS
Yeah them Marxists are everywhere, no one corrupts young minds like religion and right wing propaganda
For Marists educators read educators who teach reality as opposed to teaching them that every personal failure is their fault and they live in a perfect system.
No cyclical deprivation, no racism, no patriarchal misogyny, no corporations being allowed to run the country by literally buying the government and media outlets
If it wasn’t for them Marxist educators life would be peachy 🙄

@kevcvs57 said
Hahaha a perfect example of how someone can be scooped up by a vortex of utter BS
Yeah them Marxists are everywhere, no one corrupts young minds like religion and right wing propaganda
For Marists educators read educators who teach reality as opposed to teaching them that every personal failure is their fault and they live in a perfect system.
No cyclical deprivation, no ...[text shortened]... ng the government and media outlets
If it wasn’t for them Marxist educators life would be peachy 🙄

There's the bitterness coming through. You learned a lot of terminology to explain that life is hard because you're an oppressed victim. Did you learn how to do anything?

@sleepyguy said
There's the bitterness coming through. You learned a lot of terminology to explain that life is hard because you're an oppressed victim. Did you learn how to do anything?

He is marx, Sleepy. We have several here. Marauder was the creepiest, they are truly always upset about the success of other people. Marx taught anti-success and obedience. Brrrrrrrrrr

@sonhouse said
@Sleepyguy
One question: How much does the concept of empathy come into any conservative debate? Isn't conservative debate more about not spending money and getting rid of government regulations? I don't see much arguments from conservatives about actually say lowering the price of meds or helping students get lower cost educations and the like, instead they seem to concentrate on having more cops or make more laws to make more folks breaking laws.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. The concept of empathy comes into conservative debate roughly 32% ? It seems rather that you are making a statement that because conservatives want a smaller, less wasteful government, they must lack empathy. That is not a useful place to start. If we just allow ourselves to start arguing from that point on, we talk right past each other forever.

So instead of starting there, let's try to realize for a moment that all the various folks on this forum have a lot in common. We are all just people, after all, sharing our one lonely planet. We were all born and will die here. We all have some kind of family, parents at least, siblings perhaps, friends, people we love etc. We all need shelter, food, warmth, safety, care, happiness and meaning in our lives. Being human beings, it is only natural that we all have empathy for others, even SuziQ does (for the worthy). So we should all be able to do each other the courtesy of assuming that even though we might disagree on how best to achieve it, we all would like a society that will result in shelter, food, safety, warmth, care, happiness and meaningful lives for the greatest number of citizens possible (without regard to race, gender etc, obviously). If you could start from there a meaningful discussion might be possible, and you might find the people you are so angry at have the same goals you do.

@wajoma said
https://aynrand.org/

Oh, good God.

This is the kind of selfishness, for one's own kind only, or even worse, only for yourselves.

Conservative thought at its most selfish.

@sleepyguy said
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. The concept of empathy comes into conservative debate roughly 32% ?

LOL. +/- 5%

@sleepyguy said
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. The concept of empathy comes into conservative debate roughly 32% ? It seems rather that you are making a statement that because conservatives want a smaller, less wasteful government, they must lack empathy. That is not a useful place to start. If we just allow ourselves to start arguing from that point on, we talk right ...[text shortened]... ion might be possible, and you might find the people you are so angry at have the same goals you do.

It's quite simple.

Your talk and your walk do not have the same goals.

@spruce112358 said
Yes. And your locations indicate that you are both obligated to help protect one another's rights.

I stand with Voltaire on this.

Even liars have a right to lie. We do not have an obligation to believe what they say.

@suzianne said
Oh, good God.

This is the kind of selfishness, for one's own kind only, or even worse, only for yourselves.

Conservative thought at its most selfish.

Ayn Rand was fine with society's first obligation - everyone behaving themselves. Everyone is fine with that one. But she rejected the second obligation - to help protect the rights of others.

Rand, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, many libertarians, etc. often reject the second obligation - not in so many words, usually. But usually saying something like, "If my neighbor has a problem, he needs to work it out on his own. I can choose to be involved, or not," and the more extreme version "Taxation is theft!"

One can ask, "why accept only one societal obligation instead of two?" And the answer is "because that way I have more freedom."

But of course, that's an illusion. Accepting the second obligation - protecting the rights of all others equally - grants us ENORMOUS freedom! We can go where we want without worry about being attacked, without worrying that our house will be burgled while we are at work, etc. Otherwise, I have to sit at home with a shotgun, protecting my stuff - because no one else is gonna help. Well, they might. Or they might not.

Rejecting the second obligation is not not just the loss of the upside - there is a tremendous downside, too. As society unravels, where you end up is in a society of "warlords and grizzly bears". Haiti is a recent example. Somalia before that.

But Ayn Rand was bitter enough about communism (rightly so) that it made her extreme.

@suzianne said
It's quite simple.

Your talk and your walk do not have the same goals.

Yes everything is simple for you SuziQ because you are so very very smart.

What do you know of my walk?

@sleepyguy said
There's the bitterness coming through. You learned a lot of terminology to explain that life is hard because you're an oppressed victim. Did you learn how to do anything?

No bitterness at all just bemusement that most right wing yanks still cling to McCarthyism like an old well worn pillow they can cry into when reality smacks them in the face.
Preparing children for the real world is part and parcel of being an educator, rich folks send their children to schools that will give them a sense of superiority along with facts and figures.
Why shouldn’t public schools arm the less well off with a sense of self worth by explaining that the socioeconomic and political system is stacked against them by its very structure rather than instilling them with self loathing for failing to attain the American Dream / Fantasy

@kevcvs57 said
No bitterness at all just bemusement that most right wing yanks still cling to McCarthyism like an old well worn pillow they can cry into when reality smacks them in the face.
Preparing children for the real world is part and parcel of being an educator, rich folks send their children to schools that will give them a sense of superiority along with facts and figures.
Why ...[text shortened]... re rather than instilling them with self loathing for failing to attain the American Dream / Fantasy

Well, because it is mind poison?

A sense of self worth should be instilled by parents, not some "educator" teaching kids to hate society. Do you have a job? Maybe you are an entrepreneur? Do you take pride in the work you do for a living?

@sleepyguy said
Well, because it is mind poison?

A sense of self worth should be instilled by parents, not some "educator" teaching kids to hate society. Do you have a job? Maybe you are an entrepreneur? Do you take pride in the work you do for a living?

No you telling them that the system is equitable and if they fail they’ve only themselves to blame is the mind poison.
I realise telling kids the truth is an anathema to right ing types sine the MAGA crowd took over the GOP but there is no excuse for lying

@kevcvs57 said
No you telling them that the system is equitable and if they fail they’ve only themselves to blame is the mind poison.
I realise telling kids the truth is an anathema to right ing types sine the MAGA crowd took over the GOP but there is no excuse for lying

"Equitable" isn't a word I use. That's part of the leftist mind poison you have succumbed to. It is neither possible nor even desirable to devise a system for human beings that is equitable in the sense that you mean, and is downright abusive to give kids the notion that life should be that way. The best we can shoot for is equality under the law and freedom to pursue happiness in whatever way we choose. Yes there is social contract, and yes we do have obligations to one another, the contours of which can be debated. But society will not and should never be "equitable" because that could only be attempted through tyranny, and it would fail even then. This is known. Your educators have made you ignorant.

@spruce112358 said
Ayn Rand was fine with society's first obligation - everyone behaving themselves. Everyone is fine with that one. But she rejected the second obligation - to help protect the rights of others.

Rand, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, many libertarians, etc. often reject the second obligation - not in so many words, usually. But usually saying something like, "If my neig ...[text shortened]... efore that.

But Ayn Rand was bitter enough about communism (rightly so) that it made her extreme.

Yeah, a society of Marx sheep trumps lords and bears.
First you were saying last week that we have an obligation to protect each other’s rights. I questioned you on that, to explain, and you said that we do that by paying taxes, so everyone is universally protected. Oh, I said…OK, I guess that is the definition, for what it’s worth, I don’t know why you would even bother to write it.
But here , para 4, you go on about being burgled for instance. Those taxes that you said we are all pay would cover that, as our taxes pay for the police. So I still do not know what in the hell you are saying.
I really don’t. Like, why would you have to sit home with a shotgun if our tax has the police protecting you? You are not doing a good job of explaining yourself. Even the part about freedom I don’t get. After we pay taxes, and maintain a charitable lifestyle, do we have responsibility to protect the rights of others ? From whence this responsibility come?
I just don’t get it.
Are you per chance confusing this with empathy, one of Susanne and Sonhouse favorite subject? They think everyone is heathen that is a Republican or a conservative.