Was That Ignorant ***** in California Discussed?

[Arrian]

I just file this one under "really odd" and figure this is an outlier. She's crazy. That's it, really. What more can you say? You can't possibly structure policy around this example of bat****tery.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

So the solution is to let them out rather then cut back on their priveleges in jail? Bad solution.

Privileges??? They're sleeping in the frigging corridors! It's estimated will cost $50 billion to create enough prison space so California will meet minimum Constitutional standards. Do you think these judges WANT to let 1/3 of the California prison population loose at a time when there are no jobs?

[DaShi]

I did go to confession and told the priest about our exchange. He said I had to do a hail mary.

So you admit that you are wrong. Now please apologize.

[Zkribbler]

He said I had to do a hail mary.

He wants you to play quarterback for Notre Dame??

[Agathon]

I did go to confession and told the priest about our exchange. He said I had to do a hail mary.

Nah mate. He said you had to nail Mariah.

The church is modernizing. Get down on it.

[Tuberski]

Big quotes around the phrase 'non-violent'.

The long and short of it is that they are releasing a third of the prisoners. Now they may be on the non-violent end of prisoners, but that doesn't make them non-violent after they've been released.

You, not ever being in prison, and never being violent, doesn't mean you won't be tomorrow.

Your problem is you seem to equate prison term to violence, which isn't always the case.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Time for me to feed the troll. *sigh*.....

Sure I can. The circumstances honestly don't matter. That is what you don't understand about my way of thinking. Sure they can be positive or negative circumstances, but for me bringing a child into the world is always positive. As I said, it would be one of the best days of my life.

How...do...you...know??? Seriously, you are talking out of your ass. You can't definitively state, that regardless of circumstances, being responsible for an unexpected child would always be a positive for you. Have you ever been in that situation? No, you haven't. You haven't even had a situation in which you THOUGHT a significant other might be pregnant with your kid. Last I heard, you've never even had sex. You are talking about something with which you have ZERO experience, and then projecting the viewpoint you imagine you would have onto the rest of us, most of whom do have some sort of experience to draw on. You think you know how you would feel. You certainly seem to think you know how the rest of us SHOULD feel. But why is that? Why is it that you, with no practical experience, can make definitive statements on the subject, AND say that everyone else should feel the same way?

Even if I grant that you are definitely right, and definitely would feel the way you say you would feel, you've provided ZERO objective evidence that it's the RIGHT way to feel, and/or that bringing any number of kids into the world is a positive thing. In previous threads, I've posted link after link after link - and can do so again - that draw a correlation between world poverty and a higher fertility rate. Your response? It's along the lines of "No, you've got it backwards, once people get rich they decide not to have more kids." But so what? Yes, you're right - eventually, when people manage to start accumulating wealth, they understand that having an average of 4.3 kids isn't conducive to maintaining their wealth. They realize that fewer kids and less poverty > than more kids and more poverty, and so they start making rational family planning decisions (which don't necessarily involve abortion).

But more importantly to this argument, you've conceded a pretty important point up for dispute. If your answer to the fertility rate/poverty correlation is that richer people stop having kids, then you're also admitting that kids are expensive - too expensive, in fact, to keep popping them out if you want to maintain a half decent lifestyle for yourself and your children. **** marginal costs, who gives a ****? What's important is the FACT, that you've basically stipulated by making the argument I pointed out, that having kids is expensive, and the more you have, the more expensive it gets.

If this wasn't the case, and if raising large families provided so many clear, obvious benefits, then I have one simple question for you: Why don't more people in industrialized nations raise large families?

One possible - nay, probable - answer is what I've already pointed out (and you've basically agreed to). Having more kids lowers the standard of living, with no appreciable benefits.

Now, there will also be some people out there - you, theoretically, included - who find that the intangible benefits provided by having more kids is more important to them than a more comfortable lifestyle. That's fine. However, at some point, you are simply not placing a great enough emphasis on the best interests of the kids - for example, when you are on food stamps, already have 6 kids, and decide to have 8 more. At that point, regardless of how you feel about children, the fact of the matter is that those children will suffer for your decision. It may not be the place of government to tell you that you can't make that decision, but it is the place of government to take those children away from you if the consequences of your decision results in those kids being inadequately cared for - something that is, again, a distinct possibility in the specific case we are discussing.

Also, in the specific case we are discussing, and in others like it, I feel that there IS a compelling public interest at stake - the fact that the taxpayers will be out millions of dollars providing medical care and food for those children, that the mother/parents can't afford. That's not right.

Now, I've covered quite a few of your points in this response, so let me deal with the rest of what you posted, that I haven't already gotten to:

Fair enough, but you have no experience with what it would be like for me, so I don't really see how your experience has any value to me.

You don't have any experience with what it would be like for you, either.

...homeschooling...

Yes, I am happy to concede that in many/most academic areas, homeschooled (and privately schooled) kids significantly outperform their peers, particularly on standardized tests. I never really argued that to begin with. I'm well aware of the ****ty state of US public schools. I certainly don't think that bragging about beating out gang bangers, punks, and idiots in academic comparisons is anything to brag about. What's that they say about the one eyed man being king in the nation of the blind?

Let's look at the curriculum, though. Public school curriculum isn't nearly as bad as the results indicate - the results are simply indicative of a bunch of morons who would rather be learning new ways to rob 7-11 and not get caught than learn algebra. The problem with homeschools is that there is no consistent curriculum. For some subjects - as long as the overall scores stay high - that doesn't matter too much. However, science is an area where it certainly does (and that's also an area, by the way, that is not tested nearly as in-depth on standardized tests as math, English, reading comprehension, etc., are tested) matter, and one of the biggest areas where homeschool curriculum can fall short. This won't be true in all cases, but it's a fact that a large percentage of homeschool parents WILL be teaching Young Earth Creationism, and interjecting the Bible into science. This simply isn't science. No one here is arguing that it should be illegal to do this, I am just arguing that by doing so, you are providing a sub-standard scientific curriculum.

Secondly, qualifications. No, public school teachers are not fonts of wisdom - I've dealt with plenty of idiot public school teachers. The problem is, parents aren't exactly fonts of wisdom, either, when it comes to most subjects. Most parents barely remember how to do basic math problems without a calculator, unless their field is in math. Unless they are in the writing field or a related one, most parents aren't going to remember how to properly structure a sentence, spell words like "squirrel" without a spell-checker, or how to properly use semicolons. Those are all examples of things that kids learn in, like, 4th grade. If the parents can't do this stuff, what makes them think they are qualified to teach this stuff? Incidentally, I have an answer for this: Many homeschool parents are more concerned with a "Biblical" education than a proper education. At least in public schools, teachers are generally somewhat more familiar with the subject they teach than the average parent is, if for no other reason than they cover the same material year after year. Parents did not generally go to school to learn HOW to teach material, whereas teachers do - hence the requirement for teacher certifications.

So, then, why do home schooled students outperform their public school peers, if their parents are grossly unqualified to teach, and parts of their curriculum is seriously subpar? Ben, the answer is, most of those students are going to succeed, anyway. Homeschool a gang banger, and his results will mirror what he got in public school, put a homeschooled kid in public school, and his results will likely mirror what he got at home. Some students are going to succeed, and some are going to fail. The students who grow up around violent drug cultures with parents who are never around and/or are too cracked out to care are probably going to fail. Kids who grow up not being around cracked out parents, who don't consider random street violence to be normal, are probably going to succeed.

Now that we've disposed of the academic argument, let's look at socialization.

I'm more than happy to accept that in some cases, homeschool kids will turn out just fine, socially. But why is it, Ben, that the usual stereotype of a homeschooled kid is that of a kid who can't dress, can't talk to girls, and in general is just a gigantic dork? Well, perhaps because it's largely true. Stereotypes are in many cases based on facts, and I am absolutely convinced that spending the first 18 years of your life being homeschooled by mommy and daddy, not playing organized sports, not having school dances, not having to deal with bullies, etc., etc., etc. is NOT a conducive way to develop social skills that will translate over into the workplace. Office politics? Forget about it - the kid didn't even have to deal with 6th grade politics.

You want to disagree? Fine. I can't prove my point, except by pointing out that just about everyone's stereotype of homeschooled kids is along the lines of what I have repeated described. If I'm wrong, why does that stereotype exist?

Kids learn how to act around the opposite sex by watching their parents if they have them. Same with bullies. Same with dating.

What the ****? Let me say that again. What the holy great ****ing Christ are you smoking, must less talking about? You learn how to deal with bullies by observing your parents? You learn how to date by observing your parents? I can tell how many serious relationships you've had, if you think that marriage has any significant correlation to dating. And bullying? Really? Did one of your parents bully the other, and that's how you learned about it?

The way you learn to stand up to bullies is, after getting sick of being bullied, you stand up for yourself, and find out it works. No amount of being TOLD that will help,you have to DISCOVER that. And once you do, you gain a valuable insight into how people operate. It's that whole experience thing again. Dating? You don't learn how to ask girls out and act on a date by watching your parents who have been married for 15 years. You learn like everyone else does - by figuring out you're interested in girls, awkwardly stumbling when you try to talk to them, slowly figuring out how NOT to pop an immediate boner when you see one, and then how to (mostly) smoothly ask if they would perhaps like to sit with you at lunch, or maybe go get some ice cream later. Once that happens, you learn through the painful processes known as FAILURE and REJECTION how to act in such encounters. Eventually, you'll figure out how to parlay this knowledge into doing other stuff with women - kissing them, touching them, maybe even having sex with them. Of course, some people learn this sooner than others, but it's all about experience. Learn this **** by watching your married parents?

What I found is that unorganised sports were good at keeping me in condition for the rest. I honestly think organised sports are way overhyped and that kids, especially younger kids are better served to just play and enjoy themselves.

Well, I agree that unorganized sports are great for keeping in shape. Duh. Every kid should go outside and play catch, or a pickup game of basketball, or whatever. And of course I'm not advocating that you place a 5 year old in an ultra-competitive environment.

But competition, teamwork, success, failure, and how to deal with those things are integral parts of being a productive adult, and competitive sports from a young age are an OUTSTANDING way to teach those concepts.

The benefits are in the children themselves, not in the material goods. Benefit is a very broad concept.

Define that, then. Define the "benefit" that, by not having 5+ kids, the rest of us (well, and you) are missing out on. Then explain to me why that benefit is a universal absolute, and not relative to you.

That is not because they are impoverished because they have children, but because as they get wealthier, they choose not to have as many.

Why do you imagine that is?

Your family couldn't afford vaccinations for two children? All I'm saying is that it's not a significant cost compared with say housing, or food, or transportation.

Medical care is a very significant cost, especially for families making $35,000/year. Even $50 matters. Some weeks, that might be the grocery budget.

I'd call that reasonable which would put your families' health care the same as the transportation for 1 vehicle.

50 dollars for a tank of gas which lasts you a week is 50 x 50 = 2500 dollars a year.

Congratulations, Detective Mis-direction. Unfortunately for you, though, that gas tank still has to get filled up, especially if Daddy is driving from "the country" to his job and back 5 days a week. The gas cost doesn't go away - if anything, it goes up.

Don't know her, and nor can I say that I love her as I would a wife.

Nice cop out. That being the case, could you kindly retract your comments castigating men for not marrying her and giving her all her kids naturally, please? For all you know, the men who DO know her think the same thing the rest of us do - that she's a bat**** crazy mental case.

[Zkribbler]

Summary??

[David Floyd]

Ben thinks he knows better, has little practical experience, contradicts himself, and will likely be back later on to parse my post line by line in an attempt at misdirection.

[Ben Kenobi]

How...do...you...know???

It's like asking if I would enjoy my confirmation, or my wedding night. It is something that I value very highly, regardless of the circumstances. It could be a disaster, and I would still be happy.

then projecting the viewpoint you imagine you would have onto the rest of us, most of whom do have some sort of experience to draw on. You think you know how you would feel. You certainly seem to think you know how the rest of us SHOULD feel. But why is that? Why is it that you, with no practical experience, can make definitive statements on the subject, AND say that everyone else should feel the same way?

I never said that you ought to feel as I do, I merely said that you have a very different worldview. Yours is internally consistant. It makes sense why it would be difficult for you given your assumptions. The difference is that we are working off different assumptions, one of which you alluded to in your earlier post.

Even if I grant that you are definitely right, and definitely would feel the way you say you would feel, you've provided ZERO objective evidence that it's the RIGHT way to feel, and/or that bringing any number of kids into the world is a positive thing.

I wasn't arguing that it should be right for everyone to have 14 kids. I simply argued that it is how I feel about the issue. There really is no *right* answer for everyone on this issue because different people have different vocations.

In previous threads, I've posted link after link after link - and can do so again - that draw a correlation between world poverty and a higher fertility rate. Your response? It's along the lines of "No, you've got it backwards, once people get rich they decide not to have more kids." But so what? Yes, you're right - eventually, when people manage to start accumulating wealth, they understand that having an average of 4.3 kids isn't conducive to maintaining their wealth.

The point is that their wealth goes up first. We saw this in the west, before the birthrate dropped.

But more importantly to this argument, you've conceded a pretty important point up for dispute. If your answer to the fertility rate/poverty correlation is that richer people stop having kids, then you're also admitting that kids are expensive - too expensive, in fact, to keep popping them out if you want to maintain a half decent lifestyle for yourself and your children.

I've simply argued that our perception of a half decent lifestyle changes. I haven't always felt this way David. I had to have my eyes opened to the possibilities before I would even consider that things could be different. Now that I have, the old arguments aren't very effective.

If this wasn't the case, and if raising large families provided so many clear, obvious benefits, then I have one simple question for you: Why don't more people in industrialized nations raise large families?

They used to do so, but they stopped doing so quite some time ago. One of the factors is wealth. Another is education particularly for women. I'd even go so far that urbanisation is a huge factor.

Now, there will also be some people out there - you, theoretically, included - who find that the intangible benefits provided by having more kids is more important to them than a more comfortable lifestyle.

It's simply taking a different perspective. I am looking at a much longer term then most folks.

That's fine. However, at some point, you are simply not placing a great enough emphasis on the best interests of the kids - for example, when you are on food stamps, already have 6 kids, and decide to have 8 more.

The kids must be born first to have interests. You can't argue that the children would be better off not being born at all. Sure, the circumstances are not ideal, but why do they have to be ideal? The children have a better future now then they would have otherwise.

At that point, regardless of how you feel about children, the fact of the matter is that those children will suffer for your decision.

Life is suffering, David. We could not, no matter how hard we try, spare a child from all suffering.

Also, in the specific case we are discussing, and in others like it, I feel that there IS a compelling public interest at stake - the fact that the taxpayers will be out millions of dollars providing medical care and food for those children, that the mother/parents can't afford. That's not right.

The solution then is to find a way that she can care for her children. My suggestion is that she get married.

Let's look at the curriculum, though. Public school curriculum isn't nearly as bad as the results indicate - the results are simply indicative of a bunch of morons who would rather be learning new ways to rob 7-11 and not get caught than learn algebra.

I didn't realise how much I had been cheated until I went into IB. The curriculum is horrible. It fails on so many different aspects to adequately prepare students for university.

The problem with homeschools is that there is no consistent curriculum. For some subjects - as long as the overall scores stay high - that doesn't matter too much. However, science is an area where it certainly does (and that's also an area, by the way, that is not tested nearly as in-depth on standardized tests as math, English, reading comprehension, etc., are tested) matter, and one of the biggest areas where homeschool curriculum can fall short.

That's both a positive and a negative. You can work at your own pace and are not hindered by the curriculum. For students who want and enjoy learning, it is much, much easier.

This won't be true in all cases, but it's a fact that a large percentage of homeschool parents WILL be teaching Young Earth Creationism, and interjecting the Bible into science. This simply isn't science. No one here is arguing that it should be illegal to do this, I am just arguing that by doing so, you are providing a sub-standard scientific curriculum.

Some will, some won't. There is a great diversity in homeschooling families. There have been many, many excellent scientists who were also faithful Christians. Heck, Mendel was a monk. I don't understand why you believe that Christianity is contrary to the examination of Creation through empirical means, when we were the folks that introduced this to the world in the first place.

If the parents can't do this stuff, what makes them think they are qualified to teach this stuff?

Then they learn so that they can keep homeschooling. They aren't going to start with grade 4 stuff.

So, then, why do home schooled students outperform their public school peers, if their parents are grossly unqualified to teach, and parts of their curriculum is seriously subpar? Ben, the answer is, most of those students are going to succeed, anyway.

Homeschooling gives them the foundation that they need to succeed. They have a family that they are close together, and this plays a huge, huge role in their success later on.

I'm more than happy to accept that in some cases, homeschool kids will turn out just fine, socially. But why is it, Ben, that the usual stereotype of a homeschooled kid is that of a kid who can't dress, can't talk to girls, and in general is just a gigantic dork?

There are no dorks in public schools?

You want to disagree? Fine. I can't prove my point, except by pointing out that just about everyone's stereotype of homeschooled kids is along the lines of what I have repeated described. If I'm wrong, why does that stereotype exist?

Do you have any evidence, besides stereotypes to show that homeschooled children lack in social skills? There are plenty of outside activities that they can engage in to cover that gap.

What the ****? Let me say that again. What the holy great ****ing Christ are you smoking, must less talking about? You learn how to deal with bullies by observing your parents?

I did not say that. You learn to deal with bullies by what your parents tell you how to deal with them.

What I did say is that you learn how to act with the opposite sex by observing your parents. This is one of the most important reasons why intact families succeed.

You learn how to date by observing your parents? I can tell how many serious relationships you've had, if you think that marriage has any significant correlation to dating.

Ok. How many serious relationships have I had? I find it amusing that you learned these things from your peers who have never been married, and are struggling just the same as you. If I want to learn how to get married, I talk to folks that have the experience, not to my peers who knew nothing and are just as confused as I was.

And bullying? Really? Did one of your parents bully the other, and that's how you learned about it?

No, but they taught me how to deal with them. They said stick up for yourself, or walk away. You have to decide which is the appropriate response.

The way you learn to stand up to bullies is, after getting sick of being bullied, you stand up for yourself, and find out it works. No amount of being TOLD that will help,you have to DISCOVER that.

I find it amusing that you need to lecture me about how to stand up to bullies. Thanks for the lesson DFloyd. I think I'm going to be alright.

And once you do, you gain a valuable insight into how people operate. It's that whole experience thing again. Dating? You don't learn how to ask girls out and act on a date by watching your parents who have been married for 15 years.

Oh, how do you think they got that way? They know what works and what doesn't.

You learn like everyone else does - by figuring out you're interested in girls, awkwardly stumbling when you try to talk to them, slowly figuring out how NOT to pop an immediate boner when you see one, and then how to (mostly) smoothly ask if they would perhaps like to sit with you at lunch, or maybe go get some ice cream later. Once that happens, you learn through the painful processes known as FAILURE and REJECTION how to act in such encounters.

You are talking about courtship? Look David, we have very, very different ideals about those parts of our lives.

Eventually, you'll figure out how to parlay this knowledge into doing other stuff with women - kissing them, touching them, maybe even having sex with them. Of course, some people learn this sooner than others, but it's all about experience. Learn this **** by watching your married parents?

By talking to them. Asking them what girls like, that sort of thing.

I'm going to horrify you even more and tell you that I would talk with my Grandmother all the time about these sorts of things.

Lately, I spend plenty of time talking to other married friends. They have very good suggestions.

Define that, then. Define the "benefit" that, by not having 5+ kids, the rest of us (well, and you) are missing out on. Then explain to me why that benefit is a universal absolute, and not relative to you.

The joy of George Bailey when he returns home to his family that loves and cares for him.

Congratulations, Detective Mis-direction. Unfortunately for you, though, that gas tank still has to get filled up, especially if Daddy is driving from "the country" to his job and back 5 days a week. The gas cost doesn't go away - if anything, it goes up.

That is about the reasonable cost of a tank a week.

Nice cop out. That being the case, could you kindly retract your comments castigating men for not marrying her and giving her all her kids naturally, please? For all you know, the men who DO know her think the same thing the rest of us do - that she's a bat**** crazy mental case.

The world would be a better place if more men were willing to step up and provide for a family.

[David Floyd]

There is so much wrong with those pseudo-answers that I don't even know where to begin. It frankly sounds like propaganda lacking in substance.

Tell ya what. I'm gonna get my day started, go do some drinking, and let someone else take a stab at it. If by this evening no one else has, I'll write another massive post answering your one-liners. Unless I'm too drunk, in which case you'll have to wait for tomorrow.

[Arrian]

Ben thinks he knows better, has little practical experience, contradicts himself, and will likely be back later on to parse my post line by line in an attempt at misdirection.

I'm particularly fond of these lines:

The kids must be born first to have interests. You can't argue that the children would be better off not being born at all. Sure, the circumstances are not ideal, but why do they have to be ideal? The children have a better future now then they would have otherwise.

Even if we grant the above (and I don't), hows about the interests of the 6 kids already in existence, huh?

and

Life is suffering, David. We could not, no matter how hard we try, spare a child from all suffering.

That's some piss poor misdirection, Ben. No one would suggest a parent can shield their children from all suffering. It does not therefore logically follow that intentionally bringing suffering upon them is a good idea.

As for the rest, it's pretty clear that DF and BK have very different ideas about how one should be educated* and how one should interact with the opposite sex. I largely agree with David, of course.

One thing you can and should learn from your parents is the very basic concept of treating others with kindness and respect. You *do* learn important things (good/bad, depending on the parents) about interacting with the opposite sex... if dad is a mysogynistic bastard, well, you probably will be too. But Floyd's also right that you don't just figure this stuff out by watching and/or talking to your parents. Peers are important - not just to learn what to do, but also to learn what NOT to do.

-Arrian

* I went to public school... in an affluent town. I had parents who valued education, and I didn't have to deal with the crap that a kid from the inner city deals with. Result? A pretty darn good education. You can always complain about curriculum, but unless it's REALLY wack, it's tertiary (primary: home environment, secondary: quality teachers. I had both of those).

[Arrian]

Heh, it's early and I don't have much caffeine in my yet, so I didn't even notice the awesome contradiction here:

You can't argue that the children would be better off not being born at all... Life is suffering, David.

-Arrian

[Alinestra Covelia]

I'll write another massive post answering your one-liners.

Is it just me, or does anybody else see that this might not be a very good idea?

(Based purely on the principle of effort-to-results, I mean.)

[Elok]

Not necessarily a contradiction, though you have to get really...metaphysical? Existential? Ontological? Well, one of those filosofy words meaning "masturbatory," anyway. Is an entity existing with continual suffering better off than said entity not existing at all? How do you know? Do you ask the nonexistent entity, "how's the whole not-living thing working for you?"