GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: Florestan on May 30, 2014, 09:07:23 AM

Title: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on May 30, 2014, 09:07:23 AM
Ever since May 25th, tha day of the EU elections, my blood boils... UKIP won the day in Britain with just three slogans: (1) "Keep the Romanians out of the UK!", (2) "Get the UK out of the EU!" and (3) "Kill the EU!"

I wil, and I want, comment on the first issue, since I am Romanian and I feel perrsonally insulted and injured by Mr. Farage's comments.

Apart from the fact that the Romanian invasion of the UK, trumpeted by Mr. Farage, never ever took place, I would like Mr. Farage to answer these questions:

1. Who were responsible for the Heysel Stadium disaster? Romanians or Englishmen?

2. Who were responsible for the civilians' brutal massacre during the Sepoy revolt? Romanians or Englishmen?

3. Who were responsible for the setting up of concentration camps of civilians during the Anglo-Boer war, and the consequent death of  thousands of civilians? Romanians or Englishmen?

4. If I would provoke Mr. Farage to a contest about philosophy, music, literature and science --- who would win, Mr. Farage or I?

Now, I'm sure Mr. Farage is far too much an idiot to ever being able to find his way through GMG --- yet I want my protest to be recorded!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: mc ukrneal on May 30, 2014, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2014, 09:07:23 AM
Ever since May 25th, tha day of the EU elections, my blood boils... UKIP won the day in Britain with just three slogans: (1) "Keep the Romanians out of the UK!", (2) "Get the UK out of the EU!" and (3) "Kill the EU!"

I wil, and I want, comment on the first issue, since I am Romanian and I feel perrsonally insulted and injured by Mr. Farage's comments.

Apart from the fact that the Romanian invasion of the UK, trumpeted by Mr. Farage, never ever took place, I would like Mr. Farage to answer these questions:

1. Who were responsible for the Heysel Stadium disaster? Romanians or Englishmen?

2. Who were responsible for the civilians' brutal massacre during the Sepoy revolt? Romanians or Englishmen?

3. Who were responsible for the setting up of concentration camps of civilians during the Anglo-Boer war, and the consequent death of  thousands of civilians? Romanians or Englishmen?

4. If I would provoke Mr. Farage to a contest about philosophy, music, literature and science --- who would win, Mr. Farage or I?

Now, I'm sure Mr. Farage is far too much an idiot to ever being able to find his way through GMG --- yet I want my protest to be recorded!
Here are the answers:
1. You started with an easy one. The French of course!
2. Another easy one for Mr. Forage as he has several choices from the Indian subcontinent.
3. He probably thinks the Boers are a bore, but this time he can choose Africans! All of them.
4. This is, unfortunately, too easy. My Forage is stupid and closed minded. Thus, his philosophy will ring with all the stupid and close-minded people in the world, not to mention those that seem to reject science.  So really, you haven't a chance! :(

Now can we please just go the pub and drown our sorrows!?!? :)

PS: I know his name is spelled differently...
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on May 30, 2014, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2014, 09:07:23 AM
Ever since May 25th, tha day of the EU elections, my blood boils... UKIP won the day in Britain with just three slogans: (1) "Keep the Romanians out of the UK!", (2) "Get the UK out of the EU!" and (3) "Kill the EU!"

But isn't this a political trend in Northern Europe over the last twenty years - i.e. the illogical resentment towards immigrants? It seems like so many smaller parties (e.g. in Denmark) get votes building an agenda based on resentment and racism. Each European nation (or local area/group) can always argue that it is the "outsiders" that cause the problems (whatever it is - economy/jobs/crime etc etc) rather than examining the real causes. The UK has been in this camp for a long time ... well, centuries...  What do you think?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 01, 2014, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 30, 2014, 10:50:44 AM
Here are the answers:
1. You started with an easy one. The French of course!
2. Another easy one for Mr. Forage as he has several choices from the Indian subcontinent.
3. He probably thinks the Boers are a bore, but this time he can choose Africans! All of them.
4. This is, unfortunately, too easy. My Forage is stupid and closed minded. Thus, his philosophy will ring with all the stupid and close-minded people in the world, not to mention those that seem to reject science.  So really, you haven't a chance! :(


Why, thank you very much, NeaL, I knew I could count on you!  8)

Quote
Now can we please just go the pub and drown our sorrows!?!? :)

Oh yes, by all means --- see below!  :)

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 01, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on May 30, 2014, 11:02:49 AM
But isn't this a political trend in Northern Europe over the last twenty years - i.e. the illogical resentment towards immigrants? It seems like so many smaller parties (e.g. in Denmark) get votes building an agenda based on resentment and racism. Each European nation (or local area/group) can always argue that it is the "outsiders" that cause the problems (whatever it is - economy/jobs/crime etc etc) rather than examining the real causes. The UK has been in this camp for a long time ... well, centuries...  What do you think?

Well, yes, you are absolutely right --- Nigel Farage is not the first, nor will he be the last, xenophobic demagogue; the truth is that I should not have made such a kerfuffle over it, but he stated that "any UK citizen should be worried  if a Romanian were their neighbors!" and that I couldn't stand anymore. I really had to cool off somehow...  ;D

Now, think about it: the Romanian Socialists won the EU elections with the slogan : "Proud to be Romanians!" --- which is as great an idiocy as Farage's. One can be proud of one's own achievements, but "Proud to be Romanians!" is exactly like saying "I'm proud of having blonde hair!" or "I'm proud of being 1m 80cm tall!"....  ;D

The prospect for cosmopolitan liberals like me is not good at all...

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 01, 2014, 05:41:16 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 01, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Well, yes, you are absolutely right --- Nigel Farage is not the first, nor will he be the last, xenophobic demagogue; the truth is that I should not have made such a kerfuffle over it, but he stated that "any UK citizen should be worried  if a Romanian were their neighbors!" and that I couldn't stand anymore. I really had to cool off somehow...  ;D

Now, think about it: the Romanian Socialists won the EU elections with the slogan : "Proud to be Romanians!" --- which is as great an idiocy as Farage's. One can be proud of one's own achievements, but "Proud to be Romanians!" is exactly like saying "I'm proud of having blonde hair!" or "I'm proud of being 1m 80cm tall!"....  ;D

The prospect for cosmopolitan liberals like me is not good at all...

Ok, if I were a Briton, and one night I fell asleep in my home in Tadcaster and I awoke next morning to find myself in Bucharest, with nothing but Romanian neighbours, and no decent bitter at the local pub, I should be upset.

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 01, 2014, 07:14:16 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on May 30, 2014, 11:02:49 AM
But isn't this a political trend in Northern Europe over the last twenty years - i.e. the illogical resentment towards immigrants? It seems like so many smaller parties (e.g. in Denmark) get votes building an agenda based on resentment and racism. Each European nation (or local area/group) can always argue that it is the "outsiders" that cause the problems (whatever it is - economy/jobs/crime etc etc) rather than examining the real causes. The UK has been in this camp for a long time ... well, centuries...  What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 01, 2014, 07:16:57 PM
It's Racist that deepest darkest Africa isn't MultiCultural yet. We should force Swedes to move to Somalia in the Name of Equality & Tolerance.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 01, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on June 01, 2014, 07:14:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

Interesting! Thanks, Snyppr!

It seems like Europe has had a much harder time to integrate immigrants and minority groups (each nation doing its own program/agenda) compared to the US.  Not to say that the US does not have problems, but they (the problems) seem to pale compared to some of the things going on in Europe over the last decade. This is a bit astounding to me as some of these nations have poured tons of resources toward the effort of assimilation, while here in the US it is virtually a governmental sink-or-swim approach in comparison (relatively few resources comparatively). Isn't that a bit bizarre?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 01, 2014, 09:52:00 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on June 01, 2014, 07:16:57 PM
It's Racist that deepest darkest Africa isn't MultiCultural yet. We should force Swedes to move to Somalia in the Name of Equality & Tolerance.

Sweden is one of the nations in Europe that have accepted most refugees and immigrants per capita. As far as I am concerned the effort is admirable!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 07:01:18 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 01, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
Interesting! Thanks, Snyppr!

It seems like Europe has had a much harder time to integrate immigrants and minority groups (each nation doing its own program/agenda) compared to the US.  Not to say that the US does not have problems, but they (the problems) seem to pale compared to some of the things going on in Europe over the last decade. This is a bit astounding to me as some of these nations have poured tons of resources toward the effort of assimilation, while here in the US it is virtually a governmental sink-or-swim approach in comparison (relatively few resources comparatively). Isn't that a bit bizarre?
I for one question the bolded premise. Most efforts seem to be ways of enabling, and encouraging, non-assimilation.  Sharia courts of various levels of formality or informality for example. Differing levels of toleration for law-breaking, such as car-burning in France.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 07:01:18 AM
I for one question the bolded premise. Most efforts seem to be ways of enabling, and encouraging, non-assimilation.  Sharia courts of various levels of formality or informality for example. Differing levels of toleration for law-breaking, such as car-burning in France.

Well, it is of course a very complex issue calling for longterm planning and changes in social and economic infrastructure. Again, comparatively I know that Scandinavia in particular poured lots of resources into the process but seemingly failed miserably.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 07:51:07 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 01, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
Interesting! Thanks, Snyppr!

It seems like Europe has had a much harder time to integrate immigrants and minority groups (each nation doing its own program/agenda) compared to the US.  Not to say that the US does not have problems, but they (the problems) seem to pale compared to some of the things going on in Europe over the last decade. This is a bit astounding to me as some of these nations have poured tons of resources toward the effort of assimilation, while here in the US it is virtually a governmental sink-or-swim approach in comparison (relatively few resources comparatively). Isn't that a bit bizarre?
Well, the US is a nation of immigrants.  (Unless you're Native American, and what we've done to them is nothing short of genocide.)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 07:51:07 AM
Well, the US is a nation of immigrants.  (Unless you're Native American, and what we've done to them is nothing short of genocide.)

Every nation is a nation of immigrants (and genocides) depending on the time scale you choose....    ???
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 07:55:55 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 07:55:06 AM
Every nation is a nation of immigrants (and genocides) depending on the time scale you choose....    ???
True. :(
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 07:59:33 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 07:36:33 AM
Well, it is of course a very complex issue calling for longterm planning and changes in social and economic infrastructure. Again, comparatively I know that Scandinavia in particular poured lots of resources into the process but seemingly failed miserably.
But what do you mean by poured money into the process? Set up non-Swedish language schooling? My point is that programs that purport to "ease the transition" etc., often impede assimilation.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 08:01:13 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 07:55:55 AM
True. :(

In the US there has been such a strong debate (well, a type of debate) about equality and rights relative to minority groups. This is in particular true for African-American rights/equality. This is all understandable, but like you pointed out one may wonder where the debate is in regards to Native Americans? Here in the US we push for civil rights, freedom and equality, but the issue of the Native American genocide is almost never discussed (even though it is the elephant in the room). It really bothers me!   >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 08:01:58 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 07:59:33 AM
But what do you mean by poured money into the process? Set up non-Swedish language schooling? My point is that programs that purport to "ease the transition" etc., often impede assimilation.

And that is why the US has minimal programs of that kind?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 08:08:21 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 08:01:13 AM
In the US there has been such a strong debate (well, a type of debate) about equality and rights relative to minority groups. This is in particular true for African-American rights/equality. This is all understandable, but like you pointed out one may wonder where the debate is in regards to Native Americans? Here in the US we push for civil rights, freedom and equality, but the issue of the Native American genocide is almost never discussed (even though it is the elephant in the room). It really bothers me!   >:( >:( >:(
Yeah.  Me too.  But many Native Americans would rather not assimilate, but have their land back--another bucket of worms and an elephant in the room!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 02, 2014, 08:13:05 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 08:08:21 AM
Yeah.  Me too.  But many Native Americans would rather not assimilate, but have their land back--another bucket of worms and an elephant in the room!

Yes, it is so complex considering all the different tribes, regions, history and degree of assimilation as well as socioeconomic issues. A giant bucket of worms! No wonder politicians cannot even see the bucket (or perhaps - do not want to?)!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 08:27:08 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 02, 2014, 08:08:21 AM
Yeah.  Me too.  But many Native Americans would rather not assimilate, but have their land back--another bucket of worms and an elephant in the room!
I'm sorry to sound harsh here, but this -- treating groups and ancestry as what is real and important -- is what you claim to be condemning.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Sef on June 02, 2014, 08:59:38 AM
The question with UKIP is whether they are racists in sheep's clothing. Farage keeps denying that he is a racist, but there can be no denying that UKIP attracts the unsavoury few who would blame the ills of the country on immigrants. Visiting the UK, I spoke to a number of people prior to the elections who were contemplating voting UKIP (and I was surprised because ordinarily I would think that even possibly being seen as racist would be taboo in England - it was when I lived there), but the reason they gave was that there were too many people in England already, and that there was no more room. England already has a very high population density, the smallest houses of any country in Europe, and no one wanted to see more building on Green Field sites. The get out clause that Farage insists that UKIP is not a racist party was enough to get the votes. My fear though is that this is how it starts - and we all know where it can lead.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: ibanezmonster on June 02, 2014, 07:24:02 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 02, 2014, 07:59:33 AM
But what do you mean by poured money into the process? Set up non-Swedish language schooling? My point is that programs that purport to "ease the transition" etc., often impede assimilation.
I always wondered what would happen if the US and Europe took the same stance as Japan on immigration. You know there would be tons of people from poor countries going there if they could, but let's see the possible ways you can live there:

1) marriage
2) military
3) be famous
4) have a bachelor's and work as an English teacher (be a native English speaker or you'll be at a significant disadvantage in finding a job)
5) have a bachelor's and work at a job doing your trade and know Japanese well enough to compete with other Japanese trying to get the same job. Oh, and have fun learning Japanese, especially if you don't know English. Actually, I wouldn't recommend anyone to study Japanese without knowing English first, so you'll have to be trilingual if you are a non-native English speaker in this scenario.

There's no such thing as just learning the language and deciding to work at McDonalds, construction, etc. you have to be highly educated. And if you're from a poor country, well, good luck getting the education. And that's why there are so few immigrants there from poor countries. Many of those that do get in probably find some odd way that I'm not aware of...

What does everyone think about the hypothetical scenario of the US, Canada and all of Europe adopting these types of requirements for immigration? If they did, there would probably be riots everywhere and the words "racist" and "xenophobic" being used more times than there are atoms in the universe.  :P
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ten thumbs on June 03, 2014, 01:40:43 AM
Whilst I'm very much against Nigel Farage and his policies, the real reason for his popularity has nothing to do with race. Concerns about immigration are centred rather on pressures on housing, services and in many people's minds, on jobs.
From my perspective, I'm happy with immigration except that we in Britain are already a crowded country and, although we can build as many houses as needed, they require land. This is most often green fields and - WE ARE SHORT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 03, 2014, 06:19:41 AM
Funny how often economics is used to legitimize all manner of viewpoints and perspectives that run counter to human civility and understanding.  "Not racism, but..."  Perhaps $ should be done away with altogether like on Star Trek.  So, what is the consensus here?:  out of this boiling cauldron of issues and complexities are we headed toward resolution or other holocausts of which the human race is so fond?  Times like these make me wish I could pilot my own spaceship to a new, more sensible planet - hey, just like immigrants feel they are doing!   
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 03, 2014, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 01, 2014, 09:52:00 PM
Sweden is one of the nations in Europe that have accepted most refugees and immigrants per capita. As far as I am concerned the effort is admirable!

It's NOT admirable. It's idiocy. What that video showed is that The Wandering Ones are taking the leading role in diluting the natural heritage of Sweden. Swedes have been turned into pussies- you can't even debate the immigration policy or you risk jail- 23% of Swedish women are in fear of being raped by a non-white immigrant (muzz).

No, it's not admirable,- UNLESS the Swedes send tens of thousands of pale asses to deepest darkest Africa as an exchange. Fact is, NO ONE is MultiCulti immigration in AFRICA!!!!- HUH??? Where's the lutefisk stand in the Congo? Where's the funtabulists in Kenya?? That's Racism!!!!

This is How Stupid the Swedish Royals are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl1GYPO3g10


Why does it appear as though the jews are leading this immigration surge into sweden? jews are notorious for not allowing their own heritage to dilute... blanda up!! (this is a saying in swedish which means- hey white swede, it's cool to hook up with africans)

backlash coming


I don't know if you misread my reason for posting that Lerner video- it's NOT a good thing, what she says in that video- keep in mind- she's an American jew who went to Sweden to do this.


My relatives there say they are no longer considered "swedes"= no= that is reserved for those freshly arrived, doncha kno.

moonie- please, just ask yourself- if this multiculti thing was so great, why isn't Africa becoming integrated? Why is it only First World countries that have to "integrate"?- and, with the dregs of immigration no less.

It's not like they're importing rocket scientists, right?


come On- give me a break-... it's NOT a "good thing". Ghettos? Non-assimilation? Welfare?


It's funny, the countries all these folks come from have quite different immigration policies that of the "just come on in" types. Crashing by design???????

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 03, 2014, 07:49:36 AM
Why don't all the bleeding hearts move to Africa and help them get out of their doldrums?,- go to the source, instead of bringing  the source to your doorstep.


Does anyone here at GMG live in a muslim ghetto? ANYONE???? any ghetto... any one...


It's like the 6yo who just KNOWS she's a boy...  ::) ::) ::)...


It seems that WHOMEVER wrote the Protocols knew how to predict the future.


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



Oh, this "Intolerance of Intolerance"! :laugh: :laugh:



Also, keep in mind what it means that the so-called white supreme group 'StormFront' is actually based in West Palm Beach, Fla. You know what that means, don't you? Let it sink in.


Sorry, but we're living in Orwellian times, - I mean, just typing the word 'Orwellian' prolly gets me tagged by our Sacred Leader's Apparatus- so, I surely care not for Vanderbilt niceties, and will probably bring the fiery language to the podium from now on. War is surely coming- in some form (already economic)- so, just keep in mind who were the first to 'Disappear' when the Totalitarians came into power.


Surely, I will end up on a spit before I put someone on a spit.

I've seen what happens when you yank the "nicey" veneer off a flaming lib-tard (socialist patsy). Lib-tards want to eat your liver and kill your unborn and erase your very memory from the history books. They WANT you to die slow, horribly painful deaths.

and btw- in the USA- Repubs AND Democr are BOTH flamingly ONE PARTY of Ajenda 21. There is NO ONE is the USA who will ever do anything to turn anything around- ever! They all went to Harvard/Ivy, they all know the 'secret handshake club', many  have dual citizenship with THAT ONE COUNTRY (and only that one country)- they all have oil friends, or bank friends, or whatever... so, just in case you were ready just to call me a 'republican'- oy vey!!


Please, just keep in mind that all "the West" is doing is trying to make the rest of the world safe for compound interest.


I have narrowed it to the three 'entities' that probably run the world:

1) Papacy/Jesuits
2) Talmudists
3) ChiComm

Tell me, out of these three, who bows to whom? Who really rules us? Who's got the fat cash stack that they're blackmailing the world with?








another banner snyprrr Post! :laugh:               


Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 03, 2014, 07:54:56 AM
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on June 03, 2014, 06:19:41 AM
Times like these make me wish I could pilot my own spaceship to a new, more sensible planet - hey, just like immigrants feel they are doing!

Don't worry, the originators of compound interest WILL find you, and you WILL set up a RothchildCentralBank on your planet- or else!

If you don't import "refugees" to your planet, you will have EconomicWar declared on you- you racist!!!!(that's really their only weapon- calling people names)

Where are the refugees from Iceland?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 03, 2014, 07:57:25 AM
Is there a Swede in the house who can declare all the wonderful culture that has dropped like dew upon the Swedish soil since this vast immigration policy has been enacted?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 03, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
Funny how everyone is on about UKIP and not Marine LePen.

Anyway, no, this is not a Keep Florestan Out vote. It's a more generalized protest vote. The major parties have basically ignored concerns on sovereignty, rule by Brussels, and immigration with its consequences in a generous welfare state, and a notable lack of assimilation. These are not trivial issues.  Since the major parties won't discuss any of these issues seriously it opened up a chance for the extreme parties. That will change over time. 

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 03, 2014, 12:15:40 PM
Snyprrr,

You have been listening too much to the Rush Limbaugh Show - actually - perhaps you are Rush Limbaugh?   ???
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 04, 2014, 12:34:23 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
Anyway, no, this is not a Keep Florestan Out vote.

Oh, I''m sure at bottom it isn't. And in my book Farage is not a racist because he did not say "keep the Africans out!" but "keep the Romanians out!" --- and Romanians are just as indo-europeans as Britons are. ;D What stirred my indignation was using a whole foreign nation, whose members are not quite keen on immigrating to England, as cause and root of all UK problems, which are neither few, nor unimportant.

Quote
It's a more generalized protest vote. The major parties have basically ignored concerns on sovereignty, rule by Brussels, and immigration with its consequences in a generous welfare state, and a notable lack of assimilation. These are not trivial issues.

Of course they aren't. They are actually extremely important. But it would have been more honest sloganeering on "Keep Brussels out!" .  ;D

Quote
Since the major parties won't discuss any of these issues seriously
They don't discuss them here in Romania either, but fortunately we don't have any extreme party of notable influence, although xenophobia and EU-phobia are on the rise.

Quote
it opened up a chance for the extreme parties. That will change over time.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I'm afraid the only change will be still more votes for those parties. Unless the EU itself will change for the better, a very unlikely occurence if you ask me. Ostrich policy has been their trademark for far too long a time.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 04, 2014, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 03, 2014, 12:15:40 PM
Snyprrr,

You have been listening too much to the Rush Limbaugh Show - actually - perhaps you are Rush Limbaugh?   ???

Limbaugh(sky) works for tellaviv just like the rest of em- once you see what he and his "enemies" have in common, it all comes in to focus a little better. All "conservatives" in media are really just... actors. Do you reeeally think Hannity is a "conservative"??? Or any of them??

Michael Savage = Michael Weiner ::) hint hint
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 04, 2014, 12:34:23 AM
Oh, I''m sure at bottom it isn't. And in my book Farage is not a racist because he did not say "keep the Africans out!" but "keep the Romanians out!" --- and Romanians are just as indo-europeans as Britons are. ;D What stirred my indignation was using a whole foreign nation, whose members are not quite keen on immigrating to England, as cause and root of all UK problems, which are neither few, nor unimportant.

Of course they aren't. They are actually extremely important. But it would have been more honest sloganeering on "Keep Brussels out!" .  ;D
They don't discuss them here in Romania either, but fortunately we don't have any extreme party of notable influence, although xenophobia and EU-phobia are on the rise.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I'm afraid the only change will be still more votes for those parties. Unless the EU itself will change for the better, a very unlikely occurence if you ask me. Ostrich policy has been their trademark for far too long a time.
I thought you said the socialists won?

As for change ... Political parties in the west are actually wizards at dynamic programming and opportunism. If there is a significant niche of unserved voters they will find a way, by hook or by crook, to try to appeal to them.  Either parties like UKIP will change to be more mainstream, or the more mainstream parties will filch issues and policies from UKIP. My money is on the latter. The alternative is that the major parties continue to ignore and exacerbate problems until an explosion comes. My bet is against that because the major parties may be unprincipled and foolish, but they aren't stupid. They are highly evolved survivors.
I agree about the EU not changing. But I am pretty anti-EU. Keep Brussles Out is a good slogan to me!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: kishnevi on June 04, 2014, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 04, 2014, 12:34:23 AM
Oh, I''m sure at bottom it isn't. And in my book Farage is not a racist because he did not say "keep the Africans out!" but "keep the Romanians out!" --- and Romanians are just as indo-europeans as Britons are. ;D What stirred my indignation was using a whole foreign nation, whose members are not quite keen on immigrating to England, as cause and root of all UK problems, which are neither few, nor unimportant.

Of course they aren't. They are actually extremely important. But it would have been more honest sloganeering on "Keep Brussels out!" .  ;D
They don't discuss them here in Romania either, but fortunately we don't have any extreme party of notable influence, although xenophobia and EU-phobia are on the rise.

I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I'm afraid the only change will be still more votes for those parties. Unless the EU itself will change for the better, a very unlikely occurence if you ask me. Ostrich policy has been their trademark for far too long a time.
Perhaps Farage is screwed up enough to think Gypsies (Romany) are from Romania?  That level of discourse is horrifyingly typical of some political elements here, on both right and left.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: mn dave on June 04, 2014, 11:38:52 AM
If Florestan is Romanian, they can't all be bad.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 04, 2014, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 04, 2014, 11:35:32 AMPerhaps Farage is screwed up enough to think Gypsies (Romany) are from Romania?  That level of discourse is horrifyingly typical of some political elements here, on both right and left.



Funny looking foreigners with funny sounding names who speak funny languages are easy and frequent targets for opportunistic politicians seeking to move attention away from failed economic (and other) policies.  Happens everywhere, all the time, not just in Europe and the US.  I especially enjoy when politicians explain very carefully how proposed changes to immigration policy, usually urgently needed, are not xenophobic and racist in nature.  The only thing more enjoyable is when people fall for it and then repeat it.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 04, 2014, 12:12:09 PM


Funny looking foreigners with funny sounding names who speak funny languages are easy and frequent targets for opportunistic politicians seeking to move attention away from failed economic (and other) policies.  Happens everywhere, all the time, not just in Europe and the US.  I especially enjoy when politicians explain very carefully how proposed changes to immigration policy, usually urgently needed, are not xenophobic and racist in nature.  The only thing more enjoyable is when people fall for it and then repeat it.
Well the good arguments are rarely economic. So that leaves bad consequences for the generous welfare state, or cultural effects. Do Canadians have a right to worry that a few million followers of the Westboro Baptist church might move to Winnipeg and demand changes in the law to suit their taste? Death to homosexuals, women stoned, prayer in school.  I surely don't want them, and I agree that is pure xenophobia. Some xeno should be phobed.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 04, 2014, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:25:21 PMSo that leaves bad consequences for the generous welfare state


That's an economic argument, and generally speaking a very poor one.  The harsh demographic reality for the developed world, the US only partly excepted, is that population growth rates have slowed, and economic productivity has not increased enough to offset the declines and will likely not improve enough in the future to offset declines in a meaningful way, thus requiring more immigration to maintain luxurious standards of living.


Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:25:21 PMor cultural effects.


And that's the foundation for racist and xenophobic arguments.  The Westboro thing is a (presumably humorous) strawman; the hard reality is that immigration restrictions overwhelmingly target poorer people, usually from ethnically and/or religiously dissimilar countries.  People can rationalize all they want, but immigration policy often just reflects current hatreds and prejudices. 

I'm most familiar with US policy of course, and it is humorous to look back to no less a personage than Benjamin Franklin wringing his hands about the culturally deleterious effect of those swarthy Swedes and Germans.  Old Ben thought lily white was not quite white enough.  Less humorously, US policy with respect to southern Europeans (so many Catholics!), Asians (Yellow Peril!), and now, mainly, Hispanics reveal who we are scared of, or at least who we want to pretend don't help build the nation.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:57:08 PM
No, I don't think the welfare thing is an economic argument. It's an objection based on a moral judgment. If at age 70 you immigrate to a new country and collect welfare that can be reasonably seen  as unfair.
Overall, in the face of low birht rates in the west, I think a generous welfare state may *require* a lot of immigration. That of course leads to other questions of morals ...

The Westboro case is humourous but there is a legitimate point. Mass immigration can cause cultural problems, and it's wrong to airily dismiss that as blanket xenophobia. Neither does it mean that restricting immigration is the only solution. As several have noted that seems more a problem in Europe than here. I think in part that's because the French are more racist than Americans, impeding the assimilation whose absence they now lament. I don't know if that is true in Sweden. I live near near Dearborn, the most muslim part of North America, and we never see car burnings or the sort of stuff you see in France.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 04, 2014, 01:18:32 PM
Problems exist, and especially during these times when the economy isn't doing well, anti-immigration politicians get votes even if they're full of it. Finland needs immigrants and they aren't really a problem, except to them who worry they use our health care and social services, when actually immigrants tend to use the services less than the natives.

Of course, Nordic countries are far from France, in many ways. Minnesota vs. Texas..
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 04, 2014, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:57:08 PMIt's an objection based on a moral judgment. If at age 70 you immigrate to a new country and collect welfare that can be reasonably seen  as unfair.


A relatively small number of old people receiving meager benefits hardly seems to be a major concern, nor does it offer much of a moral argument; such people would not qualify for benefits such as social security, or other programs structured similarly, since they paid nothing into the system, but they would or at least should qualify for medical treatment since that is the morally right thing to do.  Besides, generally speaking, it is not the elderly who emigrate, unless you have some statistical evidence that shows the impoverished elderly make up a meaningful portion of global, non-refugee population movement.  Most arguments center around younger people, their children, etc. 



Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:57:08 PMMass immigration can cause cultural problems, and it's wrong to airily dismiss that as blanket xenophobia.


It is not at all wrong to dismiss the concerns as informed significantly by, and almost certainly predominantly by, xenophobia and racism, because those are two of the fundamental, underlying reasons for opposing immigration.  Attempting to preserve something as nebulous and malleable as "culture" strikes me as almost pointless since past immigration, in all countries, helped form current culture, current immigration is not significant enough to fundamentally alter it in the near term or medium term, and part of what immigrants seek is to be a part of a new culture.  Such dismissals are also not at all airy, given how shabbily some immigrants are treated.



Quote from: North Star on June 04, 2014, 01:18:32 PMFinland needs immigrants and they aren't really a problem, except to them who worry they use our health care and social services, when actually immigrants tend to use the services less than the natives.


This is similar to a big concern in the US about how illegal immigrants engage in criminal behavior other than illegally coming to this country.  Evidence from local and federal law enforcement agencies show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit other crimes than both legal immigrants and native born citizens.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 04, 2014, 02:02:58 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 04, 2014, 01:42:44 PM

A relatively small number of old people receiving meager benefits hardly seems to be a major concern, nor does it offer much of a moral argument; such people would not qualify for benefits such as social security, or other programs structured similarly, since they paid nothing into the system, but they would or at least should qualify for medical treatment since that is the morally right thing to do.  Besides, generally speaking, it is not the elderly who emigrate, unless you have some statistical evidence that shows the impoverished elderly make up a meaningful portion of global, non-refugee population movement.  Most arguments center around younger people, their children, etc. 




It is not at all wrong to dismiss the concerns as informed significantly by, and almost certainly predominantly by, xenophobia and racism, because those are two of the fundamental, underlying reasons for opposing immigration.  Attempting to preserve something as nebulous and malleable as "culture" strikes me as almost pointless since past immigration, in all countries, helped form current culture, current immigration is not significant enough to fundamentally alter it in the near term or medium term, and part of what immigrants seek is to be a part of a new culture.  Such dismissals are also not at all airy, given how shabbily some immigrants are treated.




This is similar to a big concern in the US about how illegal immigrants engage in criminal behavior other than illegally coming to this country.  Evidence from local and federal law enforcement agencies show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit other crimes than both legal immigrants and native born citizens.

BULLSHIT!! :laugh:

Go up tell it on the mountains of Israel! of Somalia...

Give us your Nigerian web scammers

And your Mexican landscaper


Right, so, we ALL "came from Africa", right? So,just like the "Israelis" I can just go back to Africa and claim it as my heritage right?



AP;March 31, 2014

"The White Ghettos of Ghana"

    Ever since Ghana opened up their immigration policy, lots of poor white trash from the Eastern seaboard of the United States has been flooding this African nation- people who couldn't get jobs in the US, and were considered outcasts,... refugees if you will- and the government of Ghana has welcomed them with open arms. Housing and welfare has been provided, but, because all this poor white trash is inherently inbred, they've all become a drug addicted drain on the community, living in welfare ghettos that have become filthy with neglect.

   The Ghanan... Ghanese if you will... have granted all this poor white trash the right to vote, and locals fear that they may hear a Kenny Chesney song in the near future. Locals also say that this new culture has nothing to offer this country of rich history, and they don't know why their leaders are forcing this alien- and some would say incompatible- culture onto theirs.

The local women of Ghana- almost 26% of them- are in fear of being raped by a non-African poor white trash man with a weak moustache and chin hair wearing overalls and sucking on a straw. But officials are loathe to do anything, saying, "It's just what they do. Don't be a racist."
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 04, 2014, 02:04:51 PM

Trotsky Invented 'Racism'

http://search.comcast.net/?cat=web&con=beta&q=trotsky%20came%20up%20with%20racist
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 04, 2014, 02:11:57 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on June 04, 2014, 02:02:58 PMI can just go back to Africa and claim it as my heritage right?



You might run into difficulties attempting to emigrate anywhere.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 03:01:07 PM
Todd:
QuoteSuch dismissals are also not at all airy, given how shabbily some immigrants are treated.

Just so you realize that's a wild non-sequitur, right? Some of your points are good, but that is a complete non-sequitur.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: kishnevi on June 04, 2014, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on June 04, 2014, 02:04:51 PM
Trotsky Invented 'Racism'

http://search.comcast.net/?cat=web&con=beta&q=trotsky%20came%20up%20with%20racist

He may have invented the term.  The phenomenon existed a long time before him.  Indeed,  one of the reasons Trotsky was Trotsky was the racist practices Russian inflicted on its Jewish inhabitants.

Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 12:57:08 PM
I live near near Dearborn, the most muslim part of North America, and we never see car burnings or the sort of stuff you see in France.

You might want to tell that to Pamela Geller.  Not that it will help.  There is a term for a Jew whose rhetoric of attack on Islam relies heavily on paraphrases of Nazi attacks on Jews, and it's not a pretty one.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: kishnevi on June 04, 2014, 06:06:11 PM
BTW, has anyone noticed the underlying irony  here; that the xenophobic parties have gained their victories not in national elections, but in a transnational election for the EU Parliament?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 04, 2014, 06:11:37 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 04, 2014, 06:06:11 PM
BTW, has anyone noticed the underlying irony  here; that the xenophobic parties have gained their victories not in national elections, but in a transnational election for the EU Parliament?


As The Economist noted, electing a right-wing, anti-EU politician as an MEP is one thing, electing the same type of politician as an MP is something else.  Voters may be sending a message.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 06:18:47 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 04, 2014, 06:04:34 PM
He may have invented the term.  The phenomenon existed a long time before him.  Indeed,  one of the reasons Trotsky was Trotsky was the racist practices Russian inflicted on its Jewish inhabitants.

You might want to tell that to Pamela Geller.  Not that it will help.  There is a term for a Jew whose rhetoric of attack on Islam relies heavily on paraphrases of Nazi attacks on Jews, and it's not a pretty one.
Geller is a bit ... tetched. Let's stick with that.
There have been a few incidents here where the police and the city have been clearly guilty of harassing Christian groups, and one of those Koran burners, and a few other signs of political favoitism. And there have been some cases of funding terror groups. So it's not that there haven't been a few incidents. But that's fringe stuff. There is absolutely no way that you call this area Dearbornistan as I have heard her do, to suggest anti-assimilation.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 06:20:55 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 04, 2014, 06:11:37 PM

As The Economist noted, electing a right-wing, anti-EU politician as an MEP is one thing, electing the same type of politician as an MP is something else.  Voters may be sending a message.
Yes. It's a frustration vote, at least in the UK. I have a hard time getting past the LePen name I confess.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: kishnevi on June 04, 2014, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 06:18:47 PM
Geller is a bit ... tetched. Let's stick with that.
There have been a few incidents here where the police and the city have been clearly guilty of harassing Christian groups, and one of those Koran burners, and a few other signs of political favoitism. And there have been some cases of funding terror groups. So it's not that there haven't been a few incidents. But that's fringe stuff. There is absolutely no way that you call this area Dearbornistan as I have heard her do, to suggest anti-assimilation.

I have a coworker who is a Muslim women from Bengal.  Her family name is, interestingly enough, Shaheed.   She's serious about Islam,  but there's no fanaticism about her.  No burqas in her family!   And I've found over time that I, as a Jew, have a good deal culturally more in common with her than I do with my American born Christian co-workers.   Muslims are supposed to pray just before it gets totally dark,  Jew just after--but having discussed the differences in timing, we now just mention that it's time to go pray, and no further explanation is needed of what is for both of us a basic behavior.  Whereas Christians require a long explanation.....   Being a woman of great tact and discretion, she has never brought up the subject of Israel vs. Palestinians,  and I never seen a reason to mention it either.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2014, 10:17:45 AM
I thought you said the socialists won?

Ha ha! Good one!  :D

Seriously now, the Romanian Socialists are extreme only in shamelessness, incompetency and authoritarianism.  ;D


Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 06:21:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 01:55:27 AM
Ha ha! Good one!  :D

Seriously now, the Romanian Socialists are extreme only in shamelessness, incompetency and authoritarianism.  ;D
So may I take it you support socialism skillfully done?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 06:48:50 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 06:21:37 AM
So may I take it you support socialism skillfully done?

I don't support socialism at all, be it skilful or incompetent.  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 08:05:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 06:48:50 AM
I don't support socialism at all, be it skilful or incompetent.  ;D
purr purr
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 06:48:50 AM
I don't support socialism at all, be it skilful or incompetent.  ;D
You'd hate the socialist utopia even if it worked??
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
You'd hate the socialist utopia even if it worked??
I hate square circles. Seven-sided penatagons too, now I think about it.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:34:06 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 08:15:21 AM
I hate square circles. Seven-sided penatagons too, now I think about it.
So, if you found one of either, you'd destroy it instead of showing it to others?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: ibanezmonster on June 05, 2014, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:34:06 AM
So, if you found one of either, you'd destroy it instead of showing it to others?
I'm sure MC Escher discovered those, but never revealed them to the public.  :P
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
You'd hate the socialist utopia even if it worked??

What do you mean by "the socialist utopia"?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:12:49 AM
What do you mean by "the socialist utopia"?
Common ownership. Obviously it will not work, but I wouldn't mind if someone made cold fusion work, either..
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:17:47 AM
Common ownership. Obviously it will not work, but I wouldn't mind if someone made cold fusion work, either..
It worked for the early Christians and for the Native Americans...
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:24:10 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:17:47 AM
Common ownership.

It did not work. It doesn't work. It will not work. But you're right, even if it worked I'd still hate it because I hate people being transformed into ants.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
It worked for the early Christians and for the Native Americans...

Yes, but it was voluntary, not imposed and maintained by the force of the state, which is what socialism is all about.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:28:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:25:38 AM
Yes, but it was voluntary, not imposed and maintained by the force of the state, which is what socialism is all about.
If it would work, it would not be imposed upon anyone. But as I said, it obviously will not work. As to people being transformed into ants, are you saying that if that utopia came to be everywhere, most people's workload would larger than it was, and less fair?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:33:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:25:38 AM
Yes, but it was voluntary, not imposed and maintained by the force of the state, which is what socialism is all about.
Indeed.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:28:51 AM
If it would work, it would not be imposed upon anyone. But as I said, it obviously will not work. As to people being transformed into ants, are you saying that if that utopia came to be everywhere, most people's workload would larger than it was, and less fair?

I'm saying that if it came to be everywhere, and everything would be hold in common, then there will be no more personal independence and creativity in humans than in ants.  ;D

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
I'm saying that if it came to be everywhere, and everything would be hold in common, then there will be no more personal independence and creativity in humans than in ants.  ;D
I'm not sure I agree with that.  It would depend on how it came about.  If it were imposed by some humans on others, then yes, it's very likely that independent thought would be squashed; but if by some miracle the human race or a significant fraction thereof agreed to give up individual ownership of land or houses or things, that would still allow for individualism and the exercise of differing gifts and talents and desires...
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:48:00 AM
If only Scriabin had lived long enough.. :D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 09:48:00 AM
If only Scriabin had lived long enough.. :D
Yes.  Now we'll probably have to wait for the actual Second Coming! ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 12:45:09 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
It worked for the early Christians and for the Native Americans...
Depends on what you mean by worked. Look up for example the fate of the Hurons.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2014, 09:24:10 AM
It did not work. It doesn't work. It will not work. But you're right, even if it worked I'd still hate it because I hate people being transformed into ants.

We are 7.2 billion ants already. Face it!     >:D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:15:55 PM
We are 7.2 billion ants already. Face it!     >:D
Ah go formicate yourself!

>:D :laugh:
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:18:28 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that.  It would depend on how it came about.  If it were imposed by some humans on others, then yes, it's very likely that independent thought would be squashed; but if by some miracle the human race or a significant fraction thereof agreed to give up individual ownership of land or houses or things, that would still allow for individualism and the exercise of differing gifts and talents and desires...

The almost extinct hunter gatherer societies are generally great examples of "early" socialism. It must have worked for 100,000s of years otherwise we wouldn't be here as a plague upon the Earth.

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
Ah go formicate yourself!

>:D :laugh:

Actually, ants are considerably more successful than humans from a biological perspective...
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:19:11 PM
Actually, ants are considerably more successful than humans from a biological perspective...
At least they produce much more formic acid than the chemical industry.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
At least they produce much more formic acid than the chemical industry.

And considerable less pollution...    ::)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 05, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
And considerable less pollution...    ::)
And fewer, and less, of petrochemicals.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:13:43 PM
Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

We know prehistory was vastly more violent and murderous than the 20 th century. We know that " common property" stopped at the tribe's edge, and we know humans stayed short-lived, disease ridden, and poor for most of history. Yet even someone as educated as Peter writes of it as a golden age.  :(

Sorry Moonfish, but twaddle is twaddle.  Slavery was around a long time too.

And no CDs!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 03:24:22 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:13:43 PM
Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

We know prehistory was vastly more violent and murderous than the 20 th century. We know that " common property" stopped at the tribe's edge, and we know humans stayed short-lived, disease ridden, and poor for most of history. Yet even someone as educated as Peter writes of it as a golden age.  :(

Sorry Moonfish, but twaddle is twaddle.  Slavery was around a long time too.

And no CDs!

Some ants actually have slavery!!!   ???  (not to say that is a good thing - nature has some pretty nasty parasitic tendencies)

I presume you are being sarcastic about prehistory? I would not be surprised if more people died in warfare over the last 200 years compared to the previous millenia. Besides, I never stated that the hunter gatherer society was a golden age, but it appears as if it was one in which one shared the burdens of the group in a more equalitarian fashion compared to today's world. The modern US is a society with extreme inequality (as I am sure you know).
By the way, have you ever read this interesting article about agriculture by Jared Diamond?

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf (http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 03:24:22 PM
Some ants actually have slavery!!!   ???  (not to say that is a good thing - nature has some pretty nasty parasitic tendencies)

I presume you are being sarcastic about prehistory? I would not be surprised if more people died in warfare over the last 200 years compared to the previous millenia. Besides, I never stated that the hunter gatherer society was a golden age, but it appears as if it was one in which one shared the burdens of the group in a more equalitarian fashion compared to today's world. The modern US is a society with extreme inequality (as I am sure you know).
By the way, have you ever read this interesting article about agriculture by Jared Diamond?

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf (http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf)
I am not remotely being sarcastic about pre history. By any sensible measure, that is relative to population,  the last 200 years have been more peaceful than average, especially compared to pre history. The violence of the ancient world and prehistory are well established results. Freeman or Pinker have good summaries.

Yes, I have had the dubious pleasure of reading Diamond.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:44:32 PM
I am not remotely being sarcastic about pre history. By any sensible measure, that is relative to population,  the last 200 years have been more peaceful than average, especially compared to pre history. The violence of the ancient world and prehistory are well established results. Freeman or Pinker have good summaries.

Yes, I have had the dubious pleasure of reading Diamond.

But the theme of human history is aggression between groups...
So do you view the last 100 years as a peaceful era/period?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 04:22:51 PM
But the theme of human history is aggression between groups...
So do you view the last 100 years as a peaceful era/period?
Not just groups, individuals.
Was the last 100 years peaceful? Only compared to the rest of history and prehistory.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 04:39:45 PM
Not just groups, individuals.
Was the last 100 years peaceful? Only compared to the rest of history and prehistory.

Can you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship? I am all ears...
I think it is gibberish!   >:D


Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 05, 2014, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 05:17:32 PMCan you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship?




Here's an interview with the author of a book that makes the contention that society is less violent now than in the past. (http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence)  Basically, this is the view that most lethal violence is now organized by the state, and non-systemized murder is far less likely statistically than in eons gone by.  Not for nothing did Hobbes characterize the state of nature as, um, unpleasant.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 05, 2014, 05:17:32 PM
Can you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship? I am all ears...
I think it is gibberish!   >:D
Already did!  Pinker, Better Angels. Not a great book but he summarizes the evidence on this well.
For Jochanaan's north americans ther's a book by LeBlanc.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 05, 2014, 05:30:28 PM



Here's an interview with the author of a book that makes the contention that society is less violent now than in the past. (http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence)  Basically, this is the view that most lethal violence is now organized by the state, and non-systemized murder is far less likely statistically than in eons gone by.  Not for nothing did Hobbes characterize the state of nature as, um, unpleasant.
Stalin and Hitler and Mao stand out of course, but it is easy to underestimate just how frequent small wars have been, or how common murder. Much less slave trades plural.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:29:39 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that.  It would depend on how it came about.  If it were imposed by some humans on others, then yes, it's very likely that independent thought would be squashed;

There is no other way to establish it on a large scale.

Quote
but if by some miracle the human race or a significant fraction thereof agreed to give up individual ownership of land or houses or things, that would still allow for individualism and the exercise of differing gifts and talents and desires...

This "miracle" would work, as it actually did or does, only in very small communities and in conjunction with very peculiar conditions.

The early Christians you mentiioned were a very small community and they were motivated by a very strong religious sentiment, something akin to contemporary Amish communities --- but the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a strong religious feeling. And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned.

The property of the Native American tribes was of such nature that it lent itself naturally to (more or less) common ownership: forests, pastures, stud farms --- but the property in the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a nature.  And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned --- not to mention that they respected the common ownership of their own tribe but had no problem whatsoever plundering the property of other tribes.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 04:37:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:29:39 AM
There is no other way to establish it on a large scale.
Isn't this is true of any system in the real world.

QuoteThis "miracle" would work, as it actually did or does, only in very small communities and in conjunction with very peculiar conditions.

The early Christians you mentiioned were a very small community and they were motivated by a very strong religious sentiment, something akin to contemporary Amish communities --- but the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a strong religious feeling.
Dunbar's number comes to mind.

QuoteAnd besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned.
No-one here is preaching free love or anything remotely to do common 'ownership' of wives or children..

QuoteThe property of the Native American tribes was of such nature that it lent itself naturally to (more or less) common ownership: forests, pastures, stud farms --- but the property in the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a nature.  And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned --- not to mention that they respected the common ownership of their own tribe but had no problem whatsoever plundering the property of other tribes.
Again, this is why it is utopia. Dunbar's number again..
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:39:15 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:13:43 PM
Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

Might be, but are you sure that by "cosmopolitan liberal" we really mean the same thing?  :D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:44:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:39:15 AM
Might be, but are you sure that by "cosmopolitan liberal" we really mean the same thing?  :D
Not entirely! I assume you mean classical liberal, which does not correspond to US liberal. Adam Smith not Karl Marx.
I'm confident about me; you I am less sure of  :) :P 8)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:46:02 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 04:37:29 AM
Isn't this is true of any system in the real world.

It is, absolutely. That's why I am a (classical) liberal: what all people do require is to have their life, liberty and property protected. To give the state, any state, be it the most democratic one on Earth, the power to do anything else than that is to open a huuuuuge can of worms.  ;D

Quote
Dunbar's number comes to mind.

Of course.

Quote
No-one here is preaching free love or anything remotely to do common 'ownership' of wives or children..

No one here, but some outspoken Socialists did it all right.  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:58:00 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:44:46 AM
Not entirely! I assume you mean classical liberal, which does not correspond to US liberal.

You assume correctly --- the US perversion of the term "liberal" pisses me off big time.  ;D

Quote
Adam Smith not Karl Marx.

Oh yes, absolutely! Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant and Wilhelm Roepke is my liberal trinity.  :)

Quote
I'm confident about me; you I am less sure of  :) :P 8)

I hope I assuaged your fears...  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:46:02 AM
It is, absolutely. That's why I am a (classical) liberal: what all people do require is to have their life, liberty and property protected. To give the state, any state, be it the most democratic one on Earth, the power to do anything else than that is to open a huuuuuge can of worms.  ;D
I'd add at least infrastructure and education to the list.

Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 04:58:00 AM
You assume correctly --- the US perversion of the term "liberal" pisses me off big time.  ;D

Oh yes, absolutely! Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant and Wilhelm Roepke is my liberal trinity.  :)

I hope I assuaged your fears...  ;D
Heard of Anders Chydenius? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Chydenius)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 05:05:42 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
I'd add at least infrastructure and education to the list.

Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

Quote
Heard of Anders Chydenius? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Chydenius)

No, never. Many thanks for pointing him out to me.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:08:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 05:05:42 AM
Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

No, never. Many thanks for pointing him out to me.
Finns sure hear of him in school, but I do believe Smith eclipses him pretty much completely in other parts of the world.
If only Internet had existed then..
QuoteIn the book Chydenius published theories closely corresponding to Adam Smith's invisible hand, eleven years before Smith published his book, The Wealth of Na
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:34:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 05:05:42 AM
State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

There's a difference between paid for by and done by. Vouchers etc. Publicly paying for schools does not require a public monopoly on running schools.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:42:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 05:05:42 AM
Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.
Private organizations of course never do propaganda...
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:22:38 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:34:24 AM
There's a difference between paid for by and done by. Vouchers etc. Publicly paying for schools does not require a public monopoly on running schools.

Oh, I agree completely. Education should be publicly funded but not publicly (ie stately) owned. I'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from?  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:22:38 AMI'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from?



Sorry, but that's a straw man. 
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:46:42 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:42:50 AM
Private organizations of course never do propaganda...

You kidding, right?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

They certainly do --- and they do it big time. But it is the very competition between state propaganda and private propaganda that ensures the balance.  ;D

Look, I am a diehard liberal of the really old school, that is I am opposed to any monopoly, of any kind. Had I lived in the eras and places when the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the various Protestant denominations,  had the monopoly on politics and education, I would have been their enemy and therefore labeled as an heretic and an atheist (and I would have strongly objected to both labels).

It is my lot, though, that I live in an era when the monopoly (or quasi-monopoly) of education and politics belongs to the state --- and therefore I am the enemy of the state; namely, of that state which pretends and demands to be our tutor, guardian and provider von der Wiege bis zum Grabe (and I trust all GMG-ers know what I mean, if only by way of Wikipedia...  ;D ).

And I hasten to add that this my uncompromising liberalism stems from, and (according to my conscience) is in no way contradictory to, my being a Christian.  8)

Read this:

The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. --- Herbert Spencer

then replace "parliaments" with "democratic states" (which is pretty much the same thing) and that's my liberalism in a nutshell.  :D

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:47:10 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Sorry, but that's a straw man.

Why?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 07:00:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:47:10 AMWhy?



Really? 

You list geniuses, and state that they did not rely on state education systems, which is true.  So what?  The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy and perhaps even mass higher learning.  You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful.  First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.  (Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)  Second, you would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education, the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.  I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances, as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way. 
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: snyprrr on June 06, 2014, 07:03:12 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2014, 08:34:06 AM
So, if you found one of either, you'd destroy it instead of showing it to others?

kill it with fire
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 07:07:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:22:38 AM
Oh, I agree completely. Education should be publicly funded but not publicly (ie stately) owned. I'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from?  ;D
Linus Torvalds, Jean Sibelius, Martti Ahtisaari, Väinö Linna, Tove Jansson, Kalevi Aho, Paavo Berglund, Mikko Franck, Olli Mustonen, Sakari Oramo, Jorma Panula, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Kaija Saariaho, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Jukka-Pekka Saraste, John Storgårds, Artturi Virtanen (Nobel in chem.) , F. E. Sillanpää (Nobel in lit.), Ragnar Granit (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine together with other two)
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:46:42 AM
You kidding, right?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps.  :P
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 06:46:42 AM
Look, I am a diehard liberal of the really old school, that is I am opposed to any monopoly, of any kind.
Then you want government to stop cartels and monopolies.
QuoteHad I lived in the eras and places when the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the various Protestant denominations,  had the monopoly on politics and education, I would have been their enemy and therefore labeled as an heretic and an atheist (and I would have strongly objected to both labels).
Perhaps our education systems differ in other ways, too - there are no Superintendents checking how schools and teachers do in their jobs, we just educate the teachers better instead. So there really isn't a monopoly of education as every city, school & teacher can emphasize the content and use their own methods.

QuoteIt is my lot, though, that I live in an era when the monopoly (or quasi-monopoly) of education and politics belongs to the state --- and therefore I am the enemy of the state; namely, of that state which pretends and demands to be our tutor, guardian and provider von der Wiege bis zum Grabe (and I trust all GMG-ers know what I mean, if only by way of Wikipedia...  ;D ).
You mean elected democracy, not state. And therefore you are an enemy of the democracy, and of the demos.  8)
At least everyone who speaks some iotas of German should, or have heard some orchestral Liszt   >:D

QuoteAnd I hasten to add that this my uncompromising liberalism stems from, and (according to my conscience) is in no way contradictory to, my being a Christian.  8)

Read this:

The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. --- Herbert Spencer

then replace "parliaments" with "democratic states" (which is pretty much the same thing) and that's my liberalism in a nutshell.  :D
It's just a matter of statistics and probability - do most voters vote for politicians that will be better than the average monarch? It depends.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 07:08:44 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 07:00:29 AM


Really? 

You list geniuses, and state that they did not rely on state education systems, which is true.  So what?  The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy and perhaps even mass higher learning.  You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful.  First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.  (Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)  Second, you would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education, the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.  I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances, as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way.
+1
And there are plenty of genii who received their education in publicly governed schools.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 07:58:17 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 07:00:29 AM
The point of public education is not to produce Shakespeares, et al, but rather to achieve mass literacy

Of course; I agree. But if mass literacy means that a critical mass of public-education-graduates are just enough literate to read glossy magazines or mainstream newspapers' sport and leisure pages, and never ever have a thought of their own cross their minds concerning politics, economics and the world they're living in , then excuse me for saying loud and proud "AFAIC, mass literacy can go to blazes without much of a loss to the world at large!". ;D

Quote
and perhaps even mass higher learning. 

Paraphrasing Churchill, the best argument against mass higher learning is a five-minute conversation with an mass-higher-learning graduate.  ;D

Quote
You would need to show a couple things to make your argument meaningful. 

I need do nothing. I wasn't arguing at all. I was just asking a question.  ;D

Quote
First, you would need to show that public education precludes the possibility of people like those listed from attaining something similar when public education is available and mandated.

I claimed nothing of the sort.

Quote
(Of course, children of the rich need not succumb to the evils of public education, so there's an out for at least some lucky kids.)

Most rich kids never make much out of their formal education (OTOMH, Felix Mendelssohn is an exceptional exception)--- so this is a real strawman.  ;D

Quoteyou would then need to show that, in the event that the emergence of such brilliant talent is indeed hampered or destroyed by public education,

Once again, I claimed no such thing.

Quote
the loss of future geniuses is more detrimental to society than the benefits of public education, which increases the overall educational level and attainment of society.

Increasing the overall educational level of people is a very wortthwile goal --- I only contend that the state is not exactly the best mean for that.  ;D

Quote
Using extreme examples in this way is usually a bad idea.

Why, of course, but --- have you not come to know me by now?  ;D I am a contrarian by nature, and you of all people should know that.  >:D

Quote
I would contend that geniuses, or at least really smart people, will emerge in any circumstances,

Yes, of course! I agree! But since it is geniuses, or at least really smart people, who did, do and will shape the world, we should strive for an educational system (and I am talking specifically about higher education)  in which a graduate of whatever specialization should be able to have at least an informed opinion about the topics at hand --- and I trust you won't deny that a lot (I would say most) of today's graduates have no idea whatsoever about the history and the alleged solutions of the economical, political and social problems which torments the free world.  ;D

Quote
as they have throughout history, and at least some of them will benefit society in a (possibly) disproportional way.

Call me an elitist --- I am!  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 08:17:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 07:58:17 AMOf course; I agree. But if mass literacy means that a critical mass of public-education-graduates are just enough literate to read glossy magazines or mainstream newspapers' sport and leisure pages, and never ever have a thought of their own cross their minds concerning politics, economics and the world they're living in , then excuse me for saying loud and proud "AFAIC, mass literacy can go to blazes without much of a loss to the world at large!"



But is a critical mass of public education graduates really only as literate (or functionally illiterate) as you say?  My experience, and objective evidence, indicates otherwise.  Sure, there are tons of dullards who emerge from public schools, but there are a good number of dullards who emerge from fancier private schools.  It's not really possible to attribute an individual's relative dullness to public education.  Loads of people disliking high culture, and not following abstract sciences, and otherwise not paying much attention to what certain people consider to be intellectually and socially superior or important, or what not, hardly means that those people don't think for themselves or aren't intelligent, etc.  Such an attitude can certainly be called elitist, but to me it's just lazy. 

As to the notion that mass literacy can go without much of an impact to the world at large, well, that is rooted in something other than reality.  Many technically and intellectually sophisticated jobs of all sorts require a high degree of literacy and numeracy which could not be achieved on a sufficient scale without public education.  Contrary to the pining caused by false nostalgia, we live in the best of times, and like it or not, widespread public education has contributed to this.



Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 07:58:17 AMI need do nothing. I wasn't arguing at all. I was just asking a question.


Of course you don't need to do anything, but to claim that you were merely asking a question strikes me as disingenuous, given the implication of what you wrote, and the extent of your reply.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 08:20:01 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 07:07:13 AM
Linus Torvalds, Jean Sibelius, Martti Ahtisaari, Väinö Linna, Tove Jansson, Kalevi Aho, Paavo Berglund, Mikko Franck, Olli Mustonen, Sakari Oramo, Jorma Panula, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Kaija Saariaho, Esa-Pekka Salonen, Jukka-Pekka Saraste, John Storgårds, Artturi Virtanen (Nobel in chem.) , F. E. Sillanpää (Nobel in lit.), Ragnar Granit (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine together with other two)

I assume that all of them studied at publicly (ie, government) funded universities. Is this so?

Quote
Then you want government to stop cartels and monopolies.

Yes, yes and yes! Absolutely! I would certainly and gladly want and support that, were it not for the government being the most active and interested promoter and beneficiary of cartels and monopolies!  ;D

Quote
Perhaps our education systems differ in other ways, too - there are no Superintendents checking how schools and teachers do in their jobs, we just educate the teachers better instead. So there really isn't a monopoly of education as every city, school & teacher can emphasize the content and use their own methods.

If you mean to say that in Finland there is no state-mandated curriculum in schools, high-schools and universities, there is no state-certified-and-approved diploma of high-school-graduation and no state-certified-and approved diploma of university-graduation, then I send my sincerest kudos to you, Finns; in this case I contemplate sending my son to Finland and I do trust at least North Star of the GMG will not shout out loud: "Keep Romanians out of Finland!"  ;D

Quote
You mean elected democracy, not state. And therefore you are an enemy of the democracy, and of the demos.  8)

The state today relies on elected democracy, so this is really a linguistic quibble.  ;D

Quote
At least everyone who speaks some iotas of German should, or have heard some orchestral Liszt   >:D

Well, do you see the truth at last? The GMG is the exact opposite of the world at large --- cosmopolitan, tolerant, humorous and liberal! ;D

Quote
It's just a matter of statistics and probability - do most voters vote for politicians that will be better than the average monarch? It depends.

Todd knows me very well in this respect --- theoretically and philosophically I'm a monarchist.  ;D

What he does not know, though, and what I publicly let him know right now, is that realistically and pragmatically I am aware that monarchy is gone and lost --- forever!  ;D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 08:17:00 AM
But is a critical mass of public education graduates really only as literate (or functionally illiterate) as you say? 

I don't know the situation in US, or Finland for that matter, but I do know the situation in Romania --- and please trust me, it's exactly like I said!

Quote
My experience, and objective evidence, indicates otherwise.

Then kudos to you, and to all other free countries which do not have to cope with the communist heritage!

I mean it, gentlemen! You must pray day and night, even if you were atheists, for not having to be subjected to 50 years of communist rule!

Quote
  Sure, there are tons of dullards who emerge from public schools, but there are a good number of dullards who emerge from fancier private schools.

Well, exactly! Yes, absolutely!

Look, I do not advocate for the complete elimination of public education. What I advocate is the most complete freedom for parents to choose the school they want their children to attend; if they wanted public schools, okay and if they wanted private schools okay and if they wanted homeschooling then okay too! The only thing I deny to the state, is to certify which type of schooling is best.  ;D

Quote
  It's not really possible to attribute an individual's relative dullness to public education.

Of course! I am myself a product of (communist) public education --- and I do pretend, in all modesty, that I am not a dullard at all. Once again, I am not opposed to public education --- I am opposed to public education being the only approved and certified way of acquiring education at all.

Quote
  Loads of people disliking high culture, and not following abstract sciences, and otherwise not paying much attention to what certain people consider to be intellectually and socially superior or important, or what not, hardly means that those people don't think for themselves or aren't intelligent, etc.  Such an attitude can certainly be called elitist, but to me it's just lazy.

I know! I'm an elitist when I'm alone typing GMG posts; usually I'm a demophile who c\doesn't care much about one's education, but about one's personality! And in this respect I can testify to having met many illiterates whom I value so much above academics!  ;D ;D ;D

Quote
we live in the best of times

What other times have you lived, in order to be able to state that?   ;D

Quote
Of course you don't need to do anything, but to claim that you were merely asking a question strikes me as disingenuous, given the implication of what you wrote, and the extent of your reply.

I repeat: I am a contrarian by nature...   ;D

But now that I think of it, so too are you --- or at least, you are very fond of replying to contrarians...  ;D :D 0:)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 08:44:46 AM
Quote from: Philo on June 06, 2014, 08:03:19 AM
What the fuck is with all the smileys?
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D $:) 0:) :blank: :laugh:

Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 08:20:01 AM
I assume that all of them studied at publicly (ie, government) funded universities. Is this so?
Yes. Finland has very few private schools, and even they are mostly government funded. There are no private universities, even though a couple of years ago they were made 'sort of privately funded' - government doubles or triples or whatever the private donations (with some extra to the Aalto Univ in Helsinki, since the politicians are doing everything they can to make it look like the university there is better than outside of the 'big city'. Moving on...  :P)

QuoteYes, yes and yes! Absolutely! I would certainly and gladly want and support that, were it not for the government being the most active and interested promoter and beneficiary of cartels and monopolies!  ;D
Many politicians of course have connections with cartels and monopolies of the private sector, too.

QuoteIf you mean to say that in Finland there is no state-mandated curriculum in schools, high-schools and universities, there is no state-certified-and-approved diploma of high-school-graduation and no state-certified-and approved diploma of university-graduation, then I send my sincerest kudos to you, Finns; in this case I contemplate sending my son to Finland
The first one there is here, but not the latter one, although the ECTS credits required for each university degree are probably decided on a governmental level.
Quoteand I do trust at least North Star of the GMG will not shout out loud: "Keep Romanians out of Finland!"  ;D
Well, I could make an exception with your son, if he would be engaged in criminal activity.  ;)
QuoteThe state today relies on elected democracy, so this is really a linguistic quibble.  ;D
My favourite kind of quibble!  :laugh:

QuoteWell, do you see the truth at last? The GMG is the exact opposite of the world at large --- cosmopolitan, tolerant, humorous and liberal! ;D
Well, it would certainly be much easier to live in a world where everyone had the same language, religion (or not), culture & nationality. But that is never going to happen, of course.

QuoteTodd knows me very well in this respect --- theoretically and philosophically I'm a monarchist.  ;D

What he does not know, though, and what I publicly let him know right now, is that realistically and pragmatically I am aware that monarchy is gone and lost --- forever!  ;D
I'm not a big fan of autocracies of any kind. As a ceremonial leader with no power, a monarch is a decent option.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 08:50:10 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 07:08:44 AM
+1
And there are plenty of genii who received their education in publicly governed schools.
Which is a straw man.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 08:56:12 AM
Florestan:

"Once again, I am not opposed to public education --- I am opposed to public education being the only approved and certified way of acquiring education at all. "

Right. The state should pay for the garden, but let a thousand flowers bloom within it. ( >:D)
Finland from what I read has a good school system but not everyone is so lucky.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 08:56:31 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 08:50:10 AM
Which is a straw man.
As a reply to 'only private schools produce genii' ?  ???
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 09:02:39 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 08:44:46 AM
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D $:) 0:) :blank: :laugh:
Yes. Finland has very few private schools, and even they are mostly government funded.

But is it "government funded" the same as "government controlled"?

Quote
There are no private universities, even though a couple of years ago they were made 'sort of privately funded' - government doubles or triples or whatever the private donations (with some extra to the Aalto Univ in Helsinki, since the politicians are doing everything they can to make it look like the university there is better than outside of the 'big city'.

I see.  As far as I know, the Finnish educational system is the best in the world. But you see, Finns are Finns, and Romanians are Romanians; let Finns rule for just one year the Romanian educational system, and Romanians do viceversa --- and then let's see the statistics...  ;D ;D ;D

Quote
Moving on...  :P)

Exactly... let's move on.  ;D

Quote
Many politicians of course have connections with cartels and monopolies of the private sector, too.

Tell me about it... Here in Romania it is exactly, and mainly,  the Socialists who fall in this category!  ;D

Quote
Well, it would certainly be much easier to live in a world where everyone had the same language, religion (or not), culture & nationality. But that is never going to happen, of course

Of course! But I make a strict difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot revels in the huge diversity of nations and languages and customs and it is exactly this diversity that makes his patria (ie, fatherland) different. A nationalist would like to see the whole world submit to his own peculiar kind of nationship, language and customs --- and therefore he is the exact opposite of a patriot.

[quoter
I'm not a big fan of autocracies of any kind. [/quote]

That's exactly why I am not a big fan of modern republics.  ;D

Quote
As a ceremonial leader with no power, a monarch is a decent option.

Ain't it?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 08:56:31 AM
As a reply to 'only private schools produce genii' ?  ???

Please provide proof that I said that.  :o
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: jochanaan on June 06, 2014, 09:16:54 AM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:42:50 AM
Private organizations of course never do propaganda...
LOL!!!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on June 06, 2014, 09:16:54 AM
LOL!!!

It seems to me that there are lots of false dichotomies floating around: left/right, public/private etc.

For me, and I really mean it, the one, single, true dichotomy is twofold:

(1) liberty vs equality --- and  I am all for liberty!

and

(2) individual vs state --- and I am all for the individual!

;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 08:42:52 AMLook, I do not advocate for the complete elimination of public education. What I advocate is the most complete freedom for parents to choose the school they want their children to attend; if they wanted public schools, okay and if they wanted private schools okay and if they wanted homeschooling then okay too! The only thing I deny to the state, is to certify which type of schooling is best.


I suppose it depends on the country where one resides, but I am not familiar with arguments supporting the notion that the state should determine which schooling is best, or that it should enforce a standard curriculum on all schools.  Public schools should be managed by the state.  Private schools should be not.  Home schooling should not.  Private schools and home schooling parents ought not to receive any direct public funding, though.  By direct funding, I mean grants or vouchers.  If a school is prepared to accept public funds, then such a school must be prepared to accept interference by the state.



Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 08:42:52 AMWhat other times have you lived, in order to be able to state that?


A not so impressive quip.  A cursory glance at measurable aspects of life show that it is better to live now than, say, 500 years ago.  One could argue, I suppose, that mere measurements are not enough, that they do not constitute living, and so on, but I would argue it is better to live to an average age of 75, or thereabouts, free of most communicable diseases and having access to the fruits of millennia of labor and culture than to die poor, hungry, and sick at 33 during the Renaissance, just to be buried next to my three dead children and two dead wives, one of whom died giving birth to one of the three dead children.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 09:26:21 AM

I suppose it depends on the country where one resides, but I am not familiar with arguments supporting the notion that the state should determine which schooling is best, or that it should enforce a standard curriculum on all schools.  Public schools should be managed by the state.  Private schools should be not.  Home schooling should not.  Private schools and home schooling parents ought not to receive any direct public funding, though.  By direct funding, I mean grants or vouchers.  If a school is prepared to accept public funds, then such a school must be prepared to accept interference by the state.



Why? If a child has some sort of right to get an education paid for by the state why does that right come with the proviso it can only be in a state controlled and operated school?

If we want the most effective school system, why can that only be a monopoly? Do you have an argument that education is a natrual monopoly?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 09:51:46 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 09:33:01 AM
Why? If a child has some sort of right to get an education paid for by the state why does that right come with the proviso it can only be in a state controlled and operated school?

If we want the most effective school system, why can that only be a monopoly? Do you have an argument that education is a natrual monopoly?


You are confusing concepts here.  I did not mention a monopoly, natural or otherwise.  Private schools should be free to operate and offer competition to state run schools.  There is no monopoly in education, nor should there be.  It is a question of how public funds are allocated.

As a taxpayer, and a voter, I expect the state to take an active role in managing how funds are spent.  If private schools accept funds, then I expect the state to actively measure progress, and make sure that all institutions comply with established practices, and properly penalize institutions that do not comply.

To be honest, the conservative arguments for vouchers are anti-conservative.  (I'm talking US conservative.)  People who want vouchers are simply asking for a handout; that is, they seek a preferential form of welfare, just as assuredly as so-called "pro-choice" advocates want unrestricted money for their favored behavior, and (investment) bankers want public backing without public regulation.  People who want private education should pay for it out of their own pockets.

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 09:51:46 AM

You are confusing concepts here.  I did not mention a monopoly, natural or otherwise.  Private schools should be free to operate and offer competition to state run schools.  There is no monopoly in education, nor should there be.  It is a question of how public funds are allocated.

As a taxpayer, and a voter, I expect the state to take an active role in managing how funds are spent.  If private schools accept funds, then I expect the state to actively measure progress, and make sure that all institutions comply with established practices, and properly penalize institutions that do not comply.

To be honest, the conservative arguments for vouchers are anti-conservative.  (I'm talking US conservative.)  People who want vouchers are simply asking for a handout; that is, they seek a preferential form of welfare, just as assuredly as so-called "pro-choice" advocates want unrestricted money for their favored behavior, and (investment) bankers want public backing without public regulation.  People who want private education should pay for it out of their own pockets.

Well that's not a response to my questions though. Consider just the first. Say I believe that the state should pay for a child's education (to whatever extent). Why can that only be done through a publicly operated school? I think the state should pave the roads. Does that mean they should be paved with gravel from state owned quarries? Say I think the state should pay for policeman's uniforms. Does that mean they should have to wear uniforms woven in state factories using state grown cotton? If the child has a right, or moral claim, to the provision of schooling, why should it be so encumbered?

I am a taxpayer. I have no kids in school. I want my tax dollars in the school system used better than they are now. I want poor parents in Detroit to be able to select better schools, and use my taxes for that. How exactly am I "simply asking for a handout"?

If I am a tax payer I too want a "say" in how monies are spent. But I don't want to get a full accounting of every penny every day, it's not possible. I want mechanisms in place to help ensure sensible spending. Unlike say, no-bid contracts on roads or fighter aircraft. Like, say, a market mechanism to enforce responsibility in the purchase of gravel for roads, uniforms for policemen, or the school system.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 05:05:42 AM
Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

No, never. Many thanks for pointing him out to me.

That is total BS. It can be brainwashing regardless if the state runs the school or not. Many private schools have succeeded well in that enterprise (brain washing). States can do well in that enterprise as well. However, I think it is a higher probability that many heads together can create a school that works rather than a small board in a private school. Besides, learning has all to do with the individual (and access to resources) and not the school.

The flavor of liberalism you are pushing for in these posts smells of tyranny even though you color it with the banner of liberalism. I think I have to stop reading this thread as I sense that your posts have almost NOTHING to do with freedom nor equality. They are just becoming a long thread of political sarcasm. 

Flor & Ken:
Could you provide an example of a nation that has succeeded in your flavor of "liberalism"?

Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 10:07:55 AM
Well that's not a response to my questions though. Consider just the first. Say I believe that the state should pay for a child's education (to whatever extent). Why can that only be done through a publicly operated school? I think the state should pave the roads. Does that mean they should be paved with gravel from state owned quarries? Say I think the state should pay for policeman's uniforms. Does that mean they should have to wear uniforms woven in state factories using state grown cotton? If the child has a right, or moral claim, to the provision of schooling, why should it be so encumbered?

I am a taxpayer. I have no kids in school. I want my tax dollars in the school system used better than they are now. I want poor parents in Detroit to be able to select better schools, and use my taxes for that. How exactly am I "simply asking for a handout"?

If I am a tax payer I too want a "say" in how monies are spent. But I don't want to get a full accounting of every penny every day, it's not possible. I want mechanisms in place to help ensure sensible spending. Unlike say, no-bid contracts on roads or fighter aircraft. Like, say, a market mechanism to enforce responsibility in the purchase of gravel for roads, uniforms for policemen, or the school system.



First of all, I did answer your questions.  You falsely stated that education as it exists is a monopoly.  It is not.  The better economic model to use would be the dominant firm model, though even that is insufficient since education is a public good.  And if you really want to make an economic argument out of it, I would have thought that you would bring in marginal benefit, and how that influences people's choices.  But you didn't, and you didn't for a reason, and that reason is because you're not really interested in economic arguments.  That makes sense since education is more than merely economic in nature.

Now, to the bolded items, in particular, the first is a platitude - unless you can demonstrate that their people who don't support this idea - and the second is a straw man - who ever stated that would be a good idea, or is possible?  The answer, of course, is no one.  The remainder of your examples are dubious.

What you favor is reallocating public money to private institutions for their gain, and presumably, though not definitely, for the benefit of students.  I'm not quite sure how much oversight you would want the state to have under such a set up in the event a private institution fails to live up to its promise, or even what types of measurements of achievement you would find acceptable.  Simply arguing that it would be the choice of parents is wholly unacceptable when public funds are involved. 

There is one thing that is definitely lacking in your arguments: the potential beneficiaries.  Using history and data as a guide, reallocating public funds for private use would be a tax expenditure, and it is very hard to see how such a tax expenditure would not end up being like almost all other other tax expenditures in its distribution; that is, per the CBO, roughly 70% of current tax expenditures benefit the top quintile, and the people most likely to benefit from this new type of tax expenditure would likely be the same group of people, those who know how to use the benefits, and those who would be able to use a voucher and throw their own money into the mix to send their children to even "better" schools.  While the rhetoric of helping the poor, of improving schools, sure sounds good, I remain unconvinced that they would be the biggest beneficiaries; I see this as primarily another handout to the upper middle class, the people who need it the least.  (1%-ers would be unaffected since they have even more options.)  This of course is US centric, but vouchers don't seem as popular in a lot of the rest of the world.


Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2014, 03:13:43 PM
Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

Oh yes, my friend, it really looks like we are the only ones! Alas!  :( :( :(

(Disclosure: I was born in, and I have lived my first 18 years in, a. (nominally) socialist country (The Socialist Republic of Romania); besides that, for 25 years now I've been living in an endless "transition",  during which the former communists turned mainly into EU Socialists. Therefore I might be biased, but whenever I hear the words "common", "public", "national", "EU" etc I am very diffident, to say the least... )

Now, about education.

Just what has the state got to do with it?

"The state" is only an abstraction; "the state" is not a person, and it has no reason, will and feeling of its own. What we mean by "the state" (someones like me mean it with the utmost disdain and diffidence, someothers unlike me mean it with the utmost awe and confidence) is only a bunch of people born, raised and educated exactly in the same society and manner that I was, yet who pretend to know much better than me what I and my family need and, especially, what my kid needs to learn, and how, and when; and if my kid does not fulfil their arbitarily-established standards, he will not be awarded am arbitrarily-established diploma of their own making, and thus he will not qualify for performing tasks they arbitrarily assigned for people arbitrarily earning their arbitrarily-established diploma.  ;D

I stand by what I said before: a really smart person does not need a state-certified paper in order to really be a smart person. I absolutely deny the state, any state, any right to interfere with, and have a say about, the education of any child, other than providing the parents, ionly if need be, with the means for educating their kid(s) as they see fit.



Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 11:52:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM"The state" is only an abstraction; "the state" is not a person, and it has no reason, will and feeling of its own.


True(-ish).


Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
What we mean by "the state" (someones like me mean it with the utmost disdain and diffidence, someothers unlike me mean it with the utmost awe and confidence) is only a bunch of people born, raised and educated exactly in the same society and manner that I was, yet who pretend to know much better than me what I and my family need and, especially, what my kid needs to learn, and how, and when; and if my kid does not fulfil their arbitarily-established standards, he will not be awarded am arbitrarily-established diploma of their own making, and thus he will not qualify for performing tasks they arbitrarily assigned for people arbitrarily earning their arbitrarily-established diploma.


False.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 11:07:22 AM


First of all, I did answer your questions.  You falsely stated that education as it exists is a monopoly.  It is not.  The better economic model to use would be the dominant firm model, though even that is insufficient since education is a public good.  And if you really want to make an economic argument out of it, I would have thought that you would bring in marginal benefit, and how that influences people's choices.  But you didn't, and you didn't for a reason, and that reason is because you're not really interested in economic arguments.  That makes sense since education is more than merely economic in nature.

Now, to the bolded items, in particular, the first is a platitude - unless you can demonstrate that their people who don't support this idea - and the second is a straw man - who ever stated that would be a good idea, or is possible?  The answer, of course, is no one.  The remainder of your examples are dubious.

What you favor is reallocating public money to private institutions for their gain, and presumably, though not definitely, for the benefit of students.  I'm not quite sure how much oversight you would want the state to have under such a set up in the event a private institution fails to live up to its promise, or even what types of measurements of achievement you would find acceptable.  Simply arguing that it would be the choice of parents is wholly unacceptable when public funds are involved. 

There is one thing that is definitely lacking in your arguments: the potential beneficiaries.  Using history and data as a guide, reallocating public funds for private use would be a tax expenditure, and it is very hard to see how such a tax expenditure would not end up being like almost all other other tax expenditures in its distribution; that is, per the CBO, roughly 70% of current tax expenditures benefit the top quintile, and the people most likely to benefit from this new type of tax expenditure would likely be the same group of people, those who know how to use the benefits, and those who would be able to use a voucher and throw their own money into the mix to send their children to even "better" schools.  While the rhetoric of helping the poor, of improving schools, sure sounds good, I remain unconvinced that they would be the biggest beneficiaries; I see this as primarily another handout to the upper middle class, the people who need it the least.  (1%-ers would be unaffected since they have even more options.)  This of course is US centric, but vouchers don't seem as popular in a lot of the rest of the world.

Todd, if the bolded bits are platitudes or strawmen it's yours, repeated back to you. "As a taxpayer, and a voter, I expect the state to take an active role in managing how funds are spent." 

Second what I want is public money diverted to students or to those in loco parentis for their education. If I believed in paying for university and grad school I would support a mechanism where the choice is made by the student.

Yes I support using public money in ways that enrich private interests. I support buying graval and cement for public roads on the open market, not just from publicly run quarries. I support buying good textbooks, enriching private publishers and private authors.

No I did not state education is a monopoly. I asked why it should be one. Your preferences leads to a virtual monopoly, close enough so for the poor it is a monopoly, and others here take an even harder line.

Your point about tax expenditures is very weak. For one thing, why would this be a tax expenditure any more than current education spending is?

"Simply arguing that it would be the choice of parents is wholly unacceptable when public funds are involved." Agreed, but if you want to talk straw men ...
But of course simply arguing that it would be the choice of parents is wholly unacceptable even when no public funds are involved. I would object to abusive or wretched schooling even if it was all private, although there might be side issues of responsible management and fiduciary care applicable regardless of the quality of the schooling.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 12:14:08 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM

I stand by what I said before: a really smart person does not need a state-certified paper in order to really be a smart person. I absolutely deny the state, any state, any right to interfere with, and have a say about, the education of any child, other than providing the parents, ionly if need be, with the means for educating their kid(s) as they see fit.

Some parents are not capable of educating their children due to the need to work to make ends meet and other are do not have neither the education nor the resources to do so.  You have a conservative and elitist point of view. Your perspective would promote inequality by differential learning to socioeconomic groups that do not have the privilege of money, time and/or education. I thought you stood for equality?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2014, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PMSecond what I want is public money diverted to students or to those in loco parentis for their education.


As hollow an argument for vouchers as I have ever seen.  The intention is absolutely to get public money into private hands, and that would be the outcome, and the primary beneficiaries would be the upper middle class, who don't need any help.  Students can already move among public schools freely or for low cost (and it should always be free, so there's a concrete reform to implement right now), to go to a better institution.  Diverting public resources into private hands would also have the intended side effect of reducing resources available for public institutions.  The intent is unambiguous, and the harm unavoidable.


Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PMYes I support using public money in ways that enrich private interests. I support buying graval and cement for public roads on the open market, not just from publicly run quarries. I support buying good textbooks, enriching private publishers and private authors.


That's good, I suppose, but I'm not sure how they are quite the same as education, which is a decades long service with decades of spill-over benefits.  I suppose I would like to see some empirical evidence showing that private schools offer a superior return on the investment dollar, with the studies excluding the most exclusive institutions (eg, boarding schools).



Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PMI asked why it should be one. Your preferences leads to a virtual monopoly, close enough so for the poor it is a monopoly, and others here take an even harder line.


Except it is not a monopoly. 


Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PMYour point about tax expenditures is very weak. For one thing, why would this be a tax expenditure any more than current education spending is?


It is definitional.  Subsidies, credits, and so on, are defined as tax expenditures, whereas direct outlays are not.  You are now arguing against standard terminology.  (This does assume using the tax code to actually implement so-called vouchers; sending actual physical checks to parents would be one of the worst ideas in history.)



Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 12:12:40 PM"Simply arguing that it would be the choice of parents is wholly unacceptable when public funds are involved." Agreed, but if you want to talk straw men ...


So, what mechanism, other than student or parent choice, would you use for enforcement?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2014, 12:36:15 PM



As hollow an argument for vouchers as I have ever seen.  The intention is absolutely to get public money into private hands, and that would be the outcome, and the primary beneficiaries would be the upper middle class, who don't need any help.  Students can already move among public schools freely or for low cost (and it should always be free, so there's a concrete reform to implement right now), to go to a better institution.  Diverting public resources into private hands would also have the intended side effect of reducing resources available for public institutions.  The intent is unambiguous, and the harm unavoidable.




That's good, I suppose, but I'm not sure how they are quite the same as education, which is a decades long service with decades of spill-over benefits.  I suppose I would like to see some empirical evidence showing that private schools offer a superior return on the investment dollar, with the studies excluding the most exclusive institutions (eg, boarding schools).




Except it is not a monopoly. 



It is definitional.  Subsidies, credits, and so on, are defined as tax expenditures, whereas direct outlays are not.  You are now arguing against standard terminology.  (This does assume using the tax code to actually implement so-called vouchers; sending actual physical checks to parents would be one of the worst ideas in history.)




So, what mechanism, other than student or parent choice, would you use for enforcement?
Todd, if you are going to pretend that a stated preference is proffered as an argument you are not worth debating. If you toss in impugning motives then you are really not worth debating.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 12:14:08 PMparents are not capable  children due to the need to work to make ends meet and other are do not have neither the education nor the resources to do so.  You have a conservative and elitist point of view. Your perspective would promote inequality by differential learning to socioeconomic groups that do not have the privilege of money, time and/or education. I thought you stood for equality?
Peter, first I wonder where you got that idea about equality.
More to the point you aren't really getting Flory's point. He WANTS the state to pay, at least for the poor. What he does NOT want is for the state to control what is taught or by whom or how. Now I think Flory overstates, I think we do make demands on parents and should.
The elitist point of view I suggest is yours, feeling no qualms in saying that an elect group can and should control education for all children, even to the point of foreclosing choices even for parents who have shown no failure of care. Flory wants more spread out and decentralized authority.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 09:02:39 AM
But is it "government funded" the same as "government controlled"?
Yes. Education is very much controlled by the government, although universities have their say on what programs they have and how many are enrolled each year. 10-15 years ago the politicians shut down Uni of Oulu's dept. of building engineering, leaving my father unemployed for a while. Now the department has returned there.
QuoteI see.  As far as I know, the Finnish educational system is the best in the world. But you see, Finns are Finns, and Romanians are Romanians; let Finns rule for just one year the Romanian educational system, and Romanians do viceversa --- and then let's see the statistics...  ;D ;D ;D
Hey, I think that kind of thing might actually be very beneficial in the long run..

QuoteTell me about it... Here in Romania it is exactly, and mainly,  the Socialists who fall in this category!  ;D
The Centre Party (agrarian centrist, somewhat liberal) has been in quite a lot of trouble lately - first their pm (the first woman pm in Finland) got some faxes from the President's office - secret documents about the Iraq war which she actually should have seen officially. Then, after she left, under the new pm's 2nd cabinet, all hell broke lose with the campaign funding scandal that concerned mostly the Centre Party. The party's various town councils have also been very good to the S-group retailing coop, which was in the early 2000s the second largest, and is now the largest one. It's funny how they always seem to get the best land where the Centre Party is in power..


QuoteOf course! But I make a strict difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot revels in the huge diversity of nations and languages and customs and it is exactly this diversity that makes his patria (ie, fatherland) different. A nationalist would like to see the whole world submit to his own peculiar kind of nationship, language and customs --- and therefore he is the exact opposite of a patriot.
This kind of patriotism is a very good thing indeed. Soccer fans vs. hooligans.

QuoteThat's exactly why I am not a big fan of modern republics.
Democracy sure isn't perfected yet. Perhaps some kind of mix of Athenian & modern democracy..
QuoteAin't it?
At least if they do the job well, which may or may not be the case.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 09:04:19 AM
Please provide proof that I said that.  :o
Well you didn't say quite that, but if I didn't misunderstand your post, I responded with a man of equal straw content.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 02:37:02 PM
Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Oh yes, my friend, it really looks like we are the only ones! Alas!  :( :( :(

(Disclosure: I was born in, and I have lived my first 18 years in, a. (nominally) socialist country (The Socialist Republic of Romania); besides that, for 25 years now I've been living in an endless "transition",  during which the former communists turned mainly into EU Socialists. Therefore I might be biased, but whenever I hear the words "common", "public", "national", "EU" etc I am very diffident, to say the least... )

Now, about education.

Just what has the state got to do with it?
Every child should have the right to a similar education. Of course in practice this can only happen on a national level (ideally). If the state doesn't care who is allowed to teach, and how they are allowed to teach, poor children's schooling would suffer pretty quickly. See how in the U.S. everyone wants their kid in a private school. Then see what they pay to the teachers, and think what kind of professionals that salary attracts.

Quote from: Florestan on June 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
"The state" is only an abstraction; "the state" is not a person, and it has no reason, will and feeling of its own. What we mean by "the state" (someones like me mean it with the utmost disdain and diffidence, someothers unlike me mean it with the utmost awe and confidence) is only a bunch of people born, raised and educated exactly in the same society and manner that I was, yet who pretend to know much better than me what I and my family need and, especially, what my kid needs to learn, and how, and when; and if my kid does not fulfil their arbitarily-established standards, he will not be awarded am arbitrarily-established diploma of their own making, and thus he will not qualify for performing tasks they arbitrarily assigned for people arbitrarily earning their arbitrarily-established diploma.  ;D

I stand by what I said before: a really smart person does not need a state-certified paper in order to really be a smart person. I absolutely deny the state, any state, any right to interfere with, and have a say about, the education of any child, other than providing the parents, ionly if need be, with the means for educating their kid(s) as they see fit.
To make home schooling a significant thing would be catastrophic   a) because many parents would be poor teachers b) one of the main purposes of schooling is to socialize (nothing to do with politics :D) the student, and that would be rather difficult with no contact to the outside world.

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PMFlory wants more spread out and decentralized authority.
That... sounds... like... democracy  0:)


Whoever it was that claimed something to the effect that teaching (and we are not talking about teaching something to an educated adult) is just about the student & something they need to learn, is very wrong.
(http://www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy/UserFiles/P0001/Image/Elena%20Garcia/Didactic%20Triangle.jpg)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 10:59:45 AM
That is total BS. It can be brainwashing regardless if the state runs the school or not. Many private schools have succeeded well in that enterprise (brain washing). States can do well in that enterprise as well. However, I think it is a higher probability that many heads together can create a school that works rather than a small board in a private school. Besides, learning has all to do with the individual (and access to resources) and not the school.
Schools that teach creatonism come to mind.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Peter, first I wonder where you got that idea about equality.

Yeah, I wonder where you got yours...?  >:D

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
More to the point you aren't really getting Flory's point.

He is not getting mine either...

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
He WANTS the state to pay, at least for the poor.

So placing rich people in private schools and the rest in what the state pays for? Educational segregation?


Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
What he does NOT want is for the state to control what is taught or by whom or how.

Somebody has to decide what is taught in the schools. Are you stating that each family will define what should be taught in
"their" school. The local community? What makes you think that the local community is qualified to establish a curriculum?
Currently Wyoming is blocking the US national core standards in science and want to remove climate change as a topic from the curriculum. That is the insane result of local authority in terms of defining "their" flavor of science standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/us/science-standards-divide-a-state-built-on-coal-and-oil.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/us/science-standards-divide-a-state-built-on-coal-and-oil.html?_r=0)

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
The elitist point of view I suggest is yours, feeling no qualms in saying that an elect group can and should control education for all children, even to the point of foreclosing choices even for parents who have shown no failure of care.

Private schools are not elitist? Are you claiming that a democratically elected government is elitist?

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Flory wants more spread out and decentralized authority.

Yes, I understand that.  I do not think it is advantageous for education. It would promote anarchy as well as a lack of education. You would get localized flavors reaching from extreme creationism to extreme atheism, from complete scientific illiteracy to science geeks.  Come on, in the US about 40% of surveyed adults (NSF 2001) don't know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun and 50% think that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. About 45% of surveyed adults do not think that humans evolved from previously existing animals in complete disregard to established evidence proving the opposite. Of course, the two latter facts have religious implications with its own can of worms. Do you really subscribe to the idea that local communities will improve these statistics (see link below) in terms of establishing their own curriculum?

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/fig07-06.htm (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/fig07-06.htm)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 03:18:18 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 02:37:02 PM
Whoever it was that claimed something to the effect that teaching (and we are not talking about teaching something to an educated adult) is just about the student & something they need to learn, is very wrong.

So you are making your point with a diagram originating from the enormous pile of educational research. Such research (even though increasing exponentially) has not made much difference in US education statistics.  Btw, if I recall correctly nobody has figured out why the Finnish scores were so high. I would not be surprised if the scores will be dropping in ten years and nobody can explain that either. The "perfect" system seems so elusive. Is the goal to achieve internationally high scores on the comparative tests?
The discussion always seems to focus on students, curriculum and educators (especially the latter two), but the topic of culture is rarely brought forward. Why is that?
I am just curious. Have you taught in a classroom, North Star? Actually, is anybody in this thread an educator or are we just rehashing political rhetoric?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 03:18:18 PM
So you are making your point with a diagram originating from the enormous pile of educational research.  Btw, if I recall correctly nobody has figured out why the Finnish scores were so high.
It's the food, silly
QuoteI would not be surprised if the scores will be dropping in ten years and nobody can explain that either. The "perfect" systems seems so elusive.
Well yeah, the scores have already dropped. And the students' skills, activity & motivation have decreased enormously during the past 20 years, lately particularly boys'. Gaming consoles, Internet, mobilephones and now smartphones, and probably other things, like the 90s' depression, and this new one, have had a huge effect, and education needs to change. Taking the Internet connection, smartphones & Play Stations away from the kids isn't a solution, so education will have to adjust to these changes and embrace technology, and at the same time we need to make them read long texts (books, articles, etc) because the ability to read more than a Twitter post has decreased dramatically in all demographies during this century.
QuoteThe discussion always focus on students, curriculum and educators (especially the latter two), but the topic of culture is rarely brought forward. Why is that?
I am just curious. Have you taught in a classroom, North Star? Actually, is anybody in this thread an educator or are we just rehashing political rhetoric?
I have taught half of a chemistry course in jr. high school, and also followed sat in classes following all sorts of lessons in jr. & sr. high.
I agree with you, culture is a huge factor, and I don't think most educators have any idea of the magnitude of the changes the new technology has caused in our brains.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 03:16:00 PM
Yeah, I wonder where you got yours...?  >:D

He is not getting mine either...

So placing rich people in private schools and the rest in what the state pays for? Educational segregation?


Somebody has to decide what is taught in the schools. Are you stating that each family will define what should be taught in
"their" school. The local community? What makes you think that the local community is qualified to establish a curriculum?
Currently Wyoming is blocking the US national core standards in science and what to remove evolution from the curriculum. That is the insane result of local authority in terms of defining "their" flavor of science standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/us/science-standards-divide-a-state-built-on-coal-and-oil.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/us/science-standards-divide-a-state-built-on-coal-and-oil.html?_r=0)

Private schools are not elitist? Are you claiming that a democratically elected government is elitist?

Yes, I understand that.  I do not think it is advantageous for education. It would promote anarchy as well as a lack of education. You would get localized flavors reaching from extreme creationism to extreme atheism, from complete scientific illiteracy to science geeks.  Come on, in the US about 40% of surveyed adults (NSF 2001) don't know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun and 50% think that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. About 45% of surveyed adults do not think that humans evolved from previously existing animals in complete disregard to established evidence proving the opposite. Of course, the two latter facts have religious implications with its own can of worms. Do you really subscribe to the idea that local communities will improve these statistics (see link below) in terms of establishing their own curriculum?

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/fig07-06.htm (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/fig07-06.htm)
This is a farrago of nonsense Moonfish. For one thing, I said nothing about local communities setting curriculum. I said nothing about curriculum at all. Curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

The whole idea of vouchers etc is to make private schools available to the poor. The rich already have them.

Another is to inject accountability and responsiveness into the delivery of schooling. Right now you cannot fire bad teachers. With a competitive market you could. Firing bad teachers makes a huge improvement. Just one example of how curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

Flory's point is that he denies even professors of marine biology the right to dictate to far away parents, even plowman or plumbers, how they educate their kids. Right or wrong that is anti elitist. I think he states too strong a case as I said before, but that isn't relevant.

Further Flory said he values other things MORE than he does equality, so your misreading of him there was what I asked about. It's like saying, Ken B I thought Ravel was one of your favorites  :) ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.

Did I mention the difference between curriculum and choice? That they are orthogonal questions? Remind me to do that next time.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:06:25 PM
Moonfish, I taught high school math and science.  ???
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:02:03 PMravel is fine, nice, not a priority.
If anything is a priority, Ravel is! And don't you dare tell me otherwise.  $:)  0:)

Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:06:25 PM
Moonfish, I taught high school math and science.  ???
When was this?
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:15:30 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
If anything is a priority, Ravel is! And don't you dare tell me otherwise.  $:)  0:)
When was this?
Early 80s.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: EigenUser on June 06, 2014, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.
Well, this one goes in the filing cabinet.

I'm generally not interested in politics. When I am, I'm moderately conservative. So, nothing to add here.

See you in the Ravel thread, Ken. >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: EigenUser on June 06, 2014, 04:55:33 PM
Well, this one goes in the filing cabinet.

I'm generally not interested in politics. When I am, I'm moderately conservative. So, nothing to add here.

See you in the Ravel thread, Ken. >:D >:D >:D
Curses foiled again!

:laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:12:12 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
It's the food, sillyWell yeah, the scores have already dropped. And the students' skills, activity & motivation have decreased enormously during the past 20 years, lately particularly boys'. Gaming consoles, Internet, mobilephones and now smartphones, and probably other things, like the 90s' depression, and this new one, have had a huge effect, and education needs to change. Taking the Internet connection, smartphones & Play Stations away from the kids isn't a solution, so education will have to adjust to these changes and embrace technology, and at the same time we need to make them read long texts (books, articles, etc) because the ability to read more than a Twitter post has decreased dramatically in all demographies during this century.I have taught half of a chemistry course in jr. high school, and also followed sat in classes following all sorts of lessons in jr. & sr. high.
I agree with you, culture is a huge factor, and I don't think most educators have any idea of the magnitude of the changes the new technology has caused in our brains.

Mmm, Finnish food is good! I wouldn't mind some pulla and coffee!!!

It is true with technology. Students use smartphones to take picture of items in their labs and to capture images/diagrams etc from class at an unprecedented level.  I think a pilot program in Massachusetts (?) issued laptops to the primary grades and surveyed their performance over the next five years. The found no difference between that group and the control so the program was terminated.  Of course, it was expected that the technology would greatly improve the performance of the students.  Of course, many factors were at play. Students (and adults) seem to get more distracted by technology (including us being on GMG  ???) and time easily flows into non-productive activities. Certainly it seems to be a trend that it is harder to focus on a topic for longer time periods. People often say that technology helps them to become great at multitasking, but recent studies demonstrate that "multi-taskers" actually perform at a lower level compared to a control group. It is interesting to see and try to understand how technology affects education. In addition, I am quite convinced that from an environmental perspective it will be impossible to sustain the use of this technology over an extended time period.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:06:25 PM
Moonfish, I taught high school math and science.  ???

And you still subscribe to the idea that the content in those classes should be mandated by the local community???     >:D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
And you still subscribe to the idea that the content in those classes should be mandated by the local community???     >:D
Yes, otherwise it will be environmentally impossible to maintain the multiplication table over a long period.   >:D
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
This is a farrago of nonsense Moonfish. For one thing, I said nothing about local communities setting curriculum. I said nothing about curriculum at all. Curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

The whole idea of vouchers etc is to make private schools available to the poor. The rich already have them.

Another is to inject accountability and responsiveness into the delivery of schooling. Right now you cannot fire bad teachers. With a competitive market you could. Firing bad teachers makes a huge improvement. Just one example of how curriculum and choice are orthogonal questions.

Flory's point is that he denies even professors of marine biology the right to dictate to far away parents, even plowman or plumbers, how they educate their kids. Right or wrong that is anti elitist. I think he states too strong a case as I said before, but that isn't relevant.

Further Flory said he values other things MORE than he does equality, so your misreading of him there was what I asked about. It's like saying, Ken B I thought Ravel was one of your favorites  :) ravel is fine, nice, not a priority.

Did I mention the difference between curriculum and choice? That they are orthogonal questions? Remind me to do that next time.

Your degree of sarcasm and insulting remarks do not suit you, Ken. I find your posts in this thread filled with political and misdirected gibberish as well. This is a standard symptom of the internet era, since this would be an unlikely phenomena in a regular face-to-face conversation. In a similar fashion I doubt your would refer to what I wrote as nonsense in such a situation.
Your statement about teachers is also foolish (as anybody that has been in the classroom should know). The current debate in the US focuses on the accountability of schools and teachers, although very little is devoted toward student accountability, culture, poverty and other socioeconomic and psychological issues which affect education.  I think the statements made by you and Flory are unrealistic and based on a misconstrued view of "liberalism" and democracy.  Besides, I am sure Flory can argue his own "liberal" views without a bulldog by his side.

I do not have a very high opinion of private schools and certainly do not think that they are the solution to the problems faced by education in the developed world today. Curriculum and choice are connected. That you do not see connection is bizarre.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:32:36 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:26:13 PM
Yes, otherwise it will be environmentally impossible to maintain the multiplication table over a long period.   >:D

Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!    $:)
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:12:12 PM
Mmm, Finnish food is good! I wouldn't mind some pulla and coffee!!!

It is true with technology. Students use smartphones to take picture of items in their labs and to capture images/diagrams etc from class at an unprecedented level.  I think a pilot program in Massachusetts (?) issued laptops to the primary grades and surveyed their performance over the next five years. The found no difference between that group and the control so the program was terminated.  Of course, it was expected that the technology would greatly improve the performance of the students.
If I got to choose, calculators wouldn't be used before sr. high.

QuoteOf course, many factors were at play. Students (and adults) seem to get more distracted by technology (including us being on GMG  ???) and time easily flows into non-productive activities. Certainly it seems to be a trend that it is harder to focus on a topic for longer time periods. People often say that technology helps them to become great at multitasking, but recent studies demonstrate that "multi-taskers" actually perform at a lower level compared to a control group. It is interesting to see and try to understand how technology affects education.
That sort of 'multitasking' can indeed be rather treacherous and unfruitful, and as technology will become more and more important in education, it will be intersting, so say the least, to see how these things will change.
QuoteIn addition, I am quite convinced that from environmental perspective it will be impossible to sustain the use of this technology over an extended time period.
I hadn't thought about that, but some of those elements used in electronics are indeed rather rare. I can't say offhand whether there are other materials developed that could be used instead, but the recycling of those rare elements is improving all the time, and as computers develop, I'd think less of them are needed for the same tasks than now.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:34:18 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:32:36 PM
Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!    $:)
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!
We should organize a Smart Board burning some time..
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
If I got to choose, calculators wouldn't be used before sr. high.

I agree! I see my own kids reach for the calculator to e.g. divide 32 with 2!   Same thing with looking things up in a book versus Googling something. 

Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:32:46 PMI can't say offhand whether there are other materials developed that could be used instead, but the recycling of those rare elements is improving all the time, and as computers develop, I'd think less of them are needed for the same tasks than now.

True, recycling can improve, but the environmental costs are far reaching ranging from extraction of resources to pollution when discarded. In addition the internet/www world calls for a very large amount of energy to power the devices. A considerable amount of power is also used to maintain/run servers 24/7. Currently I think there are close to 4 billion cell phones in use with a replacement rate of about 3-5 yrs. Consider all the desktops and the larger screens that were used since the 90s. Where are they now? It is a critical issue as our modern world is starting to rely heavily on this technology.

There are a fair number of reports about e-waste on the web. A serious issue. Here is a 60 minutes clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgbrPiUG0M
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:42:41 PM
I agree! I see my own kids reach for the calculator to e.g. divide 32 with 2!   Same thing with looking things up in a book versus Googling something. 

True, recycling can improve, but the environmental costs are far reaching ranging from extraction of resources to pollution when discarded. In addition the internet/www world calls for a very large amount of energy to power the devices. A considerable amount of power is also used to maintain/run servers 24/7. Currently I think there are close to 4 billion cell phones in use with a replacement rate of about 3-5 yrs. Consider all the desktops and the larger screens that were used since the 90s. Where are they now? It is a critical issue as our modern world is starting to rely heavily on this technology.

There are a fair number of reports about e-waste on the web. A serious issue. Here is a 60 minutes clip:
Recycling is indeed full of all sorts problems.
E: And particularly serious are all those hazardous compounds that end up in our bodies - particularly dangerous to embryos, fetuses & children.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:58:28 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:30:09 PM
Your degree of sarcasm and insulting remarks do not suit you, Ken. I find your posts in this thread filled with political and misdirected gibberish as well. This is a standard symptom of the internet era, since this would be an unlikely phenomena in a regular face-to-face conversation. In a similar fashion I doubt your would refer to what I wrote as nonsense in such a situation.
Your statement about teachers is also foolish (as anybody that has been in the classroom should know). The current debate in the US focuses on the accountability of schools and teachers, although very little is devoted toward student accountability, culture, poverty and other socioeconomic and psychological issues which affect education.  I think the statements made by you and Flory are unrealistic and based on a misconstrued view of "liberalism" and democracy.  Besides, I am sure Flory can argue his own "liberal" views without a bulldog by his side.

I do not have a very high opinion of private schools and certainly do not think that they are the solution to the problems faced by education in the developed world today. Curriculum and choice are connected. That you do not see connection is bizarre.

As I recall, the only thing I said about teachers was it was hard to fire bad ones. http://nydn.us/1fnQfns (http://nydn.us/1fnQfns)

I am sorry you find "nonsense" insulting, but curious why "gibberish" isn't. In any case you seemed to read me as advocating allowing a free for all in curriculum. Maybe Flory does but I do not.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 05:32:36 PM
Very typical of you to blurt out a non sequitur on a serious topic!    $:)
Have you any idea of how the "high technology" is imposed upon schools that lack the funding to maintain it?  The technology is now required for mandatory testing. It is absolutely idiotic!
Your comment was about the environmental impact of technology, not its effect on school budgets. My jest was intended as a gentle jibe at that,  as a peace offering in a series of exchanges that seemed to have gone awry.

I think we are done here Moonfish.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: North Star on June 06, 2014, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 05:58:28 PMAs I recall, the only thing I said about teachers was it was hard to fire bad ones. http://nydn.us/1fnQfns (http://nydn.us/1fnQfns)

Raising the teachers' salaries, decreasing class sizes & improving teacher education are of importance too, in addition to firing the bad ones.  8)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 06:14:08 PM
Quote from: North Star on June 06, 2014, 06:07:06 PM
Raising the teachers' salaries, decreasing class sizes & improving teacher education are of importance too, in addition to firing the bad ones.  8)
Depends where you live really. Teachers salaries in Ontario are pretty high. In Georgia, where I taught, they were suckass low. In a lot of places they need to be higher as long as you are keeping only the good ones. Have to be willing to pay a good teacher well.
Improving education certainly, and related to salary. Also related to useless education degrees you need to get. In ONtario they are two years, everyone hates them, but the union insists, as a way of restricting entry.
Class size really does not seem to be a strong factor. Surprising but true.
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 07:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ken B on June 06, 2014, 06:02:53 PM
Your comment was about the environmental impact of technology, not its effect on school budgets. My jest was intended as a gentle jibe at that,  as a peace offering in a series of exchanges that seemed to have gone awry.

I think we are done here Moonfish.

Always the last word, eh?
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000264958/polls_pfft_4355_450937_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg)
Title: Re: UKIP Idiocy
Post by: Florestan on June 09, 2014, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 12:14:08 PM
I thought you stood for equality?

You misunderstood me. I specifically said that in case of conflict between equality and liberty, I chose liberty.

Quote from: Moonfish on June 06, 2014, 03:16:00 PM
Private schools are not elitist? Are you claiming that a democratically elected government is elitist?

Any government is elitist by its very nature, because it consists of a few people who impose on the vast majority of others their own views on economics and society, on the presumed idea that they are better qualified than the people at large to do just that. With regards to education, I know nothing more elitist than to say "Hey, Joe, look!, since you're a plumber and as such not quite qualified to know what your children need to learn and how, nor do you have the time to busy yourself with their education, and even if you had you wouldn't be able to do it properly, you must let ourselves, enlightened and benevolent men of the government as we are, do it. What they learn and how is our sole business and believe us, it is so for their own good."

(And that applies not exclusively to homeschooling --- which for the record I'm not quite supportive of, except in extremely fortunate circumstances, but if the parents so wish, it is nobody's else business and least of all the state's, except in cases of abuse and misconduct on the part of the parents. I can bet that, given the most complete freedom of options, most parents would still choose to send their kids to school, only this time they will have complete control on what school they wish their kids to attend --- but that, of course, would spell ruin to all the educational bureaucracy whose only raison d'etre is to manage, control, supervise and influence the whole educational process nationwide, and to all those teachers who are not accountable to anyone but their own trade unions, and that's already too much vested interests that stands in the way of educational freedom.)

Quote
I do not think it is advantageous for education. It would promote anarchy as well as a lack of education. You would get localized flavors reaching from extreme creationism to extreme atheism, from complete scientific illiteracy to science geeks.

So what?

It seems like you want everybody, everywhere, to learn exactly the same things, in exactly the same way, thus ultimately leading to everybody everywhere thinking alike. That is educational totalitarianism, nay, it is totalitarianism, period.

You accuse me of not being a true liberal yet all your posts imply that government should do that, government should do this, government should provide, government should see to it that, government should and would... Government should do nothing but let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't infringe upon the equal right of others to do the same. I'm sorry but I can't go any more liberal than that --- and it is not my fault that always and everywhere governmental power went far beyond its natural limits. In this respect a democratically elected government makes no difference; it is immaterial to me that I am patronized by, and have my life ruled by, one, a few or the majority. And actually, against a tyrant or against a self-appointed oligarchy there is always the appeal of reason, justice and conscience that can condemn their conduct, while against democracy there is no such appeal, because the democratic dogma is exactly that whatever the majority decides and enacts is ipso facto reasonable and just and woe to any heretic who doesn't subscribe to it.  ;D