BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 08:09 AM

mav,

The SC didn't amend anything. They ruled that ratification was legal. Or rather the courts have refused to rule that it wasn't legal. (so far as I've been able to find).

Accepting the W ruling as valid would tend to indicate that you accept the validity of the Court. Accepting the rulings you like and not the ones you don't like, lead to chaos. America may not have been made great by socialists. (and that statement is far too broad and not entirely accurate) It wasn't made so by anarchists, either.

Your ideas come across as crypto-fascists. (which doesn't require taht you to be a conservative - see below) That may not be your intention. When you propose institutionalization of segregation in the name of something as fuzzy and pie-in-the-skyish as educational quality, on the grounds of physical disabilities, you run the risk being labeled such. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, don't get mad when people think it's a duck. A negative outcome done for all the right reasons, is still a negative outcome.

Our society can survive our kids not meeting some arbitrary standard of learning far better than we can institutionalizing bigotry, which is a very logical consequence of some of your ideas. (And 'bigotry' is meant in the most negative sense, btw).

On the other hand, and in partial response to Ribbet, I suggest he (and you and others)read a book called "Shadow University" by Alan Kors. Under the banner of those you call the LSC, the type of segregation mav proposes was carried out, based on race, sex, sexual orientation. Replete with separate facilities and separate treatment, at a number of our supposed centers of academic freedom. From which, I suppose, I could conclude that mav isn't a crypto-fascist, but a ultra left wing PC fanatic.

Ribbet, as food for thought and IMO, I'm sorry you decided to break your winning streak by flaming. I'll admit I was offended. How is deliberately offending people (in addition to the flamee) made all better by an apology? If mav apologies for offending, does that make it all better?

McGrath,

Hoping the mav's of the world go away strikes me as a little short-sighted. Look at what happen when sensible men and women ignored that funny little paper hanger.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 09:05 AM

Hoping the mav's of the world go away strikes me as a little short-sighted. Look at what happen when sensible men and women ignored that funny little paper hanger.

I doubt he (has to be a "he" I think) is quite in that category. But I don't think arguing with Adolf would have been that useful. Maybe buying his paintings when he was on the breadline in Vienna might have helped, who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 10:51 AM

McGrath,

An elegant statement of what used to be called civility should be all about. In my (admittedly limited) experience on mudcat, your comments, response and general attitude have been admirable. (Even when you didn't agree with me). Especially when you irritate troll, but that's the cherry of the cake.

You're probably right. Lots of "what ifs" in history. I agree that talking to Hitler wouldn't have done much good. And don't see mav as that way by intent, but maybe as an unwitting (or witting) fellow-traveler of sorts. (can we please avoid "half" jokes here. Surely there's more creativity than that out there?)

But as I recall my history, one element of his rise to power was that the "mainstream" decided he was on the lunatic fringe and would go away. Rather than challenge the nonsense he was feeding people, they ignored him, figuring peole would see through him. At the same time, they didn't seem to be doing a lot to address the problems. Hitler was and people gravitated to his 'solutions'. I've found that a lot of people look at failure or refusal to challenge an idea as proof that the idea has merit. The refusal of most scientists to investigate or comment on alien abductions is offered as "proof" that something's there

And while I don't think us good guys can convince the mavs of the world they are wrong, maybe we can stop, or slow down, their recruiting drive.

A friend here recommended the Oldenburg book. Our library doesn't carry it. Strange as this is Florida. Hope to find it in one of the local book stores.

Regards

I

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 11:56 AM

The most dangerous type of nonsense is that which is presented behind a facade of logic.

Guest MAV tends to do a very good job of over-simplifying situations, building conclusions on a base of questionable suppositions, stepping over and around counter arguments which undercut his dubious premises and (when none of the other tactics work) moving to personal invective. MAV, even the valid points that you have made are cheapened by the glib context of your ideological bias.

You do not seem to want to address real issues in a manner, or with the intent, that would lead to workable solutions. As long as that is the case you can be dismissed as any flamer would be. Unfortunately, unlike flamers, you cannot and should not be ignored; there are too many people who are so desperate to find easy, painless (to them) solutions to difficult questions - like that of school reform - that your skillfully crafted, but essentially pointless and counter-productive arguments will have some appeal and could become public policy. This would be disastrous.

I can understand why you would drive otherwise reasonable 'catters to flaming. I have no solution for people who think like you. You are immune to logic and insufferable in your arrogance.

Have a nice day
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:41 PM

Ah, the old discussion about working parents and lifestyles...

To work or not as a parent is a pretty personal choice, and it depends on the situation, the parent, the kids, and the childcare options. Generalizing about this is pretty unfair. Frankly, I see far fewer messed-up kids from two-income homes than I see from one- (or none-) income homes. Many kids thrive on having a variety of adults interact with them. My mother worked after her divorce, and I never felt deprived. I spent afternoons with Grandma until I was old enough to be on my own after school. I learned to cook at an early age, and typically came home and made dinner for the family. I knew what I could and could not do and who to call if there was a problem. I think that responsibility, for the right kids, breeds responsibility... just as overprotectiveness and authoritarianism can breed dependence and an inability to make the right choices when choices become inevitable.

I'm no fan of casual divorce, but moms can be caught between a rock and hard place. Stay married and be battered (and risk the kids' safety as well) or leave and live in poverty. Which is worse? And wouldn't most of us rather see these single moms work and support their families than be on welfare?

No, people shouldn't have kids if they are not prepared to put their heart and soul into parenting. That's why I don't have any. (But there are an awful lot of things that people do that they shouldn't be doing!) I still get snide comments and funny looks from evangelical right-wing friends when I explain that we have no children, by choice, after almost ten years of marraige. They wonder how I can feel fulfilled without children, without the whole motherhood experience. Underneath, there is this implication that as a Christian and a wife that I should be at home, barefoot and pregnant while my husband works. Sometimes a woman can't win in the "you should be doing (blank)" game...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:09 PM

Kimmers, you had extended family and one-on-one after school care. This is vastly different from the baby farms with one or two staff for a whole yardful of children.
Of course no one should have to stay in an abusive relationship but I believe that a lot of this is due to the fact that there is so much selfishness and meism going on. Men are unable to put their wants aside for the good of their families. They don't accept that they can't have all their wifes time or that they can't go out and party with the gang every night.
The women have never learned how to divide their time so that husband and baby get a share and neither side wants to give up the old lifestyle and really be parents.
So you get abuse.
Thanks for the support on don't do it if you don't mean it.
I know I have not expressed myself well on the subject of abuse and I'll get some flack for it. But I do feel that a large part of the problem with families and schools today stems from selfishness on the part of parents who have unrealistic expectations of just how much work it takes to parent a child.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:37 PM

troll,

How are schools at fault for parent's selfishness and unrealistic expectations?

The selfishness and meism (and abuse) have been around for a long time. In the 'good old days', when two parents were the norm and only Daddy worked, the wife was left making sure the kids got the attention they needed. That was her expected roll. And she did it, often aided and abetted by "mother's little helper".

Having stated the problem, discussed causes, what can be realistically done. (It would be tactless to remind you of your earlier posts lecturing people who just rehash problems and offer no solution. Tactless yes, irresistible, no).

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:47 PM

Essentially I suspect that what I think about this isn't that far from Troll, when it comes to how I'd like to see things happen, though I'm sure I might have a very different set of ways of getting there, and a different set of explanations for how we got where we are.

But though people putting themselves first is a part of it,it's a lot more complicated than just that. There are reasons why some people act that way and others don't, and why more people act that way in some places and times than in other places and times. Understanding those is more important than just condemning - or praising for that matter.

The unlamented John Major, when he was Prime Minister, came up with a soundbite about it being necessary to "understand less and to condemn more" (or was it to "condemn more and understand less" - same difference).

That struck me at the time as one of the most stupid thing any politician had ever said. Fortunately I wasn't alone in seeing it that way.

As for MAV, I don't want to harp on about it. But there's a saying that in any conflict or disagreement you find there is someone on your own side whom you really wish was on the other side. Well, I get a feeling that, in this case, it's the other way round.

I really think that the last thing I would like to see is someone win MAV around to the kind of ideas I might have. He's doing a great job where he is in convincing people that there are certain ways of thinking that are not good ways of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM

And continued here if interested (and blue clicky works)

Click here

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 11:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 01 - 12:47 AM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is REALLY falling! :>)

DougR