Palin: Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time

Quote:

---

When asked about her religious beliefs, Governor Palin of Alaska/Running Republican Party Vice-President, publicly stated that man and dinosaur co-existed on the planet 6,000 years ago. She made the comment during her reign as a small town mayor.

As critics are starting to pick apart Palin's past, questioning her political agenda and religious background, a spokesman for the governor states that she has never made those remarks about dinosaurs and evolution in public.

Although scientists have proven dinosaurs went extinct some 65 million years ago, Palin did push for "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska schools but has yet to force it into the curriculum, say Alaskan educators.

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...131,full.story

Are elections about picking the best or making sure the bigger fuck up doesn't win?

What difference does it make... we've already had a president for 8 years who doesn't accept evolution. More than half of the Republicans in Congress don't accept evolution. I wonder how many democrats in government don't accept evolution.

God... people are just stupid.

If only Bill Hicks were still alive.

The federal government has no business establishing what should and should not be taught in schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The federal government has no business establishing what should and should not be taught in schools.

---

Not really the point here...

If the president plus a substantial majority believed the earth was flat and supported by a tower of tortoises, the fact that they aren't apportioned the power to make it a part of the nation's school curriculum by the Constitution wouldn't be enough to console me.

The federal government does, however, apportion money to fund science, and the president's anti-science attitude has really screwed us over. Thankfully I'm in a position where I don't feel it as much, but I have heard some pretty shocking stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The federal government has no business establishing what should and should not be taught in schools.

---

To whom do you delegate it to? The school itself or those paying for it or the state?

I have to agree sycld, funding for and interest in science and engineering fields is declining severely and we are not matching the output of engineers from China, Germany, and many other countries. Our dean just said something like 5% of college students are engineers, which makes me a sad :ppblink:.

Anyway, I find it odd that the Pope can accept evolution but other non-catholic sects cannot. I mean, come on.

Hai guyz, I think I'm Jesus Christ, but I don't want it taught in schools so it's alright, k?

Evolution is the work of Satan and you are all going to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

To whom do you delegate it to? The school itself or those paying for it or the state?

I have to agree sycld, funding for and interest in science and engineering fields is declining severely and we are not matching the output of engineers from China, Germany, and many other countries. Our dean just said something like 5% of college students are engineers, which makes me a sad :ppblink:.

Anyway, I find it odd that the Pope can accept evolution but other non-catholic sects cannot. I mean, come on.

---

The states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Baltar

Evolution is the work of Satan and you are all going to hell.

---

Best. Quote. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Best. Quote. Ever.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The states.

---

I prefer red tape with my education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

"She combined her staff meetings with prayer sessions, Stein said, and upset the town's chief librarian by asking what the process would be for banning books. According to Stein, bans were never carried out only because "the library director was horrified and stood up to her."

---

Sounds like 1984/Fahrenheit 451 to me.

Also, I went to catholic school for 2 years(8th and 9th grades), and when we came to how the world came to be, we were taught about dinosaurs and how that was millions of years ago.

Catholics were the first Christians, so when I listen to them, I listen to Catholics.

Honestly, how the fuck can you think the world is less than 1million years old?

I had the TV on the other morning when I was doing some stuff before going to work, and this interview came on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhs8r4LvnFI.

Now, it's pure pablum, and I would have turned the TV off and turned on some music if I hadn't been occupied across the room. BUT, just after the 30 second mark, Palin's dad claims that he has a skull in his house of an animal that went extinct 8 to 10 thousand years ago. So, either the Palins aren't as fundie as they are being made out to be, the Palin parents don't have the same young-earth views as their daughter, the father has never tried to reconcile his wold view with his religion, or he just got so excited about finding something so cool that he forgot it can't be real. Or something.

Speaking about Catholics, I was raised a Catholic by my conservative Catholic dad (my mom being a conservative Hindu, still happily married). When I expressed an interest in science, the first books he bought me were books on natural history.

I didn't know that there were actually people that didn't "believe" in evolution for religious reasons until around middle school probably.

I went to a Catholic school from 8th-12th grade.

The shit they "forgot to tell us" in history class was insane. I was hearing about all this crap when I took history in college, and it was retarded.

Catholicism has killed more people than the holocaust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous d

Catholicism has killed more people than the holocaust.

---

Most other large, organized religious have also done the same.

In addition, these same religions have also had a pacifying effect that prevented people's deaths, so it's not easy to tell how many deaths have been prevented from this vs. how many deaths were caused by religion.

I think my school ignored the whole evolution topic. Now in college, the only thing that has been mentioned is that we did not come from monkeys but are related to them or something (catholic college!) but they still don't really say anything either way. They just avoid the topic.

Going to a religious college for knowledge is like going to a Ford dealership and asking which brand of car they recommend.

I am not studying science so it doesn't matter to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Going to a religious college for knowledge is like going to a Ford dealership and asking which brand of car they recommend.

---

Yeah I know... Georgetown and Harvard are such terrible schools, amirite?

I don't know, it depends on if Georgetown teaches Evolution and proper science in their biology, scientific and engineering courses, or if they teach "Creationism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I don't know, it depends on if Georgetown teaches Evolution and proper science in their biology, scientific and engineering courses, or if they teach "Creationism".

---

I don't know of many state universities that teach creationism in biology courses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I don't know, it depends on if Georgetown teaches Evolution and proper science in their biology, scientific and engineering courses, or if they teach "Creationism".

---

/sigh

They do...

If they didn't, they'd be considered crack-pot schools...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

/sigh

They do...

If they didn't, they'd be considered crack-pot schools...

---

Exactly... that's why they are not truly "religious" schools, they may have a denomination atoned with them, but any school that truly teaches catholic or christian beliefs would not teach evolution etc...

It would be an unaccredited divinity school giving out crackpot ministry "degrees"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Exactly... that's why they are not truly "religious" schools, they may have a denomination atoned with them, but any school that truly teaches catholic or christian beliefs would not teach evolution etc...

It would be an unaccredited divinity school giving out crackpot ministry "degrees"

---

Nooo...

There are plenty of real, accredited Catholic schools that are really strongly Catholic but are still respected. Catholic University of America, Duquesne University, Notre Dame, all the Loyola Universities... just to name a few.

Don't forget my school!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadia

Don't forget my school!

---

New Jersey Canine Beauty School for Jewess and Wop Queens?

Jerk!

We may be in the middle of a Hasidic neighborhood but that doesn't mean we are jewesses or canines! :mad:

Sorry...

I meant "St. Athanasius Canine Beauty School for Wop Queens"

What's a derogatory term for an Indian guy. I don't find myself coming into many of those slurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

What's a derogatory term for an Indian guy. I don't find myself coming into many of those slurs.

---

Wag, coon, rag-head/diaper-head/towel-head, dot-head, push-starter, Patel (in some contexts)

And then those related to stereotypical professions-- convenience store worker, cab driver, hotel owner, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous d

Catholicism has killed more people than the holocaust.

---

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...sts-salute.jpg

I really wish Catholicism had a movement inside of it to destroy the Papacy, but that'd kill Catholicism. Considering that the Catholic Church had a hand in so many things during World War II (Croatia under Pavelić, supporting the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, the actual Vatican City state being created by Mussolini, Nazis fleeing to Argentina, Paraguay and Spain, Charles Coughlin in the USA, etc.), I don't think they minded the Holocaust much since back then they still were condemning the Jews for "killing Jesus."

As it stands though, it seems that religions go from progressive to reactionary depending on things. The Reform movement was progressive up until, well, it still is in a way but it never really had mass influence. Protestantism was progressive and fought against Catholicism (The Know-Nothing movement, etc.) which back then was condemning secular education and abolitionism while Protestants called for public schooling and secular laws in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then Catholicism came back post-60's with Liberation Theology (Which the Popes have condemned, FYI) while Protestantism becomes more reactionary.

Quote:

---

The federal government has no business establishing what should and should not be taught in schools.

---

The federal government has pretty much unlimited business in establishing what should be taught in schools because education is a national issue and it should be pretty obvious that creationism is bullshit, ergo it should not be allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Sorry...

I meant "St. Athanasius Canine Beauty School for Wop Queens"

---

More like the "Catherine McCauley's Catholic School for young lesbians and skanks!"

I went to a pape school and we got raped alot.

But seriously, you need to be worried when people seemingly so anti scientific and pro religious are trying to get power in your country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

The federal government has pretty much unlimited business in establishing what should be taught in schools because education is a national issue and it should be pretty obvious that creationism is bullshit, ergo it should not be allowed.

---

1. This is based on the assumption that the state ought to have any influence on education. Other than requiring some form of education (which would be best managed with permits the way that carbon dioxide emissions are), no government ought to determine what is and isn't taught in schools, much less an over-reaching federal government. There's no constitutional authorization (except liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.) The states are capable of determining which information is most vital to its residents far better than the federal government, if someone outside the market has to decide.

I support education being opened to a free market, so there's no real need to continue this discussion.

ATMOSFEAR JUST IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY HOPEFULLY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadia

More like the "Catherine McCauley's Catholic School for young lesbians and skanks!"

---

This reminds me of porn I watched which was based on Oliver Twist. The name of the orphanage in it was called something like "Kathy Lee Gifford's Home for Wayward Boys," whatever that was suppose to mean.

No it wasn't kiddy porn... all "actors" were 18 or older >_>

Did they get spanked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadia

Did they get spanked?

---

The person playing Oliver got spanked 18 times while he was naked because it was supposedly his 18th birthday >_>

Oh right.

It doesn't sound as exciting as I had thought.

The oral and anal sex followed though.

Meh. Still not that exciting.

Quote:

---

The states are capable of determining which information is most vital to its residents far better than the federal government

---

This makes no sense. Education is education. There isn't "Georgian education" where anarchism works or "Texas education" where legal theory as we know it is incorrect and instead consists of my penis.

Quote:

---

I support education being opened to a free market, so there's no real need to continue this discussion.

---

No, you support giving individual states the ability to choose what teachers can teach, which makes no sense since education is the same for everyone. If a state fucks up education, the entire nation suffers from either a stupid modification or an inefficient/wrong one. Not to mention that states rights has also been used as a way of keeping reactionary laws in place (which is why it died about 60 years ago) and assumes that the state itself is evil, but individual small states are totally awesome and free, which makes no sense.

Ironically, you'd probably favor the USSR system more where it was a Union of independent Republics which at times had their own semi-independent foreign policy within said Union. It was much easier to leave the Union, too (as evidenced by 1991) and there were awesome things like "National Communism" (basically an Islamic and evidently nationalist version) that the Bolsheviks had to encourage in the Central Asian SSRs because secular education was seen as evil.

As a note about the constitution, wouldn't education fall under the general welfare principle of the preamble? Never heard of it having to do with the commerce clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

1. This is based on the assumption that the state ought to have any influence on education. Other than requiring some form of education (which would be best managed with permits the way that carbon dioxide emissions are), no government ought to determine what is and isn't taught in schools, much less an over-reaching federal government. There's no constitutional authorization (except liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.) The states are capable of determining which information is most vital to its residents far better than the federal government, if someone outside the market has to decide.

I support education being opened to a free market, so there's no real need to continue this discussion.

---

I in theory agree with less government control, but the problem with basic education not being government funded is quality and type. You seriously believe that some public schools would opt to not teach science and only teach creationism, while some schools teach science, and some in between, people from different parts of the country would be arguing with each other moreso than now, education must be controlled. You can't just teach kids whatever the fuck you want to. As soon as someone with the wrong agenda gets in power, than all of the sudden there is a school teaching that the holocaust never happened, and that the KKK are hero's.

Of course once you out of highschool than education is free market for the advanced stuff, because they can self-regulate due to people with a basic education knowing the difference between a crazy school and a real one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I in theory agree with less government control, but the problem with basic education not being government funded is quality and type. You seriously believe that some public schools would opt to not teach science and only teach creationism, while some schools teach science, and some in between, people from different parts of the country would be arguing with each other moreso than now, education must be controlled. You can't just teach kids whatever the fuck you want to. As soon as someone with the wrong agenda gets in power, than all of the sudden there is a school teaching that the holocaust never happened, and that the KKK are hero's.

Of course once you out of highschool than education is free market for the advanced stuff, because they can self-regulate due to people with a basic education knowing the difference between a crazy school and a real one.

---

Well, from a theoretical standpoint, having education more locally controlled has (at least) two benefits:

1) More different pedagogical approaches get tried out and evaluated in different places, and you might discover something that really works well that never would have been a first choice nationally.

2) You can cater to local populations. A curriculum that addresses the needs and local personality of some hillbillies and coal miners in West Virginia might not be suitable for street thugs in LA. And neither's curriculum is likely to maximize the learning potential of a bunch of rich snots in an exclusive neighborhood of Connecticut.

And I'm not clear exactly why you make an arbitrary cutoff between high school and college. Couldn't you just as easily claim that once you're out of middle school, you know which high schools are run by crackpots? Of course, we don't get as much choice in high schools as we do in colleges, and even if we did, any high school that is local enough to attend is likely to be under the same guidelines as any other school within range. But even colleges have to get accredited, and I'm willing to bet that that fosters some level of uniformity even on the college level.

BUT, practically speaking, these benefits are mostly outweighed by the fact that there are still a lot of scary fuckers out there who want to control local school systems, and they can do so a lot more easily if the schools are less centrally controlled. There are still places in the South that have prayer in the schools - and this is, what, 40 years after that was explicitly declared unconstitutional? Every now and then you hear a story on NPR about some new biology teacher in Alabama or rural Utah getting called into the principal's office and questioned about his or her religious beliefs, and told that the Bible is the only textbook that's really necessary. Do you really want to trust Cletus with deciding what gets put into your kid's biology or geology curriculum? Christ, I had a physics teacher in high school who had never even had calculus. That's a little like teaching Shakespeare without ever having learned anything about poetry. (Well, that's a bad analogy, but I'm tired, so cut me some slack.) And a free market only works if there are good options available. A little southern town with one school, no nearby alternatives, and a populace that doesn't much care to be told how to teach their young 'uns about the world really isn't an ideal marketplace. Hell, the entire state of Kansas almost adopted an intelligent design curriculum, because some fundies got onto the state board of education. Even a whole state can end up with backwards policies. So yes, as patronizing as it is, sometimes folks in some places need a little kick in the ass to nudge them into the 21st century. Or at least into the latter half of the 20th. And that requires some external oversight.

And there's the issue of the kids' rights, as well. It won't be the kids who decide what school to attend, or what beliefs to be indoctrinated with. It'll be their parents who decide that, either based on their beliefs, or based on what's most convenient to them. We don't let parents keep their kids out of school entirely (they must at least homeschool), we don't let them deprive their kids of necessities like food or medical care, and we don't let them abuse their kids, why would we let them send their kids to some crackpot school run by Scientologists, militants, or fundamentalist Christians who just teach that Jesus is coming back by the end of the year (or next year at the latest), so there's no point in learning anything other than Bible verses? Part of the point of mandatory education is to ensure that every kid in the country gets some basic level of competence in reading, writing, math, and critical thinking, so that he won't be a drain on society, and so that he can learn and make decisions for himself, rather than just being brainwashed by his family and community.

Further, if we're going to provide public education for every kid in the country, and require that every kid either take advantage of it, or get a private education instead, shouldn't there be some effort to make sure that every one of those kids - all across the country, not just on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis - gets some minimal level of competence in that education? This implies at least some rough guidelines on a national level that every school must follow. It's hardly fair if every kid from Kansas is at a disadvantage, because their schools had to teach thinly-disguised creationism.

My favorite bit in this whole thread, though, is Atmosfear decreeing that since he supports free market schools, no more discussion is necessary. I got quite a kick out of that. (Yeah, I know that's not a charitable interpretation of what he wrote, but it still made me giggle.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

This makes no sense. Education is education. There isn't "Georgian education" where anarchism works or "Texas education" where legal theory as we know it is incorrect and instead consists of my penis.

---

The purpose of education is to improve the productivity of workers. While some disciplines may improve productivity universally, some states have economies that lean heavily on one industry, and more advanced training for that industry would be more beneficial. The states ought to determine this, not the federal government. There's no point in training farmers if your state is filled with factories.

Likewise, some states can train certain professions at lower marginal cost than others. It is more efficient if they focus on training those professions than others. The current system has deadweight loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

No, you support giving individual states the ability to choose what teachers can teach, which makes no sense since education is the same for everyone. If a state fucks up education, the entire nation suffers from either a stupid modification or an inefficient/wrong one. Not to mention that states rights has also been used as a way of keeping reactionary laws in place (which is why it died about 60 years ago) and assumes that the state itself is evil, but individual small states are totally awesome and free, which makes no sense.

---

If the federal government makes a stupid modification, the whole nation suffers. I'd rather have those close to me make the decision than a large government far away.

Creative logical fallacy, there... maybe if you blame states rights for enough other things, you'll undermine this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

Ironically, you'd probably favor the USSR system more where it was a Union of independent Republics which at times had their own semi-independent foreign policy within said Union. It was much easier to leave the Union, too (as evidenced by 1991) and there were awesome things like "National Communism" (basically an Islamic and evidently nationalist version) that the Bolsheviks had to encourage in the Central Asian SSRs because secular education was seen as evil.

---

How is that ironic? Or even related. I support free-market education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

As a note about the constitution, wouldn't education fall under the general welfare principle of the preamble? Never heard of it having to do with the commerce clause.

---

Everything falls under the commerce clause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The purpose of education is to improve the productivity of workers.

---

Bullshit. I didn't study math for years and years so that I could be a better cog in the corporate wheel. If I wanted that, I would have studied business, welding, or some other trade. I studied math because I enjoyed it and because it was a good intellectual exercise. You seem to be conflating "education" and "training". They are different words for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

While some disciplines may improve productivity universally, some states have economies that lean heavily on one industry, and more advanced training for that industry would be more beneficial. The states ought to determine this, not the federal government. There's no point in training farmers if your state is filled with factories.

---

Yeah, I see your point, but on the other hand, exposing kids to some amount of agricultural education is good, otherwise
1) They won't have any idea where the food in the grocery store comes from
2) They'll never have the opportunity to discover if they really would like farming, even if it means they'll have to move elsewhere to pursue it

That doesn't mean that every school in the country has to have a 100 acre farm and a charter ag department with it, but offering some amount of ag to all kids isn't a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Likewise, some states can train certain professions at lower marginal cost than others. It is more efficient if they focus on training those professions than others. The current system has deadweight loss.

---

The point of education isn't to be as efficient as possible in getting jobs for students. It is to offer students opportunities to do what they want with their lives, and to enrich themselves intellectually. By your logic, no school should offer any arts or music, since almost nobody ever makes a living at them. And forget about athletic programs, or even PE classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

If the federal government makes a stupid modification, the whole nation suffers. I'd rather have those close to me make the decision than a large government far away.

---

Yes, which is why you would hope that the federal rules would have the flexibility to adapt to local conditions, and why you try to incorporate only the best curricula you can at that level.

Edit: But your second sentence is curious - why do you prefer to be fucked over by someone in your own town, instead of someone from another town? Why does proximity imply benevolence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Everything falls under the commerce clause.

---

If it applies to everything, then it applies to nothing. You might want to reconsider your own logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Bullshit. I didn't study math for years and years so that I could be a better cog in the corporate wheel. If I wanted that, I would have studied business, welding, or some other trade. I studied math because I enjoyed it and because it was a good intellectual exercise. You seem to be conflating "education" and "training". They are different words for a reason.

---

Applying principals you learn in mathematics makes life much easier. This in turn leads to improved happiness, which leads to productivity. This can be applied to the arts (art appreciation is a potential source of happiness) and many other of the disciplines you would deem worthless for their lack of direct effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Yeah, I see your point, but on the other hand, exposing kids to some amount of agricultural education is good, otherwise
1) They won't have any idea where the food in the grocery store comes from
2) They'll never have the opportunity to discover if they really would like farming, even if it means they'll have to move elsewhere to pursue it

That doesn't mean that every school in the country has to have a 100 acre farm and a charter ag department with it, but offering some amount of ag to all kids isn't a bad thing.

---

Who better to decide than the states which can best determine the necessary level. Or wait, how about the free market so that parents can decide what level of agricultural education will best prepare their children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

The point of education isn't to be as efficient as possible in getting jobs for students. It is to offer students opportunities to do what they want with their lives, and to enrich themselves intellectually. By your logic, no school should offer any arts or music, since almost nobody ever makes a living at them. And forget about athletic programs, or even PE classes.

---

Again, you seem to be under the impression that workplace productivity is the result solely of direct training. Many other external factors can improve productivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Yes, which is why you would hope that the federal rules would have the flexibility to adapt to local conditions, and why you try to incorporate only the best curricula you can at that level.

---

More red tape! Perfect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Edit: But your second sentence is curious - why do you prefer to be fucked over by someone in your own town, instead of someone from another town? Why does proximity imply benevolence?

---

Because someone close to me is liable to be making the same cost-benefit analysis as I am. The information impacting the decision is more likely to be imperfect as the distance and scope increases. A more local source is likely to have closer-to-perfect information and, assuming both sources are equally rational, will produce a better decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

If it applies to everything, then it applies to nothing. You might want to reconsider your own logical fallacies.

---

Which logical fallacy is that again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Applying principals you learn in mathematics makes life much easier. This in turn leads to improved happiness, which leads to productivity. This can be applied to the arts (art appreciation is a potential source of happiness) and many other of the disciplines you would deem worthless for their lack of direct effect.

---

Well wait, are you saying that our goal in educating people is to make them better workers (which sounds almost, I don't know, Stalinist or something), are you saying that you achieve that improvement in efficiency through happiness from education, or are you saying that the goal is to make the people happier, which we hope will also lead to increases in efficiency?

I have to say, I'm not sure that happiness always leads to efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Who better to decide than the states which can best determine the necessary level. Or wait, how about the free market so that parents can decide what level of agricultural education will best prepare their children?

---

What's with the fixation on states? We have 50 states, whose populations range from the size of a medium sized city to bigger than many countries. They aren't somehow the perfect size to determine these things, because they are very different sizes. Many states are comprised of many different regions and sub-cultures, as well, making the same problems as you see at a national level.

I think I addressed some problems with parents deciding everything in my post above. You didn't reply to any of what I wrote about protecting kids from ignorant or fanatical parents, or about the lack of viable options for a good marketplace in many situations.

Nor did you address my concern that many states are still very backwards on the whole, and that the education of their children can suffer if only the state or local governments determine what is taught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Again, you seem to be under the impression that workplace productivity is the result solely of direct training. Many other external factors can improve productivity.

---

You seem to be under the impression that most employers give a shit if their employees are happy, fulfilled people. I promise you that just about any successful company would prefer miserable drones to happy, empowered employees, if the drones are better for the bottom line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

More red tape! Perfect!

---

I'm pretty sure there is already enough red tape. The point would be to make the red tape we already have work better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Because someone close to me is liable to be making the same cost-benefit analysis as I am. The information impacting the decision is more likely to be imperfect as the distance and scope increases. A more local source is likely to have closer-to-perfect information and, assuming both sources are equally rational, will produce a better decision.

---

Okay, that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I share your love of proximity, though. I grew up near some pretty stupid fuckers. The last thing I'd want is for many of them to have any say in my life or education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Which logical fallacy is that again?

---

Ah, that was mostly a rhetorical comment. You were complaining about someone's logical fallacy in the same section as you said "Everything falls under the commerce clause", so I jumped on it and made a somewhat tenuous connection. But I'll explain what I meant.

You know how when you say that every little kid is special, you actually dilute or destroy the meaning of special (because if everybody is "special", then "special" loses its meaning of being something not everybody does or has)? In fact, it has almost become cliche' to say "if everybody is special then nobody is special". Same idea here - if you try to apply one clause to every situation, then you make the clause meaningless, because it doesn't specify anything. Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Well wait, are you saying that our goal in educating people is to make them better workers (which sounds almost, I don't know, Stalinist or something), are you saying that you achieve that improvement in efficiency through happiness from education, or are you saying that the goal is to make the people happier, which we hope will also lead to increases in efficiency?

I have to say, I'm not sure that happiness always leads to efficiency.

---

For the last fuckign time, the purpose of education is to improve the productivity of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

What's with the fixation on states? We have 50 states, whose populations range from the size of a medium sized city to bigger than many countries. They aren't somehow the perfect size to determine these things, because they are very different sizes. Many states are comprised of many different regions and sub-cultures, as well, making the same problems as you see at a national level.

---

They are the most-local unit of government that can apply to the entire country with the least inefficiency. I have said multiple times I would prefer the individual decide, but since every state already has the means in place to make and enforce the decision, it is most practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

I think I addressed some problems with parents deciding everything in my post above. You didn't reply to any of what I wrote about protecting kids from ignorant or fanatical parents, or about the lack of viable options for a good marketplace in many situations.

---

A permit-trading system would work just fine for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Nor did you address my concern that many states are still very backwards on the whole, and that the education of their children can suffer if only the state or local governments determine what is taught.

---

So what you are saying, here, is that the federal government's inefficiency has failed certain states, but because of that failure, those states do not deserve the opportunity to correct themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

You seem to be under the impression that most employers give a shit if their employees are happy, fulfilled people. I promise you that just about any successful company would prefer miserable drones to happy, empowered employees, if the drones are better for the bottom line.

---

Companies think on the margin, too. Which explains why some of the most successful companies in the world (See: Google) provide a myriad of services to their employees to minimize the impact of negativity in their non-work lives from affecting their work performance.

Do you study management? I do. And meaningful empowerment of employees almost always results in an increase in productivity. Perhaps you'll find this counterintuitive, but cash is actually one of the worst motivators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

I'm pretty sure there is already enough red tape. The point would be to make the red tape we already have work better.

---

Do you have a different definition of red tape? Did you make it dumber on purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Okay, that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I share your love of proximity, though. I grew up near some pretty stupid fuckers. The last thing I'd want is for many of them to have any say in my life or education.

---

I would want to determine for myself, because I have the best information available with which to make a cost-benefit analysis. Which is what I fucking said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Ah, that was mostly a rhetorical comment. You were complaining about someone's logical fallacy in the same section as you said "Everything falls under the commerce clause", so I jumped on it and made a somewhat tenuous connection. But I'll explain what I meant.

You know how when you say that every little kid is special, you actually dilute or destroy the meaning of special (because if everybody is "special", then "special" loses its meaning of being something not everybody does or has)? Same idea here - if you try to apply one clause to every situation, then you make the clause meaningless, because it doesn't specify anything. Get it?

---

Except that this isn't a fucking argument in rhetoric, this is a historical application of the Commerce Clause. It's clear you're neither a student of law, business, or economics, so I'll make this simple. Congress has interpreted, with the aid of the Judiciary, that it has the power to do almost anything because practically any activity can be said to have an impact on interstate commerce.

I have to disagree with Atmosfear, the point of education is not just to make a better more efficient worker, what is this, communism? A school in NYC is already going to have less Agriculture classes than a school in Georgia, but you plan seems to have schools in each region almost specialize in a certain type of education and neglecting education that may not DIRECTLY affect them. Sure, I am not going to be a scientist, but I still want to have an ass load of science classes.

In my opinion, education is there to enlighten and fulfill a person, not to learn specific trades. The person in NYC should learn a fair amount about about agriculture as a school in Georgia should about Wallstreet economics and stocks and how large corporations operate. The purpose of education is so people can LEARN LIFELONG, called critical thinking.

You don't want a system where people in specific regions of the country are taught different things, based on a free market like college, a Free Market of education is quite frankly scary... Everyone across the nation would get a different education tailored to the propaganda of that region, instead of FACTS being presented nationwide, a southerners history book would have a different account of the civil war than a history book in New York. "Well gee, betsy sue.... this here school don't teach no science, cep't that god did everything, lets enroll her there". How does that help us as a nation and a world? We are already way behind in education, we don't need a bunch of kids who were trained for a specific purpose. We are not training workers, we are supposed to be preparing people for life and to be able to think, and learn for themselves.

Now obviously there are some skills that everyone has to have to be successful in life, which DOES include work, but a work education factory would leave out tons of knowledge and make us even more stupid as a nation, rather than teaching us everything we need to know, and picking our own trades to excel in.

I said "productive" I never said "better worker."

But go ahead and continue to put words in my mouth.

Jesus Christ... look what Mr. Die made you guys do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

some states have economies that lean heavily on one industry, and more advanced training for that industry would be more beneficial. The states ought to determine this, not the federal government. There's no point in training farmers if your state is filled with factories.

---

Well yes, I'll agree with that and was actually considering showing it as an exception, but I'm pretty sure no one is going to be opposed to a state controlling this aspect. Also we're talking about science.

Quote:

---

If the federal government makes a stupid modification, the whole nation suffers.

---

What is more likely to fuck up science in this case? The federal government, which I'm going to assume has more contact with 'concerned officials' (scientists, etc.) or a state with a strong creationist/'alternative medicine'/whatever lobby?

Quote:

---

Creative logical fallacy, there... maybe if you blame states rights for enough other things, you'll undermine this one.

---

Maybe if states rights wasn't such an idealistic concept I wouldn't have to undermine it.

Also, a state or the state makes little difference except in efficiency and foot-dragging. Look at Quebec, a province in Canada which actually has some legitimacy towards their separatist arguments and is bigger than I'm going to assume most US states. The whole "WE SHALL FREE OURSELVES FROM YOUR TYRANNYYYYYYY!!!!" falls flat when people realize it wouldn't last long as an independent state.

Not relevant, but lets see what the USSR did. The USSR developed the economies of each SSR to an extent that they could viably declare independence. That is why every single SSR that was in the USSR came out as a fully independent state in 1991. (Granted, I know a Republic isn't the same as if the USSR was a bunch of huge states)

Yea and they were and many still are fucking crapholes, poorest places in Europe with thousands each year trying to come to the UK to have a decent crack at life because their countries are too shit to let them.

EDIt

Fuck you Mr Die, coazing me into commenting on your drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Yea and they were and many still are fucking crapholes, poorest places in Europe with thousands each year trying to come to the UK to have a decent crack at life because their countries are too shit to let them.

---

Well yeah, that's because the USSR treated most Republics as colonies post-50's. This was also when socialism in the USSR ended. COINCIDENCE?

As opposed to, say, the 1920's and 30's, where great progress was made. (The Turkmen didn't exist as a unified nation before, but the Soviets made it so and got them out of nomadic living, and even had a variant of Communism known as 'National Communism' for a while in those areas which unsuccessfully tried to merge Islam, nationalism and socialism)

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap24-26.html (look at chapter 26 on that page)

Quote:

---

"Soviet authorities have reinstated Georgian as the official language of Soviet Georgia after demonstrations there last week over a proposed new constitution which had eliminated the language as the republic's official tongue.

The demonstrations occurred on Friday in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, when several hundred university students apparently marched from the campus about a mile through the city centre to the steps of the Government's buildings where the Georgian Supreme Soviet was meeting to adopt the new constitution...

Georgians, who comprise most of the population, apparently interpreted this change to mean further 'russification' of their republic".

("Moscow Bows to Georgians in State Language Row", in: "The Guardian", April 19th., 1978; p. 7).

---

Yeah, great way to promote internationalism.

Also if you're talking about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Russia and Moldova then you're an idiot because these were the most favorited areas when it came to industrialization and aren't shitty compared to the Central Asian Republics.

They are shitty compared to western Europe. Ultra shitty. That is like saying a broken leg isn't so bad when compared aids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

Well yes, I'll agree with that and was actually considering showing it as an exception, but I'm pretty sure no one is going to be opposed to a state controlling this aspect. Also we're talking about science.

---

If the state governments and federal government are each equally rational (and for all intents and purposes, they might as well be), then it is only the quality of information that will change their decision. If science education is so important, then all of the states would end up reaching the same conclusion, anyways. Are there any states who would remove basic algebra from the core curriculum? Obviously any state that did would suffer greatly, and the market would pressure them to return it to the curriculum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

What is more likely to fuck up science in this case? The federal government, which I'm going to assume has more contact with 'concerned officials' (scientists, etc.) or a state with a strong creationist/'alternative medicine'/whatever lobby?

---

One of my majors is Biology and even I don't think science is that critical in education, but that's not really the point. Because of the higher-education systems in place, and the accreditation services they rely upon, I don't think there's any real risk. If anything, the college and university systems would have a greater influence on the states than they currently do on the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

Maybe if states rights wasn't such an idealistic concept I wouldn't have to undermine it.

---

Arguing against the concept of states rights does not disprove that state-managed education would be more efficient than federally-managed education. Its just not a syllogism. You can't prove that states rights is always wrong without disproving that state-managed education is worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

Also, a state or the state makes little difference except in efficiency and foot-dragging. Look at Quebec, a province in Canada which actually has some legitimacy towards their separatist arguments and is bigger than I'm going to assume most US states. The whole "WE SHALL FREE OURSELVES FROM YOUR TYRANNYYYYYYY!!!!" falls flat when people realize it wouldn't last long as an independent state.

---

I'm not claiming that states should be entirely independent of the federal government, or that they can do everything better and more efficiently than the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husein

Not relevant, but lets see what the USSR did. The USSR developed the economies of each SSR to an extent that they could viably declare independence. That is why every single SSR that was in the USSR came out as a fully independent state in 1991. (Granted, I know a Republic isn't the same as if the USSR was a bunch of huge states)

---

ok

Quote:

---

If science education is so important, then all of the states would end up reaching the same conclusion, anyways. Are there any states who would remove basic algebra from the core curriculum? Obviously any state that did would suffer greatly, and the market would pressure them to return it to the curriculum.

---

Because algebra is an essential part of getting most jobs. Science is important because for many people it merges with philosophy and helps shape their worldview, but of course isn't essential (or even semi-necessary) for most jobs. Ignorance of evolution tends to promote bad thinking in general because it generally implies a lack of critical thought, although I'd say it's part of a larger problem.

I mistook you for arguing "HOW DARE they teach evolution without the consent of 100.0% of the state!" and defending the glorious states against the Jew agenda or whatever. Evidently you aren't that dumb.

BTW: I showed a friend your thing about the commerce clause. He says this:

Him: so its because of the commerce clause then that funding for the military gets passed?
Him: bullshit
Him: and the judiciary interpretation of the commerce clause and all other clauses is taken in light of the preamble
Him: the preamble sets up the very reason why the constitution was written

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thermal

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...131,full.story

Are elections about picking the best or making sure the bigger fuck up doesn't win?

---

Definitely making sure the bigger fuck up doesn't win.

I agree with Mr. Die (oh Jesus what did I just say!?), There are a lot of things that are not NECESSARY or even important in most functions in life, but not learning them leads to general ignorance. Do I NEED to know how genetic material is composed and passed on? No, I do not need that information to eat, sleep, work or procreate, so it is not "critical", but if we were not taught, we would be ignorant on the subject and think it was magic, or god or some other ridiculous notion on why and how such data is passed on through genetics. Same with biology, world affairs, US History etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I agree with Mr. Die (oh Jesus what did I just say!?), There are a lot of things that are not NECESSARY or even important in most functions in life, but not learning them leads to general ignorance. Do I NEED to know how genetic material is composed and passed on? No, I do not need that information to eat, sleep, work or procreate, so it is not "critical", but if we were not taught, we would be ignorant on the subject and think it was magic, or god or some other ridiculous notion on why and how such data is passed on through genetics. Same with biology, world affairs, US History etc...

---

I never argued against that.

Fear not loyal readers, after a long week at work, I'm back.

So, I'd like to clarify a couple of things.

1) As I understand it, Atmosfear is saying that he would prefer that education be totally controlled by individuals, not by the government at all. However, moving from having national standards to complete state control is at least progress in that direction. Please let me know if I'm mis-reading your comments.
2) I'm not clear what you think the federal government controls in education right now. I think states do much of the work as it is.
3) There are two different components to the discussion of federal meddling in education. The first is whether or not, in theory, there should be any. The other is whether or not there is a legal or constitutional basis for it in this country, as it exists today. The two issues are entangled, but I think it's important to distinguish what we're trying to justify and in what context. I think most of the people who are arguing with you are arguing that there should be some federal interference in education, not based on the law as it does or doesn't exist, but based on thinking that it's good for the country and for education.

Also, I know you're answering to several different people who are taking different approaches, but I suggest taking a deep breath or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

I said "productive" I never said "better worker."

But go ahead and continue to put words in my mouth.

---

Okay, so he misquoted you, but what's the difference between a "more productive" worker, and a "better" worker? Do you really think he changed the meaning on you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

For the last fuckign time, the purpose of education is to improve the productivity of the population.

---

You know, I've given this some thought, and I think you have a point. It is necessary for education to improve productivity at least enough to generate enough free time to pursue that education. So I'll give you that. However, we hope also that we get more free time out of it than just enough to actually get the education, or else we might as well just be working that whole time. So why do we want more free time? Why, to use it to improve the quality of our lives, of course. And one way we do that is through the fulfillment provided by education. (Of course, other some people prefer to go fishing, breed dogs, watch TV, or just sit in a room picking their noses, but whatever.) So you see, education is kind of unique in that it's both the means and part of the end. And the fulfilling parts of education seldom have much (if anything) to do with improving workers' productivity.

Furthermore, while one of the roles of education from a social level might be to improve worker productivity, that's not always a useful way of approaching it on a practical level. The agriculture discussion in previous posts is a good example.

And I'm still not convinced that taking a major that makes you happy is going to make you as efficient as studying something you hate but that gives you better job skills, even if you're miserable. If you have evidence of that, then by all means provide it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

They are the most-local unit of government that can apply to the entire country with the least inefficiency. I have said multiple times I would prefer the individual decide, but since every state already has the means in place to make and enforce the decision, it is most practical.

Quote:

---

I think I addressed some problems with parents deciding everything in my post above. You didn't reply to any of what I wrote about protecting kids from ignorant or fanatical parents, or about the lack of viable options for a good marketplace in many situations.

---

A permit-trading system would work just fine for this.

---

Would you care to elaborate on this, and how it would protect kids with lousy parents, or provide for some measure of quality control in districts with lousy schools?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Quote:

---

Nor did you address my concern that many states are still very backwards on the whole, and that the education of their children can suffer if only the state or local governments determine what is taught.

---

So what you are saying, here, is that the federal government's inefficiency has failed certain states, but because of that failure, those states do not deserve the opportunity to correct themselves?

---

I don't see your reasoning here - is there a typo in what you wrote? You're saying that the states that currently have poor educational systems can blame the federal government's inefficiency for their problems? If so, that's kind of a stretch. If not, please clarify your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Companies think on the margin, too. Which explains why some of the most successful companies in the world (See: Google) provide a myriad of services to their employees to minimize the impact of negativity in their non-work lives from affecting their work performance.

Do you study management? I do. And meaningful empowerment of employees almost always results in an increase in productivity. Perhaps you'll find this counterintuitive, but cash is actually one of the worst motivators.

---

Awesome, but most people don't work for Google. They work in slaughterhouses gutting chickens all day, in retail stores hawking overpriced crap, or they work in an office for some company that is run by people who are about as far-sighted as a garden slug at night. And frankly, most people don't deserve a lot better, but I guess that's another thread. Also note that when times get tough, even a lot of those good companies start to trim those non-cash motivators, or just go out of business altogether (See: the tech bubble bursting).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Do you have a different definition of red tape? Did you make it dumber on purpose?

---

I assume that by "red tape" you meant, roughly, "government bureaucracy". That seems pretty consistent with the definition in wikipedia. Since some level of "bureaucracy" is generally necessary for any program to function, I was saying that the amount that we have now of that is probably enough, and we should probably concentrate on making it work better, rather than adding more layers. Hell, maybe we could even accomplish that with less red tape. If so, great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

I would want to determine for myself, because I have the best information available with which to make a cost-benefit analysis. Which is what I fucking said

---

And, like I fucking said, when you're 8 years old, you aren't able to make that decision or weigh pros and cons. And when your parents are too fucking stupid or lazy to make halfway intelligent choices for you, sometimes the government (federal, state, local, whatever) steps in to try to help you escape their ineptitude. Whether this should happen at all, or should be restricted to kids being beaten or starved, or should extend into education, general health decisions, and choice of a bedtime story is the issue. But there IS precedent for protecting children from their parents. If you want to argue the extent to which that should exist, great. But that's a slightly different argument than whether it should exist at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Except that this isn't a fucking argument in rhetoric, this is a historical application of the Commerce Clause. It's clear you're neither a student of law, business, or economics, so I'll make this simple. Congress has interpreted, with the aid of the Judiciary, that it has the power to do almost anything because practically any activity can be said to have an impact on interstate commerce.

---

No it isn't a fucking argument in rhetoric, it's a fucking thread on a small internet forum - a thread that you seem to be taking very seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Fear not loyal readers, after a long week at work, I'm back.

So, I'd like to clarify a couple of things.

1) As I understand it, Atmosfear is saying that he would prefer that education be totally controlled by individuals, not by the government at all. However, moving from having national standards to complete state control is at least progress in that direction. Please let me know if I'm mis-reading your comments.
2) I'm not clear what you think the federal government controls in education right now. I think states do much of the work as it is.
3) There are two different components to the discussion of federal meddling in education. The first is whether or not, in theory, there should be any. The other is whether or not there is a legal or constitutional basis for it in this country, as it exists today. The two issues are entangled, but I think it's important to distinguish what we're trying to justify and in what context. I think most of the people who are arguing with you are arguing that there should be some federal interference in education, not based on the law as it does or doesn't exist, but based on thinking that it's good for the country and for education.

Also, I know you're answering to several different people who are taking different approaches, but I suggest taking a deep breath or two.

---

1) I want education to be totally controlled by the free market. I don't think putting education in the control of states is a step in that direction, but I prefer to have local policy impacting me rather than a distant, national policy.
2) This discussion began because people seem to think Palin's personal views, however misguided they may be, should have a major impact in voting. And my point is that education shouldn't be in control of the federal government, so it shouldn't matter at all.
3) And whether its based on a legal or logical basis, I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Okay, so he misquoted you, but what's the difference between a "more productive" worker, and a "better" worker? Do you really think he changed the meaning on you?

---

Because you are quoting selectively. A "productive worker" and a "better worker" may be effectively the same thing, but a "productive" person is not the same as a "better worker." To insinuate that education's effect on the economy is limited to the workplace is naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

You know, I've given this some thought, and I think you have a point. It is necessary for education to improve productivity at least enough to generate enough free time to pursue that education. So I'll give you that. However, we hope also that we get more free time out of it than just enough to actually get the education, or else we might as well just be working that whole time. So why do we want more free time? Why, to use it to improve the quality of our lives, of course. And one way we do that is through the fulfillment provided by education. (Of course, other some people prefer to go fishing, breed dogs, watch TV, or just sit in a room picking their noses, but whatever.) So you see, education is kind of unique in that it's both the means and part of the end. And the fulfilling parts of education seldom have much (if anything) to do with improving workers' productivity.

---

Unfortunately, this entire line of thinking is inapplicable to the real world. It sounds good in your head, but data doesn't support it. Educated workers, with the best technology, work longer hours than uneducated workers with shitty technology. This is because as education and technology improve, the opportunity cost for an hour of leisure rises. Education doesn't increase your free time, though if the general happiness of the population is roughly equal to (or, at the very least, not lower than) historical populations, then education would seem to improve the effectiveness of an hour of free time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Furthermore, while one of the roles of education from a social level might be to improve worker productivity, that's not always a useful way of approaching it on a practical level. The agriculture discussion in previous posts is a good example.

---

If education wasn't worth the time required to get it, people wouldn't bother with it. Who better to determine what is and isn't worth it than the market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

And I'm still not convinced that taking a major that makes you happy is going to make you as efficient as studying something you hate but that gives you better job skills, even if you're miserable. If you have evidence of that, then by all means provide it.

---

When did I say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Would you care to elaborate on this, and how it would protect kids with lousy parents, or provide for some measure of quality control in districts with lousy schools?

---

Nothing is going to protect kids with lousy parents. Don't like the schools in your district? Leave. Don't like the schools in your state? Go to another state. Go to private school. People make these decisions all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

I don't see your reasoning here - is there a typo in what you wrote? You're saying that the states that currently have poor educational systems can blame the federal government's inefficiency for their problems? If so, that's kind of a stretch. If not, please clarify your point.

---

I'm saying that the federal government has done a poor job of evening out the playing field in terms of education (which, I imagine, is the only thing you can hope for in this system.) He is saying that the states with poorly rated education systems aren't able to fix their own problems. The market fixes itself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

Awesome, but most people don't work for Google. They work in slaughterhouses gutting chickens all day, in retail stores hawking overpriced crap, or they work in an office for some company that is run by people who are about as far-sighted as a garden slug at night. And frankly, most people don't deserve a lot better, but I guess that's another thread. Also note that when times get tough, even a lot of those good companies start to trim those non-cash motivators, or just go out of business altogether (See: the tech bubble bursting).

---

If slaughterhouses can't find ways to empower their employees and bring their compensation packages more closely in line with the behavior they expect, that's a problem of management, not of the education system. Consider Chick-Fil-A which has been both profitable and well-rated for their quality as both a workplace and as a fast food restaurant. You don't need an education to do their job and their pay isn't much better than their competitors and yet they manage to figure it out. Good management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

I assume that by "red tape" you meant, roughly, "government bureaucracy". That seems pretty consistent with the definition in wikipedia. Since some level of "bureaucracy" is generally necessary for any program to function, I was saying that the amount that we have now of that is probably enough, and we should probably concentrate on making it work better, rather than adding more layers. Hell, maybe we could even accomplish that with less red tape. If so, great.

---

Less bureaucracy? You mean like... a free market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

And, like I fucking said, when you're 8 years old, you aren't able to make that decision or weigh pros and cons. And when your parents are too fucking stupid or lazy to make halfway intelligent choices for you, sometimes the government (federal, state, local, whatever) steps in to try to help you escape their ineptitude. Whether this should happen at all, or should be restricted to kids being beaten or starved, or should extend into education, general health decisions, and choice of a bedtime story is the issue. But there IS precedent for protecting children from their parents. If you want to argue the extent to which that should exist, great. But that's a slightly different argument than whether it should exist at all.

---

A permit system forces the parents to make the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasquash

No it isn't a fucking argument in rhetoric, it's a fucking thread on a small internet forum - a thread that you seem to be taking very seriously.

---

I'll leave you with your logical fallacy.

we need AI back.

Bottom line is, I've seen the Flintstones in both live action and cartoon format, and Palin is correct.