Answering old threads thread

[Idolater]

This oldie and goodie by @Clete raises a very important topic:

Public Education is a Terrible Idea!

It's important because of education's connection with ethics. Classical education or perennialism is the curriculum of antiquity, back when schools were basically natural appendages of what today is called by the Catholic Church "Religious Ed" [sic]. The only real schools in any significant numbers for centuries on end were the "schools" that the Church set up to teach people Catholicism (catechesis). Once Church catechists recognized that they could take advantage of a captive audience and teach the faithful other things too, they had to answer the question, "What else should we teach them? Besides 'religious ed'?" And from this realization and a desire to do the work of Christ, they developed a curriculum that was not religious ed, to supplement and complement the religious ed.

Eventually this decision sprouted into what are known as the quote-unquote "seven liberal arts."

The classical or perennialist curriculum features these seven liberal arts prominently.

But the real problem with public education is that we conceive of education wrongly to begin with. Education is the preparation of people to participate in happiness. Happiness is the good life, good things, virtues, and values. Ethics is the study of happiness. So education and ethics are tied together tightly, and attempts to 'amputate' one from the other is bound to 'die on the table'.

 

[Clete]

This oldie and goodie by @Clete raises a very important topic:

Public Education is a Terrible Idea!

It's important because of education's connection with ethics. Classical education or perennialism is the curriculum of antiquity, back when schools were basically natural appendages of what today is called by the Catholic Church "Religious Ed" [sic]. The only real schools in any significant numbers for centuries on end were the "schools" that the Church set up to teach people Catholicism (catechesis). Once Church catechists recognized that they could take advantage of a captive audience and teach the faithful other things too, they had to answer the question, "What else should we teach them? Besides 'religious ed'?" And from this realization and a desire to do the work of Christ, they developed a curriculum that was not religious ed, to supplement and complement the religious ed.

Eventually this decision sprouted into what are known as the quote-unquote "seven liberal arts."

The classical or perennialist curriculum features these seven liberal arts prominently.

But the real problem with public education is that we conceive of education wrongly to begin with. Education is the preparation of people to participate in happiness. Happiness is the good life, good things, virtues, and values. Ethics is the study of happiness. So education and ethics are tied together tightly, and attempts to 'amputate' one from the other is bound to 'die on the table'.

While I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, I'm pretty certain that is not an old post of mine.

Public education is a bad idea because it's premise is theft and because the government is incapable of performing 1/10th as well as the private sector as providing the public with an education, not to mention the fact that the government couldn't possibly resist the temptation to indoctrinate children with whatever nonsense they decided they wanted to perpetuate in the society.

In short, there isn't anything good about it. It should be abolished immediately.

 

[Idolater]

While I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, I'm pretty certain that is not an old post of mine.

Just the link is yours, the rest was my initial answer to it.

Public education is a bad idea because it's premise is theft

Do you support publicly funded private schools? Or are you opposed to all public funding for education?

and because the government is incapable of performing 1/10th as well as the private sector as providing the public with an education

This is possibly, probably, arguably true. But it's true for sure that back before Horace Mann's movement to get free universal school (compare with free universal healthcare today) the 'supply' wasn't there for everybody, and there were also a lot of families who could never afford any private education anyway. Free universal schools provided some education for many people who would have otherwise never 'cracked a book'.

, not to mention the fact that the government couldn't possibly resist the temptation to indoctrinate children with whatever nonsense they decided they wanted to perpetuate in the society.

That's the issue I was raising too, the link between ethics and education is basically unbreakable but people don't conceive of it correctly and go and try to break it apart anyway. Basically there's no real ethical neutrality here. You have to 'weigh in' on ethics in whatever curriculum you're advocating, basically unavoidable.

In short, there isn't anything good about it. It should be abolished immediately.

OK. I'm not sure the ethical dispute regarding it is tractable.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Have any of these people changed their minds?

• Sherman
• Nathon Detroit
• Freak
• ddevonb
• Servo
• Adam
• Crow
• Yorzhik
• ApologeticJedi
• Turbo
• Aimiel
• drbrumley
• Delmar
• Sozo
• Poly
• Vera Carp
• Mr. 5020
• RightIdea
• philosophizer
• Frank Ernest
• AROTO
• CRASH
• Lighthouse
• Clete
• Christine
• Lucky
• Free-Agent Smith
• cruxenlightened
• JoyfulRook
• Imrahil
• Wamba
• Vaquero45
• Stripe
• docrob57
• asstpastor
• genuineoriginal
• dorothy.neville
• sentientsynth
• whitters
• truthteller86
• Army of One
• 7cworldwide
• dRock
• GuySmiley
• rehcjam
• DocHoliday
• Jadespring
• thelaqachisnext
• amosman
• Tazjhe
• RobE
• firefighter
• Just Tom
• MrRyanPeters
• dataanapar
• immivik
• Sacredadoption
• sgttomas
• Huff
• DavesWorldView
• PKevman
• macguy
• olsparky
• YahuShuan
• Mystery
• MaryContrary
• Sanmateo
• Manwithsmellyfeet
• Iconoclast
• serpentdove
• some other dude
• peace13
• MrDeets
• Merry meat
• AD&D
• resodko
• ok doser
• Abu Bakr
• Jefferson

Mr Deets did.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Always.

So what definition is it.

Because I don't agree that my daughter forfeits her God given right to not be raped, just because she's married. She reserves that right always.

Absolutely. Whenever a man forces himself on a woman, whether married to her or not, it's rape, plain and simple.

 

[Clete]

Just the link is yours, the rest was my initial answer to it.

That makes sense.

Do you support publicly funded private schools? Or are you opposed to all public funding for education?

Public funding for private schools is a contradiction. I do not support turning private schools into public schools.

This is possibly, probably, arguably true. But it's true for sure that back before Horace Mann's movement to get free universal school (compare with free universal healthcare today) the 'supply' wasn't there for everybody, and there were also a lot of families who could never afford any private education anyway. Free universal schools provided some education for many people who would have otherwise never 'cracked a book'.

Often when free societies are new, it takes a while for the market to catch up with demand. Mann's movement was an indication that the demand was present and it's successful implementation caused the market to be incapable of meeting that demand and doomed our nation with substandard educational services that could/can do nothing but get progressively more progressive (i.e. worse) as time goes on. A free market cannot compete with "free" services because it removes the motive that is it's fuel (i.e. profit).

The idea of "free universal education" sounds great but its a devil's deal because it is based on theft. There is no such thing as a "free" anything that is worth having. SOMEONE has to pay for it and this so called "free" education was paid for with money that was forcibly taken in the form of taxes from those who paid taxes and given to those who do not so as to get their vote on election day. And make no mistake, that is why it was implemented. If there was no political benefit to the politicians and their desire to hold power, it would never have happened.

There was a time when there were lots of people who couldn't afford bananas, toilets, tennis shoes, radios, televisions, cars, airplane tickets, linoleum floors, whole home water filters or iPhones and there are still millions who cannot afford caviar, Cadillacs or Lasik eye surgery and if the government was in the phone business, there would never been an iPhone, if it was in the car business, there would never have been a Cadillac, if was in the shoe business we'd all still be wearing THESE.

There is no telling the plethora of educational innovation that has been stifled by the fact that the government destroyed the educational market place with "universal free education".

That's the issue I was raising too, the link between ethics and education is basically unbreakable but people don't conceive of it correctly and go and try to break it apart anyway. Basically there's no real ethical neutrality here. You have to 'weigh in' on ethics in whatever curriculum you're advocating, basically unavoidable.

That's right because what you're teaching is a philosophy. It doesn't matter if it takes the form of mathematics or grammar or whatever. There is no knowledge that is independent from the worldview from which it is taught/learned.

OK. I'm not sure the ethical dispute regarding it is tractable.

I'm not sure what you mean. Public education is immoral from at least three different directions.

1. It is theft. It is a service provided by someone, without their consent or compensation, to someone else who did not earn it.
2. The education provided is substandard because there is no competition and therefore no innovation.
3. A free society cannot survive with the government having the ability to indoctrinate the children of its population.

The private sector absolutely would provide a better service at a lower cost to more people. As it is, the poorest among us are still practically uneducated and the vast majority are maleducated.

In short, the entire system is a complete and total failure and it ought to be abolished tomorrow morning at 8:00am Eastern Daylight Time!

Clete

 

[Derf]

Absolutely. Whenever a man forces himself on a woman, whether married to her or not, it's rape, plain and simple.

Was the marriage forced? If not, then the abstinence from sex has to be mutually agreed to, and limited in duration. Otherwise the woman is depriving the man of what belongs to him--her body. Of course, if the man is only seeking sexual gratification, he may be depriving the woman of what rightfully belongs to her--his love.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Was the marriage forced? If not, then the abstinence from sex has to be mutually agreed to, and limited in duration. Otherwise the woman is depriving the man of what belongs to him--her body. Of course, if the man is only seeking sexual gratification, he may be depriving the woman of what rightfully belongs to her--his love.

There's no excuse for anyone forcing themselves upon another against their will whether married or not, simple as that.

 

[Derf]

There's no excuse for anyone forcing themselves upon another against their will whether married or not, simple as that.

Based on whose standard?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Based on whose standard?

You shouldn't even need to ask. Are you married? Would you ever force your wife into sex against her will?

 

[Derf]

You shouldn't even need to ask. Are you married? Would you ever force your wife into sex against her will?

Depends. How long has she avoided me, and why. I will say having sex with a lump of motionless flesh wouldn't be very satisfying. But that goes back to the dual nature of sex... and marriage. She belongs to me, and I belong to her.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Depends. How long has she avoided me, and why. I will say having sex with a lump of motionless flesh wouldn't be very satisfying. But that goes back to the dual nature of sex... and marriage. She belongs to me, and I belong to her.

It shouldn't "depend" on anything. If you were to force yourself on a woman, be it your wife or not, then you would be raping her. It's absolutely as simple as that.

 

[Rusha]

It shouldn't "depend" on anything. If you were to force yourself on a woman, be it your wife or not, then you would be raping her. It's absolutely as simple as that.

Indeed … though I would add that all rapists are derserving of the death penalty, including married creeps who rape their wives.

 

[Derf]

Indeed … though I would add that all rapists are derserving of the death penalty, including married creeps who rape their wives.

I'm glad you're willing to apply the death penalty to rapists. What about to women who falsely accuse of rape?

 

[Idolater]

Was the marriage forced? If not, then the abstinence from sex has to be mutually agreed to, and limited in duration. Otherwise the woman is depriving the man of what belongs to him--her body.

Agreed 100% of course.

But there is no excuse for rape. This is not an excuse for rape. 'Frigidity' is no excuse for rape, this is cut-and-dried, 'black-and-white' (@User Name @Skeeter ).

Is your wife sinning against you yes. She is. STILL no excuse for rape. Rape is never an option, there's never any point in any of yours lives where rape becomes a viable option, that belies a moral cancer in you that you have to get out of you. Sinning is no excuse for rape. You don't, for example, forfeit your own absolute human right against being raped by sinning. There's no sin you can commit where the punishment is being raped. Where the just punishment is being raped, anyway.

And that should tell you all about your view of justice. And justice as a subject is covered under ethics. The pursuit of justice is part of our pursuit of ethics, and our pursuit of ethics is our pursuit of happiness, and our inalienable right, endowed to us by our Creator, is the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is ethics, which is in part our pursuit of justice, but also our pursuit of the good, which is another subject covered by ethics.

Being raped is always unjustified, it is always a 'mala in se' crime, 100%. Rape victims are victims of 100% unvarnished violent crime, and victims of violent crime 'get a pass' by us who believe in and pursue justice.

And victims of sin are victims just as much. But our country believes in rights, and that they are God given and absolute and universal. They are always absolute moral rights against 'mala in se' crimes against us, whether it 'leaves a mark' or not, such as felony case perjury. And inalienable means you can't divide it from us. This is what we believe, and it is absolute.

So being sinned against is tough, ngl. In no case however is 'mala in se' crime a valid or justified option. Your ethics needs to be pruned, here.

Of course, if the man is only seeking sexual gratification, he may be depriving the woman of what rightfully belongs to her--his love.

A man who rapes his wife is only seeking to rape his wife, and he is a 'mala in se' violent criminal.

I have a mother, a daughter, a sister, etc.

 

[Idolater]

Here's another easy one, it pertains to me because I'm Catholic, like the OP:

I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism

I do not feel sorry for Noncatholic Christians. To me that's pride, that does that. I'm not 'into' pride. It's one of the "capital sins", which is part of our moral catechesis as Catholics. Capital sins leads to other sins, they're like 'gateway' sins. They're not necessarily grave matter, which is interesting. Being proud in some petty way isn't a grave sin, which means it's a venial sin, which means it's automatically forgiven you. But pride does tend to lead you toward graver sins, as opposed to away from them, which is why the Church has found it wise to teach specifically against the capital (meaning 'of or pertaining to the head') sins, as practical ethics.

 

[Derf]

Agreed 100% of course.

But there is no excuse for rape. This is not an excuse for rape. 'Frigidity' is no excuse for rape, this is cut-and-dried, 'black-and-white' (@User Name @Skeeter ).

Is your wife sinning against you yes. She is. STILL no excuse for rape. Rape is never an option, there's never any point in any of yours lives where rape becomes a viable option, that belies a moral cancer in you that you have to get out of you. Sinning is no excuse for rape. You don't, for example, forfeit your own absolute human right against being raped by sinning. There's no sin you can commit where the punishment is being raped. Where the just punishment is being raped, anyway.

And that should tell you all about your view of justice. And justice as a subject is covered under ethics. The pursuit of justice is part of our pursuit of ethics, and our pursuit of ethics is our pursuit of happiness, and our inalienable right, endowed to us by our Creator, is the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is ethics, which is in part our pursuit of justice, but also our pursuit of the good, which is another subject covered by ethics.

Being raped is always unjustified, it is always a mala en se crime, 100%. Rape victims are victims of 100% unvarnished violent crime, and victims of violent crime get a pass by us who believe in and pursue justice.

And victims of sin are victims just as much. But our country believes in rights, and that they are God given and absolute and universal. They are always absolute moral rights against mala en se crimes against us, whether it 'leaves a mark' or not, such as felony case perjury. And inalienable means you can't divide it from us. This is what we believe, and it is absolute.

So being sinned against is tough, ngl. In no case however is mala en se crime a valid or justified option. Your ethics needs to be pruned, here.

A man who rapes his wife is only seeking to rape his wife, and he is a mala en se violent criminal.

I have a mother, a daughter, a sister, etc.

You assume that violence is the only way to force someone. Would it be possible to force someone to have sex with you through nonviolent means? Like withholding food?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You assume that violence is the only way to force someone. Would it be possible to force someone to have sex with you through nonviolent means? Like withholding food?

Sure, it would be possible. Odious, insidious and morally bankrupt but possible. Violence doesn't always have to be physical and there's no excuse for any of it. If you entertain even the notion of forcing yourself on a person for whatever reason then you're as immoral as all get out.

 

[Derf]

Sure, it would be possible. Odious, insidious and morally bankrupt but possible. Violence doesn't always have to be physical and there's no excuse for any of it. If you entertain even the notion of forcing yourself on a person for whatever reason then you're as immoral as all get out.

What if the woman does it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What if the woman does it?

What, force you to have sex with her?