| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2007 03:46:38 PM |
| Object: |
The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
I'm going to keep with this thread series, since it needs to be
remembered in our time of election. My criticism is not about a
single party but the Baby Boomers of both parties, so I expect
opposition from both sides...I don't care.
The social security funding problem has been known for decades, and
President after President, Senator after Senator, Representative after
Representative has done NOTHING to fix the problem. Now, the
generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids are going to be requiring their kids to take care of
them. The generation that drained the Social Security trust fund
(both parties) instead of funding it are about to retire and pour a
HUGE tax burden upon themselves to pay for their irresponsibility in
not fixing the system. The generation that proposed the death tax,
prescription medicine tax, and retirement savings taxes (on their
parents) are, now, going to remove these taxes and put taxes on the
young to bail them out. And, the generation that demanded minimum
wage increases with low income taxes on the poor will be (wait and
see) demanding an income tax on those receiving the newly raised
minimum wage in order to pay for their own retirement community
cottage.
So, all the parents that are laden with their own student loan debt
(thanks to their parents), their children's educational expenses,
their housing loans, their family expenses, and their high utility
bills (that have many hidden taxes in them) can look forward to
slaving at their jobs to pay for their parents retirement with no
money to save for their own. Ha. The liberals should be glad we
didn't listen to them about Euthenesia of the elderly as a means of
controlling government costs.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
29 Nov 2007 07:01:14 PM |
|
|
On Nov 29, 1:46 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, the
generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids
Please quote several "representative" Baby Boomers who said that
parents shouldn't take responsibility for their kids (or otherwise
provide evidence for this broad claim).
Ha. The liberals should be glad we
didn't listen to them about Euthenesia of the elderly as a means of
controlling government costs.
PLEASE quote several representative liberal Baby Boomers who suggested
Euthenesia [sic] of the elderly as a means of controlling government
costs (or otherwise provide evidence for this broad claim).
If you're going to accuse an entire generation of being
"irresponsible," then certainly YOU should act responsibly while doing
so. Here's one way: if you're going to make sweeping, negative
statements about an entire group, make sure there's actually evidence
to back them up. Otherwise you're just spreading ugly rumors to smear
a group of people you've decided to blame, without any reasons - a
form of bearing false witness against your neightbors.
I was always under the impression that God (as well as decent society)
disapproved of that, but you seem unconcerned, so maybe I should
rethink my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 03:02:51 AM |
|
|
On Nov 29, 5:01 pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:46 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, the
generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids
Please quote several "representative" Baby Boomers who said that
parents shouldn't take responsibility for their kids (or otherwise
provide evidence for this broad claim).
Ha. The liberals should be glad we
didn't listen to them about Euthenesia of the elderly as a means of
controlling government costs.
PLEASE quote several representative liberal Baby Boomers who suggested
Euthenesia [sic] of the elderly as a means of controlling government
costs (or otherwise provide evidence for this broad claim).
If you're going to accuse an entire generation of being
"irresponsible," then certainly YOU should act responsibly while doing
so. Here's one way: if you're going to make sweeping, negative
statements about an entire group, make sure there's actually evidence
to back them up. Otherwise you're just spreading ugly rumors to smear
a group of people you've decided to blame, without any reasons - a
form of bearing false witness against your neightbors.
I was always under the impression that God (as well as decent society)
disapproved of that, but you seem unconcerned, so maybe I should
rethink my opinion.
bump....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
29 Nov 2007 09:57:47 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, the generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids
Which generation was that?
If your parents taught YOU that, or their parents taught THEM that, it
might help explain YOU.
The generation that proposed the death tax,
You mean Caesar Augustus? He doesn't qualify as a generation, just as
an emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
<Augustus's public revenue reforms had a great impact on the subsequent
< success of the Empire. ... The measures of taxation in the reign of
< Augustus were determined by population census, with fixed quotas for
< each province.[184] Citizens of Rome and Italy paid indirect taxes,
< while direct taxes were exacted from the provinces.[184] Indirect
< taxes included a 4% tax on the price of slaves, a 1% tax on goods
< sold at auction, and a 5% tax on the inheritance of estates valued at
< over 100,000 sesterces by persons other than the next of kin.
If you mean in the US, you have to go back to the Founders generation:
http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance-tax-laws
<The federal government adopted an estate tax in 1916.Prior to that, it
< had imposed an inheritance tax on three occasions: 1797–1802,
< 1862–1870, and 1898–1902. These acts were all initially adopted as
< emergency revenue measures. In addition, the income tax statute of
< 1894 taxed, as income, money and personal property received by
< inheritance, but this law was held unconstitutional.
So, all the parents that are laden with their own student loan debt
(thanks to their parents),
Why is this "thanks to their parents"? Surely you don't think your
*parents* are obliged to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars you
wasted at Brainwash U. People who take out student loans are almost
all ADULTS. Their parents owe them nothing. The generation before
the Baby Boomers understood this, which is why almost no one went to
college until the GI Bill, wherein the GOVERNMENT started paying for
their education in return for their service to the country.
their children's educational expenses,
Public education is free.
their housing loans,
A parent who has to take out a housing loan s/he can't afford
shouldn't have had kids so quickly.
their family expenses,
A parent who can't afford family expenses shouldn't have had kids so
quickly.
and their high utility bills (that have many hidden taxes in them) can look forward to
slaving at their jobs to pay for their parents retirement with no
money to save for their own.
They should have aborted you, if you have so little appreciation for
your parents.
Meanwhile, it is YOUR kid that will be supporting YOU when you get
old. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
The liberals should be glad we
didn't listen to them about Euthenesia of the elderly as a means of
controlling government costs.
Please cite where "liberals" proposed this. I vaguely recall some
science fiction movies where euthanasia was broadly practiced (Logan's
Run, Soylent Green) but they weren't exactly the sort of systems that
most "liberals" would approve of.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
30 Nov 2007 08:35:52 AM |
|
|
On Nov 29, 9:57 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, the generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids
Which generation was that?
If your parents taught YOU that, or their parents taught THEM that, it
might help explain YOU.
The generation that proposed the death tax,
You mean Caesar Augustus? He doesn't qualify as a generation, just as
an emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
<Augustus's public revenue reforms had a great impact on the subsequent
< success of the Empire. ... The measures of taxation in the reign of
< Augustus were determined by population census, with fixed quotas for
< each province.[184] Citizens of Rome and Italy paid indirect taxes,
< while direct taxes were exacted from the provinces.[184] Indirect
< taxes included a 4% tax on the price of slaves, a 1% tax on goods
< sold at auction, and a 5% tax on the inheritance of estates valued at
< over 100,000 sesterces by persons other than the next of kin.
If you mean in the US, you have to go back to the Founders generation:http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance-tax-laws
<The federal government adopted an estate tax in 1916.Prior to that, it
< had imposed an inheritance tax on three occasions: 1797-1802,
< 1862-1870, and 1898-1902. These acts were all initially adopted as
< emergency revenue measures. In addition, the income tax statute of
< 1894 taxed, as income, money and personal property received by
< inheritance, but this law was held unconstitutional.
So, all the parents that are laden with their own student loan debt
(thanks to their parents),
Why is this "thanks to their parents"? Surely you don't think your
*parents* are obliged to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars you
wasted at Brainwash U. People who take out student loans are almost
all ADULTS. Their parents owe them nothing. The generation before
the Baby Boomers understood this, which is why almost no one went to
college until the GI Bill, wherein the GOVERNMENT started paying for
their education in return for their service to the country.
their children's educational expenses,
Public education is free.
So, is public universities not public? Also, have "public schools"
ever charged any money for their services...do they now? I await your
reply.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
30 Nov 2007 03:27:57 PM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 6:35 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:57 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, the generation that taught us that parents shouldn't take responsibility
for their kids
Which generation was that?
If your parents taught YOU that, or their parents taught THEM that, it
might help explain YOU.
The generation that proposed the death tax,
You mean Caesar Augustus? He doesn't qualify as a generation, just as
an emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
<Augustus's public revenue reforms had a great impact on the subsequent
< success of the Empire. ... The measures of taxation in the reign of
< Augustus were determined by population census, with fixed quotas for
< each province.[184] Citizens of Rome and Italy paid indirect taxes,
< while direct taxes were exacted from the provinces.[184] Indirect
< taxes included a 4% tax on the price of slaves, a 1% tax on goods
< sold at auction, and a 5% tax on the inheritance of estates valued at
< over 100,000 sesterces by persons other than the next of kin.
If you mean in the US, you have to go back to the Founders generation:http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance-tax-laws
<The federal government adopted an estate tax in 1916.Prior to that, it
< had imposed an inheritance tax on three occasions: 1797-1802,
< 1862-1870, and 1898-1902. These acts were all initially adopted as
< emergency revenue measures. In addition, the income tax statute of
< 1894 taxed, as income, money and personal property received by
< inheritance, but this law was held unconstitutional.
So, all the parents that are laden with their own student loan debt
(thanks to their parents),
Why is this "thanks to their parents"? Surely you don't think your
*parents* are obliged to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars you
wasted at Brainwash U. People who take out student loans are almost
all ADULTS. Their parents owe them nothing. The generation before
the Baby Boomers understood this, which is why almost no one went to
college until the GI Bill, wherein the GOVERNMENT started paying for
their education in return for their service to the country.
their children's educational expenses,
Public education is free.
So, is public universities not public? Also, have "public schools"
ever charged any money for their services...do they now? I await your
reply.
And I await your reply to my polite request for quotes, or any other
substantive evidence, that the "irresponsible generation" and
"liberals" you blame actually hold the opinions you attribute to them.
But experience suggests I shouldn't hold my breath. You'd much rather
quibble over school funding than substantiate your smears against a
whole generation.
is public universities not public?
"Is our children learning?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
30 Nov 2007 08:18:33 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why is this "thanks to their parents"? Surely you don't think your
*parents* are obliged to pay for the tens of thousands of dollars you
wasted at Brainwash U. People who take out student loans are almost
all ADULTS. Their parents owe them nothing. The generation before
the Baby Boomers understood this, which is why almost no one went to
college until the GI Bill, wherein the GOVERNMENT started paying for
their education in return for their service to the country.
their children's educational expenses,
Public education is free.
So, is public universities not public?
Yes. So are the swimming classes at the local recreation center,
which are not free.
Neither is part of "public education" as the term is used in American
political discussion. "Public education" in American political
discourse refers to the systems of public k/12 schools in various
jurisdictions, and including certain preschool and welfare services
that are provided through those systems even when they aren't directly
about "education".
Also, have "public schools" ever charged any money for their services
Yes.
...do they now?
In England "public schools" apparently does not refer to government
run schools.
In the US, the law requires "free and appropriate public education".
There are some optional services that are provided in some schools
that have associated fees, and kids sometimes have to pay to go on
field trips. But all of these things are arguably luxuries, since
they are optional. No parent is legally required to pay to have their
child attend public school.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 06:13:34 AM |
|
|
Public education is free.
So, is public universities not public?
Yes. So are the swimming classes at the local recreation center,
which are not free.
Neither is part of "public education" as the term is used in American
political discussion. "Public education" in American political
discourse refers to the systems of public k/12 schools in various
jurisdictions, and including certain preschool and welfare services
that are provided through those systems even when they aren't directly
about "education".
Also, have "public schools" ever charged any money for their services
Yes.
...do they now?
In England "public schools" apparently does not refer to government
run schools.
In the US, the law requires "free and appropriate public education".
There are some optional services that are provided in some schools
that have associated fees, and kids sometimes have to pay to go on
field trips. But all of these things are arguably luxuries, since
they are optional. No parent is legally required to pay to have their
child attend public school.
lojbab
You MUST be right. Bob. Public education is free, public
universities are not public education, and I was scammed into paying
about 200 dollars in required fees for my daughter to go to a public
school this fall.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 09:01:29 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
You MUST be right.
Of course I am.
Public education is free,
Yes.
public universities are not public education,
Correct, for purposes of political discussion in the US.
and I was scammed into paying
about 200 dollars in required fees for my daughter to go to a public
school this fall.
I suspect that none of those fees were "required", and in particular
that a kid whose parents could not pay those fees would still be
attending the public school. But feel free to cite them and we can
judge for ourselves.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 09:23:08 AM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 9:01 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You MUST be right.
Of course I am.
Public education is free,
Yes.
public universities are not public education,
Correct, for purposes of political discussion in the US.
Then, there should be no problem having seminaries and religious
teaching at public universities.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 11:49:08 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:01 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You MUST be right.
Of course I am.
Public education is free,
Yes.
public universities are not public education,
Correct, for purposes of political discussion in the US.
Then, there should be no problem having seminaries and religious
teaching at public universities.
There is a problem, but it is still not "public education".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 02:47:24 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 11:49 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:01 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You MUST be right.
Of course I am.
Public education is free,
Yes.
public universities are not public education,
Correct, for purposes of political discussion in the US.
Then, there should be no problem having seminaries and religious
teaching at public universities.
There is a problem, but it is still not "public education".
lojbab
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
01 Dec 2007 08:58:46 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
02 Dec 2007 08:02:13 AM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
lojbab
As you wish, Bob. An institution of education that is publicly funded
MUST not be a public education, since you say it is not.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
02 Dec 2007 12:47:40 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
As you wish, Bob. An institution of education that is publicly funded
MUST not be a public education, since you say it is not.
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
03 Dec 2007 10:10:45 AM |
|
|
On Dec 2, 12:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
As you wish, Bob. An institution of education that is publicly funded
MUST not be a public education, since you say it is not.
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
lojbab
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
03 Dec 2007 12:32:25 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
As you wish, Bob. An institution of education that is publicly funded
MUST not be a public education, since you say it is not.
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
06 Dec 2007 07:07:10 PM |
|
|
On Dec 3, 12:32 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How is it a problem? Specifically. If a public university is not
public education, where...specifically...is the problem?
It is still part of government and government funded, and thus would
still constitute an establishment of religion. One can violate the
Establishment clause in other government initiatives besides "public
education".
As you wish, Bob. An institution of education that is publicly funded
MUST not be a public education, since you say it is not.
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
lojbab
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal, a "liberal
education" isn't an education that is liberal. "Tolerance,"
"Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view. Unions for the "common man" and "blue collar worker" hurts the
common man and blue collar worker's jobs and wages for their own
members. Etc.
Maybe we should buy a bunch of dictionaries and send them to liberal
leaders.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
06 Dec 2007 09:20:23 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
Totally different meaning of liberal than the ones having to do with
politics. It pertains to the liberal arts:
<1 : the medieval studies comprising the trivium and quadrivium
<2 : the studies (as language, philosophy, history, literature,
< abstract science) in a college or university intended to provide
< chiefly general knowledge and to develop the general intellectual
< capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or
< vocational skills
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
There is also economic liberalism, which these days is more commonly
associated with the Republican party:
<b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint
< and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market,
< and the gold standard
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative". "Progressive" is the more appropriate word for that
opposite.
<b: one believing in moderate political change and especially social
< improvement by governmental action
vs
< a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a
< political philosophy based on tradition and social stability,
< stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual
< development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy
< calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business
< and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial
< responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or
< health-care coverage)
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal". INtolerance has a lot to do with
fundamentalist Christianity, which is not especially conservative, but
reactionary. It appeared in the late 19th century.
(Remember that in religion, the most conservative churches are Roman
Catholic and Greek Orthodox, with Protestantism being a "liberal
reform" of Catholicism.)
Unions for the "common man" and "blue collar worker" hurts the
common man and blue collar worker's jobs and wages for their own
members. Etc.
That sentence??? makes no sense.
Maybe we should buy a bunch of dictionaries and send them to liberal
leaders.
Maybe you should learn to understand a dictionary, as well as what a
dictionary is for.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
07 Dec 2007 08:39:01 AM |
|
|
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
American political discourse does not include higher education of any
sort within the concept of "public education". The American law that
requires for all special ed students a "free and appropriate public
education" is not talking about any sort of higher education.
Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not what idiots you
do with them when you play semantic games.
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
You are proving my point for me. Liberals don't mean what they say.
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative".
So, liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives and can be,
in fact, conservatives. Great. I'm a conservative liberal.
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Unions for the "common man" and "blue collar worker" hurts the
common man and blue collar worker's jobs and wages for their own
members. Etc.
That sentence??? makes no sense.
Let me dumb it down for you with a question. When unions seek a
higher wage or the hiring of more union members, do non-union, blue
collar workers benefit?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
07 Dec 2007 01:47:30 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
You are proving my point for me. Liberals don't mean what they say.
Of course they do.
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
Nonsense, since fundamentalism IS bound by all three things, and
conservativism is bound by at least one of them.
But of course, since you are so narrow-minded, you couldn't possibly
understand what it would mean to be broad-minded.
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative".
So, liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives and can be,
in fact, conservatives. Great. I'm a conservative liberal.
No you aren't, using any sense of the word liberal. Some libertarians
are "conservative liberals"
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
Unions for the "common man" and "blue collar worker" hurts the
common man and blue collar worker's jobs and wages for their own
members. Etc.
That sentence??? makes no sense.
Let me dumb it down for you with a question. When unions seek a
higher wage or the hiring of more union members, do non-union, blue
collar workers benefit?
Sometimes, sometimes not. And when they don't, they usually have the
option to join the union and thereby get the benefit. (There are a
few exceptions, I believe, like the Screen Actors Guild, where
membership is restricted in some way, but those exceptions are
probably not blue-collar workers.
Not that unions necessarily are related to liberalism, BTW.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
08 Dec 2007 07:28:04 AM |
|
|
On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
You are proving my point for me. Liberals don't mean what they say.
Of course they do.
You JUST told me that they don't mean what the dictionary says for
those words.
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
Nonsense, since fundamentalism IS bound by all three things, and
conservativism is bound by at least one of them.
But of course, since you are so narrow-minded, you couldn't possibly
understand what it would mean to be broad-minded.
What does fundamentalism or conservativism's boundaries have to do
with liberalism, since of the three only liberals claim to be tolerant
and diverse in viewpoint?
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative".
So, liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives and can be,
in fact, conservatives. Great. I'm a conservative liberal.
No you aren't, using any sense of the word liberal. Some libertarians
are "conservative liberals"
Who are you to say what I am? After all, you call yourself a
Christian while denying the foundational and traditional Christian
views, based solely upon your subjective definition of "Christian." I
could do the same with "liberal."
Fruther, you just said I don't have to to disagree with conservatives
to be a liberal. Care to change your mind?
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
You just said that conservatives are not included in liberalism, which
is intolerant of their viewpoint.
Unions for the "common man" and "blue collar worker" hurts the
common man and blue collar worker's jobs and wages for their own
members. Etc.
That sentence??? makes no sense.
Let me dumb it down for you with a question. When unions seek a
higher wage or the hiring of more union members, do non-union, blue
collar workers benefit?
Sometimes, sometimes not. And when they don't, they usually have the
option to join the union and thereby get the benefit. (There are a
few exceptions, I believe, like the Screen Actors Guild, where
membership is restricted in some way, but those exceptions are
probably not blue-collar workers.
Not that unions necessarily are related to liberalism, BTW.
lojbab
You have a major problem understanding budgets, like many on your
side. If you have a limited amount of money and union members get a
higher wage, can they afford to pay non-union member more, also...or
will the others face wage cuts? If they can only afford to pay for so
much human resource and union members get more jobs, who loses jobs to
make it happen? I realize it's hard for you but try to think it
through.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
08 Dec 2007 09:00:34 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
You are proving my point for me. Liberals don't mean what they say.
Of course they do.
You JUST told me that they don't mean what the dictionary says for
those words.
No. I told you that you haven't a clue how to understand the
dictionary.
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
Nonsense, since fundamentalism IS bound by all three things, and
conservativism is bound by at least one of them.
But of course, since you are so narrow-minded, you couldn't possibly
understand what it would mean to be broad-minded.
What does fundamentalism or conservativism's boundaries have to do
with liberalism, since of the three only liberals claim to be tolerant
and diverse in viewpoint?
Your statement just admitted that fundamentalists and conservatives
have boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of
"liberalism" which is NOT bound.
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative".
So, liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives and can be,
in fact, conservatives. Great. I'm a conservative liberal.
No you aren't, using any sense of the word liberal. Some libertarians
are "conservative liberals"
Who are you to say what I am?
Robert LeChevalier. Intelligent human being, who knows the meaning of
words.
Who are YOU to say
<Liberals don't mean what they say.
Oh wait - if you are a "conservative liberal" then that means that you
include yourself in that statement, so you don't mean what you say.
Given that, we can dismiss everything you have ever posted as the
nonsense that it has obviously been. You didn't mean what you said, O
"conservative liberal".
After all, you call yourself a Christian
Yes.
while denying the foundational and traditional Christian views,
No. I fully subscribe to the Apostle's Creed. I just deny radical
fundamentalist views.
based solely upon your subjective definition of "Christian."
The definition of Christian, like any word in the language, is indeed
"subjective".
I could do the same with "liberal."
Except that you are so stupid that you contradict yourself
immediately, O "conservative liberal" who does not mean what you say.
Fruther, you just said I don't have to to disagree with conservatives
to be a liberal.
I said nothing of the kind. Furthermore, I have not used the word
"disagree" anywhere in this thread.
Care to change your mind?
That you are an idiot who does not understand English. Not likely.
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
You just said that conservatives are not included in liberalism,
No. I implied, but did not explicitly say, that conservatism excludes
one definition of liberalism, by being bound. But I also said that
some libertarians were "conservative liberals", referring to a
different definition of "liberal".
which is intolerant of their viewpoint.
On the contrary. Liberalism is very tolerant of their viewpoint. I
haven't seen anyone calling for concentration camps and gas chambers
for conservatives who express such a viewpoint.
Toleration does not mean agreement.
Sometimes, sometimes not. And when they don't, they usually have the
option to join the union and thereby get the benefit. (There are a
few exceptions, I believe, like the Screen Actors Guild, where
membership is restricted in some way, but those exceptions are
probably not blue-collar workers.
Not that unions necessarily are related to liberalism, BTW.
You have a major problem understanding budgets,
Nope.
If you have a limited amount of money and union members get a higher wage,
then you better find a way to get more money, or to cut costs in some
other way.
can they afford to pay non-union member more,
Depends.
also...or will the others face wage cuts?
Not likely.
If they can only afford to pay for so
much human resource and union members get more jobs,
Who says that they get more jobs? They push for more jobs, as is
their right. But if the money isn't there, the jobs won't be there
either.
who loses jobs to make it happen?
You make the fundamental mistake that income is necessarily fixed.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
09 Dec 2007 06:44:55 AM |
|
|
On Dec 8, 9:00 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Believing words to mean what they actually say (public=public,
education=education) has never been your strong suit, either here or
in theology.
Words mean what people use them to mean. In political discussion, the
phrase "public education" does not mean the same thing as the
individual words "public" and "education". The phrase "public square"
likewise does not mean the same thing as the individual words "public"
and "square".
Just like "liberals" doesn't mean they are liberal,
When coming from you, that is for sure!
a "liberal education" isn't an education that is liberal.
liberalism, by contrast:
<a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
< goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and
< standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Then there is philosophical liberalism
<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
< or traditional forms
You are proving my point for me. Liberals don't mean what they say.
Of course they do.
You JUST told me that they don't mean what the dictionary says for
those words.
No. I told you that you haven't a clue how to understand the
dictionary.
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
Nonsense, since fundamentalism IS bound by all three things, and
conservativism is bound by at least one of them.
But of course, since you are so narrow-minded, you couldn't possibly
understand what it would mean to be broad-minded.
What does fundamentalism or conservativism's boundaries have to do
with liberalism, since of the three only liberals claim to be tolerant
and diverse in viewpoint?
Your statement just admitted that fundamentalists and conservatives
have boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of
"liberalism" which is NOT bound.
Except...apparently...being bound from those with boundaries..correct
(since you JUST gave this boundary for liberalism)?
"Tolerance," "Diversity," and "Liberalism" doesn't include conservative points of
view.
Wrong. "Liberal" isn't even necessarily the opposite of
"conservative".
So, liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives and can be,
in fact, conservatives. Great. I'm a conservative liberal.
No you aren't, using any sense of the word liberal. Some libertarians
are "conservative liberals"
Who are you to say what I am?
Robert LeChevalier. Intelligent human being, who knows the meaning of
words.
Who are YOU to say
<Liberals don't mean what they say.
Kenneth Clifton. Intelligent human being, who believes the dictionary
is true.
After all, you call yourself a Christian
Yes.
while denying the foundational and traditional Christian views,
No. I fully subscribe to the Apostle's Creed. I just deny radical
fundamentalist views.
based solely upon your subjective definition of "Christian."
The definition of Christian, like any word in the language, is indeed
"subjective".
I could do the same with "liberal."
Except that you are so stupid that you contradict yourself
immediately, O "conservative liberal" who does not mean what you say.
You just immediately contradicted yourself, so I need do nothing but
tell others to read the last two statements right above.
Fruther, you just said I don't have to to disagree with conservatives
to be a liberal.
I said nothing of the kind. Furthermore, I have not used the word
"disagree" anywhere in this thread.
Your words..."liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives
and can be in fact, conservatives." This differs from "I don't have
to disagree with conservatives to be a liberal" HOW, exactly?
Care to change your mind?
That you are an idiot who does not understand English. Not likely.
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
You just said that conservatives are not included in liberalism,
No. I implied, but did not explicitly say, that conservatism excludes
one definition of liberalism, by being bound. But I also said that
some libertarians were "conservative liberals", referring to a
different definition of "liberal".
Directly above in this thread, you said..."conservatives have
boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of "liberalism"
which is NOT bound."
Wanna try again?
which is intolerant of their viewpoint.
On the contrary. Liberalism is very tolerant of their viewpoint. I
haven't seen anyone calling for concentration camps and gas chambers
for conservatives who express such a viewpoint.
Toleration does not mean agreement.
Can this be applied to conservatives and fundamentalists?
Conservatives' boundaries and disagreement from liberals doesn't mean
they are intolerant, then, correct?
I mean, are fundamentalists or conservaties calling for concentration
camps and gas chambers for those that disagree with them. So, then,
according to your own limits on toleration, conservatives and
fundamentalists are NOT intolerant....right?
Sometimes, sometimes not. And when they don't, they usually have the
option to join the union and thereby get the benefit. (There are a
few exceptions, I believe, like the Screen Actors Guild, where
membership is restricted in some way, but those exceptions are
probably not blue-collar workers.
Not that unions necessarily are related to liberalism, BTW.
You have a major problem understanding budgets,
Nope.
If you have a limited amount of money and union members get a higher wage,
then you better find a way to get more money, or to cut costs in some
other way.
can they afford to pay non-union member more,
Depends.
also...or will the others face wage cuts?
Not likely.
Where will the money come from...then...for higher wages?
If they can only afford to pay for so
much human resource and union members get more jobs,
Who says that they get more jobs? They push for more jobs, as is
their right. But if the money isn't there, the jobs won't be there
either.
You are actually going topost on an education related group that
teacher's unions don't have closed shop schools that only hire union
workers...you are going to claim other unions do not have a similar
agreement?
who loses jobs to make it happen?
You make the fundamental mistake that income is necessarily fixed.
lojbab
WHERE will the income come from for higher pay?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
09 Dec 2007 08:01:09 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
If liberalism were broad-minded and not bound, it would include
fundamentalism and conservatism.
Nonsense, since fundamentalism IS bound by all three things, and
conservativism is bound by at least one of them.
But of course, since you are so narrow-minded, you couldn't possibly
understand what it would mean to be broad-minded.
What does fundamentalism or conservativism's boundaries have to do
with liberalism, since of the three only liberals claim to be tolerant
and diverse in viewpoint?
Your statement just admitted that fundamentalists and conservatives
have boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of
"liberalism" which is NOT bound.
Except...apparently...being bound from those with boundaries..correct
(since you JUST gave this boundary for liberalism)?
You are playing silly word games.
1. We are referring of course to only one of SEVERAL definitions of
liberalism.
2. You are focusing on one word in the definition and ignoring the
rest.
Here is that definition:
<Then there is philosophical liberalism
<<broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy,
<< or traditional forms
That definition does not claim that philosophical liberalism has no
bounds. It says that three particular kinds of bounds are not
important, whereas conservativism considers them important, and
fundamentalism considers them inviolate (except when convenient).
Those who call themselves "liberals" usually aren't referring to
philosophical liberalism anyway. In any event, they presumably know
which of the ***several*** meanings of the word ***they*** are
applying to themselves.
Kenneth Clifton. Intelligent human being, who believes the dictionary
is true.
But of course the dictionary tells you otherwise. Most dictionaries,
if you read the front matter, tell you that dictionaries are
descriptive. The merely describe how people are reported to use
words.
There is no "true" meaning of words. There is only how people use
them.
After all, you call yourself a Christian
Yes.
while denying the foundational and traditional Christian views,
No. I fully subscribe to the Apostle's Creed. I just deny radical
fundamentalist views.
based solely upon your subjective definition of "Christian."
The definition of Christian, like any word in the language, is indeed
"subjective".
I could do the same with "liberal."
Except that you are so stupid that you contradict yourself
immediately, O "conservative liberal" who does not mean what you say.
You just immediately contradicted yourself, so I need do nothing but
tell others to read the last two statements right above.
You can say whatever you like. almost everyone who reads these posts
know that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and are
endlessly willing to act like a fool.
Fruther, you just said I don't have to to disagree with conservatives
to be a liberal.
I said nothing of the kind. Furthermore, I have not used the word
"disagree" anywhere in this thread.
Your words..."liberals aren't automatically opposed to conseratives
and can be in fact, conservatives." This differs from "I don't have
to disagree with conservatives to be a liberal" HOW, exactly?
Given your track record at being wrong, you should start with the
assumption that different phrasings mean different things.
I am not going to explain further, because any explanation just gives
you more words to misunderstand.
Care to change your mind?
That you are an idiot who does not understand English. Not likely.
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
You just said that conservatives are not included in liberalism,
No. I implied, but did not explicitly say, that conservatism excludes
one definition of liberalism, by being bound. But I also said that
some libertarians were "conservative liberals", referring to a
different definition of "liberal".
Directly above in this thread, you said..."conservatives have
boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of "liberalism"
which is NOT bound."
The definition specifically said what kinds of boundaries are referred
to. Reread the definition. Taking words out of context is the mark of
an incompetent reader.
which is intolerant of their viewpoint.
On the contrary. Liberalism is very tolerant of their viewpoint. I
haven't seen anyone calling for concentration camps and gas chambers
for conservatives who express such a viewpoint.
Toleration does not mean agreement.
Can this be applied to conservatives and fundamentalists?
Conservatives' boundaries and disagreement from liberals doesn't mean
they are intolerant, then, correct?
They might or might not be intolerant, according to the definition.
In practice, fundies are extremely INtolerant.
also...or will the others face wage cuts?
Not likely.
Where will the money come from...then...for higher wages?
More income, one would hope.
If they can only afford to pay for so
much human resource and union members get more jobs,
Who says that they get more jobs? They push for more jobs, as is
their right. But if the money isn't there, the jobs won't be there
either.
You are actually going topost on an education related group that
teacher's unions don't have closed shop schools that only hire union
workers.
Schools hire only qualified workers. Union membership is not relevant
to the hiring process.
Applicants do not have to be a member of the union before they are
hired. After they are hired, in some states they are required to join
the union as a condition of employment. Then they are union members,
and no non-union-member can therefore lose their job, since there is
no such thing as a non-union-member at the school.
And in many states, there are no closed shop schools.
...you are going to claim other unions do not have a similar agreement?
Some do and some don't. In a closed shop, there is no issue with
non-union members losing their job, because they join the union as
part of their employment papers.
who loses jobs to make it happen?
You make the fundamental mistake that income is necessarily fixed.
WHERE will the income come from for higher pay?
That depends on the industry. In the case of schools, it comes from
higher taxes, or from transfers from other areas of the budget.
If there is something preventing higher taxes, then likely there will
not be higher pay. In which case the schools will likely lose the
better teachers to other districts that WILL pay the higher salaries.
This is an extremely big issue around here, where all the schools are
chronically short of teachers, and have to keep bidding up salaries to
steal them from other jurisdictions. And they don't even have a union
to blame here since it is a right-to-work state. Salaries are no
higher across the river in DC and Maryland, where all the teachers are
union members.
<Starting Teacher Salaries
<Division FY07 Rank
<Fairfax County $42,400 1
<Montgomery County $42,176 2 MD
<Alexandria City $42,040 3
<Arlington City $42,040 4
<Prince George's County $41,410 5 MD
<Manassas Park City $41,175 6
<Loudoun County $40,986 7
<Manassas City $40,838 8
<Prince William County $40,788 9
<Falls Church City $39,211 10
Clearly union membership doesn't necessarily mean higher costs. Other
factors often make a difference, as they do here.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
09 Dec 2007 11:45:26 AM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 8:01 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
"Tolerance" and "diversity" have nothing to do with either
"conservative" or "liberal".
What a very intolerant thing to say.
Yet another word that you don't know the meaning of.
You just said that conservatives are not included in liberalism,
No. I implied, but did not explicitly say, that conservatism excludes
one definition of liberalism, by being bound. But I also said that
some libertarians were "conservative liberals", referring to a
different definition of "liberal".
Directly above in this thread, you said..."conservatives have
boundaries, which excludes them from the definition of "liberalism"
which is NOT bound."
The definition specifically said what kinds of boundaries are referred
to. Reread the definition. Taking words out of context is the mark of
an incompetent reader.
Which is it? Are liberals bound to not include conservatives, or are
they not bound and can include them?
which is intolerant of their viewpoint.
On the contrary. Liberalism is very tolerant of their viewpoint. I
haven't seen anyone calling for concentration camps and gas chambers
for conservatives who express such a viewpoint.
Toleration does not mean agreement.
Can this be applied to conservatives and fundamentalists?
Conservatives' boundaries and disagreement from liberals doesn't mean
they are intolerant, then, correct?
They might or might not be intolerant, according to the definition.
In practice, fundies are extremely INtolerant.
You just said that liberals disagreement doesn't make them intolerant,
since they weren't doing those things. Since conservatives and
fundamentalists are ALSO not in agreement and not doing those things,
what SPECIFICALLY makes the fundamentalist and conservatives
intolerant (make sure to pick a reason that cannot apply equally to
liberals' rejection of them)?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Irresponsible Generation, Part II |
09 Dec 2007 07:00:18 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which is it? Are liberals bound to not include conservatives, or are
they not bound and can include them?
Kennie is an idiot who has already forgotten the definition to which
these words and phrases related, and haphazardly using these words and
phrases out of context.
You just said that liberals disagreement doesn't make them intolerant,
since they weren't doing those things.
I probably did not say any such thing, since you haven't gotten
anything I said right in this discussion, but I won't bother looking
any more.
Nor will I make any wild guesses about what you mean by "them" or
"those things".
Since conservatives and fundamentalists are ALSO not in agreement and not doing those things,
See the preceding comment
what SPECIFICALLY makes the fundamentalist and conservatives
intolerant (make sure to pick a reason that cannot apply equally to
liberals' rejection of them)?
Nothing ***specifically*** makes conservatives intolerant. I know
some tolerant conservatives.
In the first paragraph of the following, two definitions of
"tolerance" are given. Liberalism generally uses the second one. You
keep on trying to pretend that they are using the first one. You are
wrong.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/quot_intol.htm
<The phrase "religious tolerance" has two distinct meanings:
<Conservative Protestants often interpret the phrase as meaning that,
< to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true.
< This is a religious concept called "pluralism." One implication is
< that, because diverse beliefs are all true, that absolute truth does
< not exist. This they generally find unacceptable.
<Among other individuals and groups, "religious tolerance" generally
< means to avoid oppressing or discriminating against persons whose
< religious beliefs happen to be different from yours. It is a
< statement of fundamental human rights.
<We use the second definition. However, we are continually criticized
< because some of our visitors assume that we use the first meaning.
<An excellent definition of "religious tolerance" is published on
< "Apologetics Index," an Evangelical Christian counter-cult web site.
< Webmaster Anton Hein defines it as:
<
<"Acknowledging and supporting that individuals have the right and
< freedom to their own beliefs and related legitimate practices,
< without necessarily validating those beliefs or practices." 1
<
<Note that a person can be religiously tolerant while still rejecting
< the accuracy of other religions' beliefs and practices. We use this
< definition throughout this web site.
<
<However, some conservative Christians define "religious tolerance"
< entirely differently. Josh McDowell, for example, asserts that a
< person first has to accept all other religious beliefs as equally
< valid as their own in order to be tolerant. He regards religious
< toleration as a major threat which is sabotaging the foundations of
< conservative Christianity. 2
....
<Anon: From an Email sent by a conservative Christian visitor to this website:
<"There is no such thing as 'religious tolerance' as far as God and
< Heaven is concerned. We are either 'in' Christ or not."
<Anon: Bumper sticker by Harbor House Gifts of Fullerton CA.
<"Truth, not tolerance." The bumper sticker also shows a clenched fist
< on the left side and a Christian cross on the right.
<Josh McDowell, at a Youth for Christ rally in 1994:
<"Tolerance is the worst roar of all, including tolerance for
< homosexuals, feminists, and religions that don't follow Christ."
<Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue. Reported by the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, 1993-AUG-16:
<"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
< you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
< goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
< God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
< pluralism." 9
<Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, 1986-AUG-18:
<"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great
< builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because
< Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by
< love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into
< (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into
< destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether
< it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have....
< The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to
< be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation." 8
<Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, referring to the Roman Catholic Church:
<"Romanism is a pagan counterfeit of the Christian religion, ancient
< paganism and idolatry, claiming to be the church which Christ
< founded...The Roman Church is not another Christian denomination. It
< is a satanic counterfeit, an ecclesiastic tyranny over the souls of
< men, not to bring them to salvation but to hold them bound in sin and
< to hurl them into eternal damnation. It is the old harlot of the book
< of the Revelation--'the Mother of Harlots.'...Threats and fear have
< been her weapons. Her wealth has dazzled, her ceremonies blinded the
< eyes of her devotees to the blackness of her purpose and the
< rottenness of her heart." 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
<In the 40s, a split occurred among these separatist fundamentalists,
< specifically over the issue of separatism. While the persistent
< separatists continued to identify themselves as "fundamentalists",
< the other sector came to regard the term as undesirable, having
< connotations of divisiveness, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, lack
^^^^^^^^^^^
< of concern for social problems, and possibly even ignorance or
< foolishness. This second group wished to regain fellowship with the
< orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast majority of the
< clergy and laity in the large Northeastern denominations –
< Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian. They began
< calling themselves "evangelicals" rather than "fundamentalists". The
< champions of this movement were Carl F. H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer,
< and later Billy Graham. While the two groups still had much in common
< organizationally, methodologically, and theologically, the
< fundamentalists believed they were more zealous than evangelicals in
< their opposition to apostasy,
....
<Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with
^^^^^^^^^^
< pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as
< fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a
< religion
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=39850
<Fundamentalism is the opposite of tolerant because it forbids
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< different views. It demands simple blind obedience to a creed, a
< dogma or any rigid set of beliefs. It rejects any compromise,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< difference of opinion, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom
< of religion or alternate ideology. Fundamentalism demands a closed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< mind. It is based on self righteous arrogance which dismisses any
^^^^
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
