PDA

View Full Version : CA: Homeschoolers' setback sends shock waves through state



Gan
03-07-2008, 01:55 PM
03-07) 04:00 PST LOS ANGELES --

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
_________________________________________

So in order to home school kids in California you have to be certified to teach each particular grade the child happens to be 'in' or being taught each year. Otherwise you're breaking the law by not having the proper certificaiton.

Ouch. Thats going to hurt the home schooling movement in CA.

I'm not that up on home schooling requisites here in TX so I couldnt tell you how that compares. Furthermore I'm not a huge fan of home schooling but for different reasons than certifications.

I wonder how many folks here on the PC were home schooled? Oooh, poll time!

Daniel
03-07-2008, 02:02 PM
Public School for the win.

Or not so much...

Suppa Hobbit Mage
03-07-2008, 02:10 PM
LMAO at California and their over-legislation of everything that exists. I can't wait until it falls into the ocean.

Trouble
03-07-2008, 02:11 PM
I think homeschooling is a bad idea. People need to learn the social interactions that occur at a school, IMO.

As far as that article goes, I'm sure they'll make a work-around. Like a credentialing boot camp or something.

Gan
03-07-2008, 02:22 PM
I think homeschooling is a bad idea. People need to learn the social interactions that occur at a school, IMO.
Agreed.


As far as that article goes, I'm sure they'll make a work-around. Like a credentialing boot camp or something.

For a small fee of course. ;)

Kitsun
03-07-2008, 02:30 PM
Public education has so many issues. I can't believe they're trying to take the responsibility away from parents who actually care enough to teach their own children.

CrystalTears
03-07-2008, 02:52 PM
Public education has so many issues. I can't believe they're trying to take the responsibility away from parents who actually care enough to teach their own children.
I agree that public education has its flaws, but it does have its uses.

I'm not a fan of homeschooling if it's just a parent teaching their child because they don't like public schools. I'm not in complete disagreement with how they are managing things in CA simply because I'd feel better if parents were at least getting certified at some level and/or following a school curriculum at home.

The problem I also have with home schooling is the necessary peer interaction that it lacks. Unless you have a few children getting homeschooled together and having time to interact, it's going to shelter that child. I'm sure you could make up for that by enrolling them in after school sport programs, but I still feel it's not enough.

My aunt homeschooled her son for the first 8-9 years of his schooling. She's very intelligent and he's a very bright child and once he was tested, he was proven to be gifted. However he couldn't interact with children to save his life. He was picked on for having an attitude of superiority, he didn't know how to interact with them, he felt left out... it took years for him to settle in.

TheEschaton
03-07-2008, 03:15 PM
The problem I have with homeschooling is when it's merely to instill parents' beliefs and views without any critical thought (which I realize is not so much an issue in elementary school, but more high school).

-theE-

Beguiler
03-07-2008, 04:05 PM
When I was a child we lived overseas, and I was homeschooled for four years at elementary school level. My mother taught us, but she worked with a US-based company that provided preset curriculuum at the appropriate grade level.

We had a room set up strictly as a classroom, and had set 'school' hours, but lots of outside 'field trip' experiences.

All in all, it wasn't a bad experience. When we returned home, I was WAY ahead in reading, spelling, vocabulary, geography, history.. and somewhat behind on math and sciences.

Bobmuhthol
03-07-2008, 04:11 PM
<<and somewhat behind on math and sciences.>>

I can only imagine how impossible it is to teach a lab-based class in a home, especially without a license to teach science classes.

Kembal
03-07-2008, 04:25 PM
I know people who homeschool their kids, but I firmly believe it's a very bad idea except in rare cases. (those five piano virtuoso siblings from Utah that got into Julliard, etc.)

Gan
03-07-2008, 05:03 PM
<<and somewhat behind on math and sciences.>>

I can only imagine how impossible it is to teach a lab-based class in a home, especially without a license to teach science classes.

The kitchen makes a GREAT science lab. Complete with hood!

:help:

Stanley Burrell
03-07-2008, 05:33 PM
Those unlawful Homeschooling soccer moms will be twice the downfall of society than Mormons who perp' foursomes, MFFF, at a marriage level.

I am so fucking jealous of the Mormons and the home-schooled. I'm with The Man on this one, purely out of spiteful envy.

Latrinsorm
03-08-2008, 12:03 PM
A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nationThe idea of training patriotism apparently doesn't bother anyone else? In an ironic twist, I'm looking both at Eschaton (for being a general hippy) and Gan (for his position on religion).

Daniel
03-08-2008, 12:45 PM
Uhh..Why not?

TheEschaton
03-08-2008, 12:58 PM
Yeah, I didn't see that quote. That's fucked up.

Stanley Burrell
03-08-2008, 02:24 PM
Yeah, I didn't see that quote. That's fucked up.

I'd say it'd provide some firsthand experience into the edumucation politics of America(na.) Learned patriotism... In a distorted sense.

Seran
03-08-2008, 03:01 PM
The lack of social adaptation not withstanding, I firmly believe the whole issue of home schooling to be ridiculous. There are valid reasons to withhold ones children from public schools, the fact they suck being primary.

Require the children to submit to standardized testing to gaurantee that the basics are being taught. Should they be unable to pass, mandate that insertion into a public school is required. Should the child pass the testing, then allow the home schooling to continue. It's as easy as that.

We have too many gang bangers, drug dealers, and budding sociopaths making classes unbearably disruptive as is. I would rather a child be unable properly connect with others then to become one of the above.

ViridianAsp
03-08-2008, 03:17 PM
I was home schooled from fourth to sixth grade and from sophomore to senior year I independent study.

I was home schooled in elementary school because at the time, the only school that acknowledged my dyslexia as a learning disability, was in fact, a home schooling program. My teacher was wonderful and having dyslexia herself, helped me immensely, I'd go in twice a week to the school for a few lessons, but primarily most of my lessons were at home.

In Junior High School and High School I had a lot of problems socially with other students, faculty, ect., so I went back into independent study where I went in once a week and had to review all the weeks work with my teacher. It was great and I was allowed to work at my own pace.

While it has positives, it has a lot of negatives. Socially, for a long time I had problems, I think this is due to not having daily social interaction with other people. It also took a long time to adjust to not having the option of going at my own pace in the workplace, while in some ways it was great in other ways it isn't.

My son is in the California Public school system, they have improved a lot since I first went through it and I have to say I'm really impressed with my districts IEP or Individual Education Program. Where each and every student is assessed and their strengths and weaknesses in areas are determined, based on that they teacher alters his or hers educational plan to meet the needs of certain students.

Latrinsorm
03-08-2008, 10:49 PM
Uhh..Why not?Because brainwashing someone to achieve even good internalizations is morally repugnant and practically ineffecient - look at the archetypal Sunday-schooler-turned-atheist's response to organized religion.

Jazuela
03-08-2008, 11:12 PM
I've heard all these issues about homeschoolers having social problems, but I'd put the blame for that on the parents themselves, not on the homeschooling. I know a couple of kids whose mom homeschooled them, and they had LOTS of social interaction with other kids. In fact they had a whole homeschool group, and many of the kids in the neighborhood were homeschooled, and they'd all meet together in the park every day for exercise and games.

The two kids in particular also had other activities involving groups, such as Karate and other martial arts classes. And the younger one was in a community kids' orchestra.

From what I've heard of these two recently, both have grown up to be extremely well-educated, bright, clever, social, popular, and well-adjusted active young adults. So really I think it's just that the parents have to *include* socialization with their schooling. But that's a parent issue, not a schooling problem.

Warriorbird
03-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Most homeschoolers are religious wacko shut-ins. Why wouldn't they have social problems?

Even those who socialize their kids and aren't insane don't give their kids the chance to build up the same long term social bonds.

Drew
03-09-2008, 12:06 AM
I was home schooled for 2 years, it worked out really well I'd say. I wouldn't want to be home schooled my whole education career, but I think it should be an option. A lot of home schoolers just aren't equipped to make it in public schools, and sending them there doesn't actually make it any better.

diethx
03-09-2008, 12:09 AM
A lot of home schoolers just aren't equipped to make it in public schools, and sending them there doesn't actually make it any better.

How do you mean "aren't equipped"? Do you mean a legitimate learning disability (or something similar) like ViridianAsp, that cannot be handled well in public school? Or do you mean they get made fun of and can't handle it?

ElanthianSiren
03-09-2008, 09:44 AM
I was homeschooled for about two years of high school then went and finished my last two years of high school at a college. I was actually better prepared IMO.

I was home schooled however by actual teachers from my school district. I don't believe in parents doing home schooling really, especially if they're not accredited because I don't believe someone can be objective when evaluating their own child.

edit: To answer Bob, I took all my hs sciences as intro sciences (science courses for non majors) at a local college.

Gan
03-09-2008, 10:09 AM
The idea of training patriotism apparently doesn't bother anyone else? In an ironic twist, I'm looking both at Eschaton (for being a general hippy) and Gan (for his position on religion).


Because brainwashing someone to achieve even good internalizations is morally repugnant and practically ineffecient - look at the archetypal Sunday-schooler-turned-atheist's response to organized religion.

Now thats scary. Its almost as if....







...you know me.




:help:

(Yes, forced loyalty in any context is repugnant. Free will FTW.)
(On that context, the wife dragged me to church last night. The walls didnt come crashing down, and I actually liked the sermon).

TheEschaton
03-09-2008, 03:20 PM
Uh oh, Latrin, we may have incoming! ;)

B2
03-09-2008, 03:40 PM
I met plenty of well-adjusted people who had been homeschooled when I was at college.

I guess there may have been more that I didn't meet because they were cowering antisocially in their dorm rooms. But there were plenty of public-schooled misfits as well.

I'd rather be homeschooled than sit on a bus for three hours a day. Some of California is pretty remote.

I haven't been following it too closely, but have they been making a big deal about that girl who just killed her family being homeschooled? I mean, join a public school and then kill your family six weeks later. Which side would that look worse for?

ViridianAsp
03-09-2008, 09:29 PM
I've heard all these issues about homeschoolers having social problems, but I'd put the blame for that on the parents themselves, not on the homeschooling.

I did have social problems, but on the other hand I was always extremely shy, my family did try to push me out there socially, but it wasn't a regular thing. Honestly, I think having to be around it everyday as a child, helps.

As far as the religious wacko bit, I didn't go into home schooling because of that, I went in to learn how to actually get passed my learning disability.

It was sad that by third grade I still read at a first grade level, the district at the time didn't acknowledge dyslexia as a learning disability and didn't have anyone qualified to help me, save for in this homeschooling program (which the school district didn't even notify us about.).


I'm not saying everyone comes out maladjusted and socially inept, I'm just saying in my personal experience, it took awhile to adjust.

Daniel
03-09-2008, 09:49 PM
Because brainwashing someone to achieve even good internalizations is morally repugnant and practically ineffecient - look at the archetypal Sunday-schooler-turned-atheist's response to organized religion.

Well. I don't think teaching pride in your country is tantamount to brainwashing. That's just me.

Latrinsorm
03-09-2008, 11:07 PM
Teaching isn't what I was referring to. Training is. You teach a human, you train a marionette.

Daniel
03-09-2008, 11:27 PM
So you balk at the use of the term training?

What if this "training" included the proper execution and application of patriotism. Afterall, this country is founded on the principles of equality and protection from the law. Is it so bad to teach people how to treat people with tolerance and equality?

Stanley Burrell
03-09-2008, 11:33 PM
LMAO at California and their over-legislation of everything that exists. I can't wait until it falls into the ocean.

Continental Drift Theory has been discarded (as a plausible hypothesis of California's submerging gradually into the ocean.)

That being said, and parenthesized, that is over-legislation like whizzat.

Latrinsorm
03-10-2008, 12:21 AM
So you balk at the use of the term training?

What if this "training" included the proper execution and application of patriotism. Afterall, this country is founded on the principles of equality and protection from the law. Is it so bad to teach people how to treat people with tolerance and equality?Training still isn't teaching, and yes, it is so bad to train people how to treat people with tolerance and equality as I've previously mentioned. Nothing is good when it robs us of our humanity.

If the only way we feel we can get people to embrace our principles is to drill them into their heads, there's a serious problem with our principles.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 12:37 AM
Uh..

Training:

the education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing that is being trained:


It's not BRAINWASHING.

Fallen
03-10-2008, 01:17 AM
The lack of social adaptation not withstanding, I firmly believe the whole issue of home schooling to be ridiculous. There are valid reasons to withhold ones children from public schools, the fact they suck being primary.

Require the children to submit to standardized testing to gaurantee that the basics are being taught. Should they be unable to pass, mandate that insertion into a public school is required. Should the child pass the testing, then allow the home schooling to continue. It's as easy as that.

We have too many gang bangers, drug dealers, and budding sociopaths making classes unbearably disruptive as is. I would rather a child be unable properly connect with others then to become one of the above.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. As long as the parents are sure to include the kids in social activities, I don't think it would be all that detrimental, and likely in many ways beneficial if the alternative was some manner of horrid public school.

Nessu Karthorbek
03-10-2008, 03:05 AM
Training still isn't teaching, and yes, it is so bad to train people how to treat people with tolerance and equality as I've previously mentioned. Nothing is good when it robs us of our humanity.

If the only way we feel we can get people to embrace our principles is to drill them into their heads, there's a serious problem with our principles.

With the current trendsetting push to teach sex, sexuality, and homosexuality at EVERY grade level of the public schools and in every topic by the extreme liberal factions, I can imagine why someone would want to take their kids out of public schools if they disagree with that. I have family (my wife's parents and her sister) who work in the school district, and they can't stand the way the Unions just assume all the teachers agree with their wackjob ideas.

I also fail to see how putting your kids in a public school so they can 'socialize' with the drug dealers, gangbangers and general wackjobs who want to come into school in kindergarten and shoot some other kid (this has happened even at that low of a grade level, Michigan, 2000) is good for them?

There have been several cases in California where teachers have been teaching 'objectionable' material to students and never even given the parents a chance to opt out.

I think that these decisions should be in the hands of parents, not in the hands of elite politicians who take their special interest money from the lobbyists. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't that the 9th Circus Court?..........I was wrong, it was the 2nd, they aren't much better than the 9th.

Tsa`ah
03-10-2008, 03:52 AM
With the current trendsetting push to teach sex, sexuality, and homosexuality at EVERY grade level of the public schools and in every topic by the extreme liberal factions, I can imagine why someone would want to take their kids out of public schools if they disagree with that. I have family (my wife's parents and her sister) who work in the school district, and they can't stand the way the Unions just assume all the teachers agree with their wackjob ideas.

I have two children attending the public education system in Illinois. My eldest child is just now getting into a rather tame curriculum on sex ... so forgive me if I think your claim that children are taught about sexuality (which includes homosexuality btw ... it's not separate) and sex at every level of education is total bullshit.

Additionally it's just plain ignorance to believe that a teacher's union has such immense power over any educational system. They don't put curriculum in place. They can lobby for it, they can push for it .... in the end it is not their choice. It's also funny that you try to blame this on "liberal factions" and include said union in the same breath .... a union your in-laws are a part of.

It's not an educator's job to agree with the curriculum. It's an educator's job to teach it to the best of their ability ... which is currently a pretty low standard. It's sort of like bitching about your job while having full disclosure to what that job entails before you take it.


I also fail to see how putting your kids in a public school so they can 'socialize' with the drug dealers, gangbangers and general wackjobs who want to come into school in kindergarten and shoot some other kid (this has happened even at that low of a grade level, Michigan, 2000) is good for them?

You are aware that not every public school has these problems don't you? You're probably also aware (I hope) that most of these kids are products of a disparity that reaches far beyond just the educational systems they are part of right?

I'm also sure you're aware that the shooting of the kindergartner in Flint MI wasn't a gang related, or even hate related, incident correct? The mother was a work fare recipient that had to work an odd hour job that had an excessive commute. The child took the gun from his uncle's home (where he was being "watched") and shot the child with absolutely no clue that he would injure or kill said child.


There have been several cases in California where teachers have been teaching 'objectionable' material to students and never even given the parents a chance to opt out.

Here's the thing .... you don't walk into a sea-food shack and demand a pulled pork barbecue. Of course there are variables a plenty .... the most glaring is if the complaints are from families that can't afford to send their kids elsewhere .... there are options though. Private education and moving (baring the families that can't afford it of course).

Our schools should not be breeding grounds for intolerance ... god only knows that people like you will teach your children enough of it, no need for my tax dollars to fund it.


I think that these decisions should be in the hands of parents, not in the hands of elite politicians who take their special interest money from the lobbyists. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't that the 9th Circus Court?..........I was wrong, it was the 2nd, they aren't much better than the 9th.

To an extent sure. Many states send a permission/opt-out slip home well before the course starts ... but where does it end? Fanatic Christians and like-minded teachers opting out of science because it comes into conflict with their beliefs? Should we waste billions in tax dollars printing out slips every time the students will partake in anything that may offend the parents or church?

Get over it. If you don't believe in the public curriculum ... move your children or get a job at an institution that doesn't teach it. If you can't afford it, well ... you were pretty short sighted when you decided to have kids .... suck it up and stfu.

ViridianAsp
03-10-2008, 11:41 AM
I also fail to see how putting your kids in a public school so they can 'socialize' with the drug dealers, gangbangers and general wackjobs who want to come into school in kindergarten and shoot some other kid (this has happened even at that low of a grade level, Michigan, 2000) is good for them?

There have been several cases in California where teachers have been teaching 'objectionable' material to students and never even given the parents a chance to opt out.



I live in California, they will not teach your child anything you don't want them too, as far as sex education, as schools have to have written constent to teach them such.

As far as gangbangers and drugdealers, schools now carry a "Zero Tolerance" rule, for kids who are violent, bully or are caught with any sort of illegal substance. This means they are no longer able to attend that school and are handed over to the police.

Also, any parent can learn what their child is learning easily, it's just a matter of actually caring about it. If I do not want my child to learn something I find offensive and take it to the teacher and the school, it isn't a problem, they will work with anyone, as it is a parents right to say what their child learns, as long as it isn't something outrageous, the schools are pretty much understanding.

Latrinsorm
03-10-2008, 12:34 PM
Uh..

Training:

the education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing that is being trained:


It's not BRAINWASHING.Ok, let's take an example. When you went to basic training, were you encouraged to have an open dialogue with your various instructors on the way to do things? Or, and I'll note explicitly that I'm not creating an exhaustive list, were you told how things were going to be and expected to conform? Which type do you suppose an elementary school is going to engage in?

Not all brainwashing takes place in dark rooms with cattle prods. The most effective and insidious brainwashing is the kind the target doesn't even notice - and it happens every day. Have a Pepsi.

Nessu Karthorbek
03-10-2008, 01:52 PM
suck it up and stfu.

I love when people make my points for me before I even attempt to make the point in and of itself. People say that I'm closeminded and bigotted because of what I believe in. And yet, I always notice that those who claim to be the most openminded are the same who try to shut down anyone else's opinion who may disagree with them.

Suppa Hobbit Mage
03-10-2008, 01:59 PM
Ok, let's take an example. When you went to basic training, were you encouraged to have an open dialogue with your various instructors on the way to do things? Or, and I'll note explicitly that I'm not creating an exhaustive list, were you told how things were going to be and expected to conform? Which type do you suppose an elementary school is going to engage in?

Not all brainwashing takes place in dark rooms with cattle prods. The most effective and insidious brainwashing is the kind the target doesn't even notice - and it happens every day. Have a Pepsi.

He was going through training for a job, which is different than our public schools, at least in my opinion.

Drew2
03-10-2008, 02:31 PM
This thread should not exist because I am agreeing with everything Eric is saying and that cannot happen.

Warriorbird
03-10-2008, 02:37 PM
If people (read Nessu) are convinced that that's what goes on in public schools they're far more paranoid than anybody who's prejudiced against homeschoolers.

If you're some religious wackjob (read Nessu) you should at least have the decency to send your kids to a religious wackjob boarding school so they get proper socialization.

As for military training I don't think it falls under the classic definitions of brainwashing. The same cannot be said of many megachurches, Latrin.

Drew2
03-10-2008, 02:45 PM
I think it can fall under classical conditioning, which is closer to brainwashing than anyone should be comfortable with.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 02:45 PM
Ok, let's take an example. When you went to basic training, were you encouraged to have an open dialogue with your various instructors on the way to do things? Or, and I'll note explicitly that I'm not creating an exhaustive list, were you told how things were going to be and expected to conform? Which type do you suppose an elementary school is going to engage in?

Not all brainwashing takes place in dark rooms with cattle prods. The most effective and insidious brainwashing is the kind the target doesn't even notice - and it happens every day. Have a Pepsi.

Although this is a particuarly loaded question I will still respond.

In basic training, I was indeed asked to *conform* to certain standards, i.e. performance, behavior etc. That is different from the "Training I received"

For instance: I was "Trained' how to use a rifle. That meant that I was told basic techniques and was expected to apply them towards a set standard of performance. I.e. Shoot down 20 of 40 targets.

The issue was not *how* I got there, but rather that I did. Thus, I was free to use whatever method, handgrip, butt stock location, body position, etc that was most comfortable to me, provided that I still reached the standard.

In some instances there is no room for deviation. I.e. there are not two ways to treat a sucking chest wound. Teaching me the known method to do so was not somehow an attack on my individuality.

It's the same thing with "patriotism" you are giving the concepts and the tools, but how you apply them is up to your own discretion.

Teaching people about "patriotism", what that details in a civilized society or the standards that people are expected to uphold in society is not "dehumanizing" nor is it cruel.

Clove
03-10-2008, 05:23 PM
<<and somewhat behind on math and sciences.>>

I can only imagine how impossible it is to teach a lab-based class in a home, especially without a license to teach science classes.

I can only imagine the devastation that is a lab-class on an elementary level.

Clove
03-10-2008, 05:27 PM
Teaching people about "patriotism", what that details in a civilized society or the standards that people are expected to uphold in society is not "dehumanizing" nor is it cruel.

I'm going to agree with Daniel on that.

Though I'm not opposed to home schooling.

California Uberallis!

Clove
03-10-2008, 05:37 PM
As for military training I don't think it falls under the classic definitions of brainwashing. The same cannot be said of many megachurches, Latrin.

That's not particularly fair either.

Clove
03-10-2008, 05:42 PM
Training still isn't teaching, and yes, it is so bad to train people how to treat people with tolerance and equality as I've previously mentioned. Nothing is good when it robs us of our humanity.

If the only way we feel we can get people to embrace our principles is to drill them into their heads, there's a serious problem with our principles.

That's interesting because C.S. Lewis felt very strongly that training was integral to our humanity:


That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Daniel
03-10-2008, 05:49 PM
I'm not opposed to home schooling either.

Warriorbird
03-10-2008, 05:53 PM
I don't think it should be disallowed as well. I just think the results are questionable.

What do you think Jerry Falwell locking the doors of his church until donations got high enough if there wasn't enough collected was, Clove?

Clove
03-10-2008, 05:56 PM
I don't think it should be disallowed as well. I just think the results are questionable.

What do you think Jerry Falwell locking the doors of his church until donations got high enough if there wasn't enough collected was, Clove?

False imprisonment?

Latrinsorm
03-10-2008, 06:31 PM
He was going through training for a job, which is different than our public schools, at least in my opinion.I agree that our public schools have moved somewhat away from the type of drill training that was no doubt current in the early 1960s (the source of the initial comment).
In some instances there is no room for deviation. I.e. there are not two ways to treat a sucking chest wound. ... It's the same thing with "patriotism" you are giving the concepts and the tools, but how you apply them is up to your own discretion.My guess is you didn't mean to connect these so directly, but doesn't it surprise you that your post would come off as "there are not two ways to be patriotic"? Going to the point about discretion, would you say that the armed forces operate on the principle that each soldier will (in general) act on his or her own discretion? If so, what point is there in a commanding officer? Wouldn't that position be referred to as a "recommending" officer or "concept-providing" officer?
That's interesting because C.S. Lewis felt very strongly that training was integral to our humanityC.S. Lewis thought there was a magical wonderland in his closet, I think that says enough about him. [/facetious]

Note that he says "one must train", not "one must be trained". We are both marionette and human, and it is absolutely up to each one of us to move towards the human (and therefore the divine) as Christians. That Lewis encourages training as a method for this underscores how awful being a puppet of one's desire is.

Clove
03-10-2008, 06:35 PM
C.S. Lewis thought there was a magical wonderland in his closet, I think that says enough about him. [/facetious]

Note that he says "one must train", not "one must be trained". We are both marionette and human, and it is absolutely up to each one of us to move towards the human (and therefore the divine) as Christians. That Lewis encourages training as a method for this underscores how awful being a puppet of one's desire is.

You're arguing semantics now. The fact is, we train to be human. When we are younger we are trained and as we develop we take more responsibility to train ourselves (although we will probably face training in one sort or another throughout our lives).

Training/=Brainwashing.

Next?

Gan
03-10-2008, 06:55 PM
Training/=Brainwashing.

http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/dodo_in_wonderland/imgs/5/d/5d219fe8.jpg


Are you sure about that?

What was that?

I CANT HEAR YOU!

Drew2
03-10-2008, 06:56 PM
C.S. Lewis thought there was a magical wonderland in his closet, I think that says enough about him. [/facetious]


If my closet had a magical wonderland in it, I'd still be in it.

HA, GET IT?

Also Eric is gay. Probably.

Gan
03-10-2008, 06:56 PM
So Daniel, which is it?

Were you home schooled or not?

Daniel
03-10-2008, 06:56 PM
I agree that our public schools have moved somewhat away from the type of drill training that was no doubt current in the early 1960s (the source of the initial comment).My guess is you didn't mean to connect these so directly, but doesn't it surprise you that your post would come off as "there are not two ways to be patriotic"? Going to the point about discretion, would you say that the armed forces operate on the principle that each soldier will (in general) act on his or her own discretion? If so, what point is there in a commanding officer? Wouldn't that position be referred to as a "recommending" officer or "concept-providing" officer?C.S. Lewis thought there was a magical wonderland in his closet, I think that says enough about him. [/facetious]

Note that he says "one must train", not "one must be trained". We are both marionette and human, and it is absolutely up to each one of us to move towards the human (and therefore the divine) as Christians. That Lewis encourages training as a method for this underscores how awful being a puppet of one's desire is.

Google the phrase "Commander's Intent"

This was actually brought up in a meeting I had today. Eisenhowers directive for WWII was "Liberate Europe" and he left the rest in the hands of his officers.

The Army is not as strict as people make it out to be especially as it pertains to making things happen. There are guidelines and limitations that must be adhered to, but anything within them is fair game.

Another good point is the fact that everyone from privates to generals are taught that they have the responsibility to disobey an order if it is illegial. I.e. If someone tells you to shoot babies, then you not only have the right to not do so, but you are taught that you should stop them from doing so.

P.s.

As a side note. The Chronicles of Narnia were a work of FICTION. However, C.S. Lewis was an astoundingly persuavise religious writer. In his time he was perhaps one of the most popular christian writers of all time. In fact, the CoN were a story that was *heavily* influenced by the bible.

If you haven't read Mere Christianity, then I dare say that you are missing out on a lot about religion and I'm not even religious.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 06:58 PM
So Daniel, which is it?

Were you home schooled or not?


Public School for the win.

Or not so much...

...not that I really understand why you are asking me.

Gan
03-10-2008, 06:59 PM
...not that I really understand why you are asking me.

Must have overlooked that post. I was reviewing the poll.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 07:01 PM
k.

Latrinsorm
03-10-2008, 08:15 PM
You're arguing semantics now.The same semantic difference as that between suicide and murder, yeah. "The fact is," those are pretty different.
Another good point is the fact that everyone from privates to generals are taught that they have the responsibility to disobey an order if it is illegial.By section 14.2.a.i-ii. of the Manual for Courts Martial (2008), "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.", with added emphasis mine. I trust that this illustrates the distinction I'm highlighting, especially the judge part.
The Chronicles of Narnia were a work of FICTION. However, C.S. Lewis was an astoundingly persuavise religious writer. In his time he was perhaps one of the most popular christian writers of all time. In fact, the CoN were a story that was *heavily* influenced by the bible.Thanks for not noticing the "facetious" tag I put in. I disagree with the distinguished Mr. Lewis on a number of theological points but it's pretty clear that the quoted section does nothing to counter my point.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 08:55 PM
Highlighting* the word patently refutes my point how? Or rather says anything about my main point?

Nessu Karthorbek
03-10-2008, 09:58 PM
The Chronicles of Narnia were a work of FICTION. However, C.S. Lewis was an astoundingly persuavise religious writer. In his time he was perhaps one of the most popular christian writers of all time. In fact, the CoN were a story that was *heavily* influenced by the bible.

Humurously enough, if you were to look at his lifestyle, C.S. Lewis would not be allowed to lead in most churches today.

Daniel
03-10-2008, 10:10 PM
Yea. being an atheist for most of your life would do that, then and now.

Clove
03-10-2008, 10:36 PM
The same semantic difference as that between suicide and murder...

You're burning gears now Latrin, and you're arguing null semantic points. There is nothing sinister about training.

Gan
03-10-2008, 10:38 PM
There is nothing sinister about training.

http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/dodo_in_wonderland/imgs/5/d/5d219fe8.jpg

horse hockey!

Clove
03-10-2008, 10:39 PM
http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/dodo_in_wonderland/imgs/5/d/5d219fe8.jpg

horse hockey!

Heh. I can believe Gan's kids aren't potty-trained (out of respect for their individuality).

:love:

Gan
03-10-2008, 10:43 PM
I never said I didnt partake in it. ;)

(You forget I am a fan of Skinner and Behavioralism.)

Stanley Burrell
03-10-2008, 10:50 PM
I never said I didnt partake in it. ;)

(You forget I am a fan of Skinner and Behavioralism.)

Watson Behaviourism ftw.

Clove
03-10-2008, 11:10 PM
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Latrinsorm
03-10-2008, 11:43 PM
Highlighting* the word patently refutes my point how? Or rather says anything about my main point?Patently means casually in this context - no thought is required, merely a glance. Soldiers do not have the jurisdiction to determine whether an order is unlawful; that's the province of the military judge. It is exactly this sort of situation that is the result of training - the trainee is not expected to think, reflect, consider, etc.: do any of the things that make us humans and not puppets. The trainee is expected to obey, as the quote indicates in no uncertain terms. That the trainee is not given explicit instructions on every instant is irrelevant: when instructions are given, they will be followed.
You're burning gears now Latrin, and you're arguing null semantic points.C.S. Lewis would disagree. :)
There is nothing sinister about training.I guess it depends on what you mean by "sinister". I'd say anything that takes our humanity by force is wrong, but "sinister" to me has a lot more implications than just wrongness.

Warriorbird
03-11-2008, 12:35 AM
Training can sometimes be left handed.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 12:47 AM
So, essentially laws rob you of your humanity? If you violate laws of society..then you will be punished.

Agreeing to be in the military is not tantamount to sacrificing your humanity. You are simply agreeing to work within different guidelines and standards than the rest of society. However, that is no more different then what you as a person of this planet are forced to do. If you murder somebody you go to jail. The same as if you disobey a lawful order in the military.

There are rules that we all play by. These may change with the context of your existence, btu this is an inescapable fact and if you think that is any less apart of humanity then I don't know what to tell you.

Clove
03-11-2008, 08:38 AM
...guess it depends on what you mean by "sinister". I'd say anything that takes our humanity by force is wrong, but "sinister" to me has a lot more implications than just wrongness.

I'd agree that taking our humanity away by force is sinister. Since training (even involuntary) is not equivalent to taking away our humanity by force, I'll stand by my original statement. There's nothing sinister in it.

We train to be human and not all of it is by our own choice. Potty training is a good example. There are human qualities that must be learned, acquired, trained and it's the (human) nature of these qualities that make them worthwhile, not whether or not you decide to cultivate them yourself.

I suppose if you think patriotism and civic virtue are inhuman, well then you have a point- but please avoid the bullshit argument that because we insist that you train up in certain ways that we're stripping people of their humanity.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 12:16 PM
So, essentially laws rob you of your humanity?Essentially, no. See the next bit:
If you murder somebody you go to jail. The same as if you disobey a lawful order in the military.The difference is civilians are both expected and entitled to consider the worth of any given law: whenever any form of government becomes destructive of our inalienable rights, it is our right as people to alter or abolish it. This could not be more distinct from the cited passages of the military judicial system.

If we were in a society that strongly encouraged blind obedience to the law, that would be dehumanizing. MLK being a hero demonstrates that we are not in such a society.
Potty training is a good example.What potty training is a good example of is how infants and extremely young children are simply not treated as human beings. What other sort of human beings are treated as property?
There are human qualities that must be learned, acquired, trained and it's the (human) nature of these qualities that make them worthwhile, not whether or not you decide to cultivate them yourself.A being that acts like a human because its told to is no more human than a Thinkpad. Smart people from Kant to Nietzsche figured out that the immeasurable results of training have to be identified if we want to really act like human (and therefore free) beings.

Our final goal cannot be to make people into things that function well in society.
it's the (human) nature of these qualities that make them worthwhile, not whether or not you decide to cultivate them yourself.I wanted to quote this part again: this statement has reversed the topic. It's never been a question of whether patriotism is worthwhile. The statement I originally made was that drilling patriotism is an ignoble means, polluting whatever worth patriotism could have. One can neither justify nor dismiss the means by claiming a good end.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 12:24 PM
The difference is civilians are both expected and entitled to consider the worth of any given law: whenever any form of government becomes destructive of our inalienable rights, it is our right as people to alter or abolish it. This could not be more distinct from the cited passages of the military judicial system.


^

How you make that leap is astounding. There is not *blind* obedience in the military.

I've showed you this.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with training. The military is not the way it is because of "Training" it has everything to do with the nature of the job and the operational neccesities that come with it.

What your ridiculous argument is not taking into consideration is the fact that the teaching of patriotism would likely include knowledge of the right and obligations of the citizenry to question and challenge laws that are unjust.

People do not inherently know what "inalienable" rights are. They are something that we have come to believe through our self awareness over the years. However, if you take a kid out of a chinese labor camp then he will more than likely be resigned to the fact that he is meant to be there.

Furthermore, it's important that people understand the limitations of this right and the responsibilities inherent to it; or else they threaten insurrection every time they have to pay a trafficking ticket or park on the other side of the street.

Clove
03-11-2008, 12:31 PM
(If it wasn't obvious, this was in response to Latrin).

You're arguing quality. It would be better if we were born and we just figured out how to be human on our own, but we do not. Without training homosapiens behave the same as animals.

If you want to say that the child that motivates himself to learn to use the potty, or the youth that gains her own grasp of patriotism (or empathy, or any human quality on your list) is more noble- great. That doesn't make it ignoble for us to insist that people be trained in these qualities (with external involvement if necessary).

Additionally, presenting an individual who is self-motivated to appreciate (and strive for) human qualities with external training doesn't lessen their humanity- it provides a tool for something they were reaching towards in the first place.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 12:50 PM
There is not *blind* obedience in the military.I didn't say there was. What I said (and cited) was that soldiers are intended to operate on the assumption that orders are lawful and that it's only appropriate to disobey when the illegality is patently obvious.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with training. The military is not the way it is because of "Training" it has everything to do with the nature of the job and the operational neccesities that come with it.Of course it has to do with training. Nobody in the world would respond to "go charge that barbed wire while those guys with machine guns shoot at you" with "ok" without being trained to follow commands like that.
What your ridiculous argument is not taking into consideration is the fact that the teaching of patriotism would likely include knowledge of the right and obligations of the citizenry to question and challenge laws that are unjust.My argument isn't taking into account anything about the teaching of patriotism because the Honorable Justice Croskey didn't recommend teaching.
Without training homosapiens behave the same as animals.A human that never questions his or her training will never become more than an animal.
If you want to say that the child that motivates himself to learn to use the potty, or the youth that gains her own grasp of patriotism (or empathy, or any human quality on your list) is more noble- great. That doesn't make it ignoble for us to insist that people be trained in these qualities (with external involvement if necessary).I never said you shouldn't insist upon training in skills essential for survival. What I'm saying is that it's imperative to recognize it for what it is: wrong, and hopefully a temporary and reversible one.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 12:53 PM
Additionally, presenting an individual who is self-motivated to appreciate (and strive for) human qualities with external training doesn't lessen their humanity- it provides a tool for something they were reaching towards in the first place.Telling a person how to do something and training a person to do something is exactly the difference I was referring to with Mr. Lewis.

As an aside, suggesting an individual strives for human qualities somewhat contradicts the suggestion that a human without training behaves as an animal.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 12:58 PM
I didn't say there was. What I said (and cited) was that soldiers are intended to operate on the assumption that orders are lawful and that it's only appropriate to disobey when the illegality is patently obvious.

Which is different from our society...how? We definitely don't assume all laws are injurious.




Of course it has to do with training. Nobody in the world would respond to "go charge that barbed wire while those guys with machine guns shoot at you" with "ok" without being trained to follow commands like that.


Uh No. There are plenty of examples where people are willing to sacrifice themselves without being indoctrinated to do so.

There are many more examples where people have not, or will not obey orders as they perceive them to be unlawful.

You emphasis the word patently as it it changes the fact that there is a determination that has to be made, by the soldiers on the ground, with the information that is given and available. That mean being a soldier requires cognizance and an apprection for the situation that they may find themselves in, not blindless obediance as you suggest.

Our military is a "Volunteer" force. That means people go into the job knowing full well what that entails.

Our revolutionary army didn't have much in the way of "training". They were loosely affiliated militias that took up arms for a cause they believed in and yet in the course of doing so had to accept command from those in charge in order to be effective in what they were trying to do.

Your argument is severely lacking with reference and reality. You obviously know very little about military training or the people that go through it.



My argument isn't taking into account anything about the teaching of patriotism because the Honorable Justice Croskey didn't recommend teaching.A human that never questions his or her training will never become more than an animal.I never said you shouldn't insist upon training in skills essential for survival. What I'm saying is that it's imperative to recognize it for what it is: wrong, and hopefully a temporary and reversible one.

Who ever said that you shouldn't question anything that comes out of the school system? Especially things related to patriotism? That is something you interjected into your argument based upon your own preconceived notions and prejudices.

Clove
03-11-2008, 01:23 PM
As an aside, suggesting an individual strives for human qualities somewhat contradicts the suggestion that a human without training behaves as an animal.

I don't believe that a person strives for human behavior without training. I only put forth that if they did, mandating training wouldn't impare them (or their humanity) since they would be reaching for the same goal you're imposing on them.

So either an individual requires external training to be human, or they don't and external training is simply unnecessary (which wouldn't make it wrong just pointless).

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 02:37 PM
Which is different from our society...how?I'm glad you asked! :) The distinction lies in the difference between assuming, noticing, and considering something.
There are plenty of examples where people are willing to sacrifice themselves without being indoctrinated to do so.Absolutely! As Clove, Clive, and I were discussing, however, there is a difference between you willing your sacrifice and it being commanded of you.
That mean being a soldier requires cognizance and an apprection for the situation that they may find themselves in, not blindless obediance as you suggest.Not blind obedience but obedience without reflection.
That means people go into the job knowing full well what that entails.I agree up to a point: I would suggest that there are certain facets of the soldier experience that are literally incomprehensible to someone who has never been a soldier (which is the same to greater and lesser extents for any vocation). That aside, the fact that people would agree to their dehumanization for a higher cause is part of what is so impressive about our volunteer armed forces - this in no way makes dehumanization an ok thing!
Our revolutionary army didn't have much in the way of "training". They were loosely affiliated militias that took up arms for a cause they believed in and yet in the course of doing so had to accept command from those in charge in order to be effective in what they were trying to do.I would suggest that this particular historical example is not as clear-cut as you suggest. I would sub-suggest that a very large % (perhaps a majority) of the Revolutionary forces were in fact not motivated by the ideals of the Framers or even by any "cause" more lofty than "my father says I ought" or "fuck the British".
Your argument is severely lacking with reference and reality. You obviously know very little about military training or the people that go through it.Given that I've provided citations for my position (and further that you don't have the slightest idea whom I do or do not know), isn't it a little strange for you to pull a Dave here? Is it your position that the Manual for Courts Martial is a collection of suggestions with no judicial standing? Perhaps a hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting civilians for some reason?
Who ever said that you shouldn't question anything that comes out of the school system?Why do you think the cultural revolution of the 60s was so heated and so divisive?
So either an individual requires external training to be human, or they don't and external training is simply unnecessary (which wouldn't make it wrong just pointless).This is my whole point, really: a being does require some training (a bad thing!). As training is a bad (dehumanizing) thing, we should take care to minimize it as much as is humanly possible. Patriotism is too intricate a notion to expect elementary students to properly understand it anyway, drilling a cartoon of the idea into them does nothing but foment stagnancy and rebellion (as my Sunday schooler example intended to demonstrate). That one can eventually come upon humanity by throwing off the legacies of dehumanization seems rather intuitive to me.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 02:49 PM
Not blind obedience but obedience without reflection.

^

Once again. You are being wilfully ignorant.

You can not determine if something is legal or not without reflection. You can do it without assuming, noticing and considering the applicable statues under international law.

There is no big red flashing subtitle that says THIS IS ILLEGIAL. There is no divine voice says so. It is based entirely on the nature of the situation and the knowledge of the relevant guidelines and stipulations.




Given that I've provided citations for my position (and further that you don't have the slightest idea whom I do or do not know), isn't it a little strange for you to pull a Dave here? Is it your position that the Manual for Courts Martial is a collection of suggestions with no judicial standing? Perhaps a hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting civilians for some reason?

Uh.

The only citation you provided was a quote from the UCMJ that you proceeded to project upon with your perceptions of how things were, completely aside from the reality of what they are.



I would suggest that this particular historical example is not as clear-cut as you suggest. I would sub-suggest that a very large % (perhaps a majority) of the Revolutionary forces were in fact not motivated by the ideals of the Framers or even by any "cause" more lofty than "my father says I ought" or "fuck the British".

Fuck the British is an entirely human decision to make.

You may be right in this particular context about whether or not they were influenced by their fathers, even if there is no way of knowing. However, that suggestion falls apart when you consider any conflict where someone had to make a conscious decision on which side to join and in what capacity. Read: Civil war, Germans in WWII. etc.



hy do you think the cultural revolution of the 60s was so heated and so divisive?

Why do you think any cultural revolution is heated and divisive?

People disagree.

Just as I disagree when you say "This is my whole point, really: a being does require some training (a bad thing!). As training is a bad (dehumanizing) thing, we should take care to minimize it as much as is humanly possible. "

Because you have proffered nothing except a make believe example of what you perceive one entity to be and thus assume that anything else that would fall under training is inherently immoral.

If you believe that patriotism is too complex of a notion to teach children then fine. However, don't wax poetic about how "Training" is dehumanizing. Training is simply instruction. It carries no stipulation that someone adhere to what is taught during that instruction or that it is immutable.

Once again.

Training /= Brainwashing.

Clove
03-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Just as I disagree when you say "This is my whole point, really: a being does require some training (a bad thing!). As training is a bad (dehumanizing) thing, we should take care to minimize it as much as is humanly possible. "

...However, don't wax poetic about how "Training" is dehumanizing. Training is simply instruction. It carries no stipulation that someone adhere to what is taught during that instruction or that it is immutable.

Once again.

Training /= Brainwashing.

Ditto.

Latrin if you're going to begin with an axiom like:

Training is Dehumanizing.

Then we simply disagree. I come from the point of view that some training is required to become human so it's evident that I don't believe the process is inherently dehumanizing.

It has the potential to be dehumanizing if administered in an inhumane way, or if used to cultivate inhuman behavior, etc.

You're grinding gears again, sorry to say.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 05:11 PM
You can not determine if something is legal or not without reflection.And once again, by the very laws they agree to be governed by a soldier forfeits any right to determine if something is legal or not. A soldier can only notice if an order is patently unlawful. To wit:
There is no big red flashing subtitle that says THIS IS ILLEGIAL.The Judge Advocate General appears to disagree with you. It's interesting that you accuse me of projecting when you refuse to take into account an entire word.
However, that suggestion falls apart when you consider any conflict where someone had to make a conscious decision on which side to join and in what capacity. Read: Civil war, Germans in WWII. etc.You want to use the Germans as an example of an untrained, free-thinking society? Seriously?
Because you have proffered nothing except a make believe example of what you perceive one entity to be and thus assume that anything else that would fall under training is inherently immoral.Quite to the contrary, I provided the example for rhetorical value. My understanding of what training is (an understanding in which I am not alone) predates the last couple days.
Training is simply instruction.If it was, we wouldn't need two words for it. :)
I come from the point of view that some training is required to become human so it's evident that I don't believe the process is inherently dehumanizing.We don't disagree up until the "it's evident" part. As I said, training is most certainly required. What we disagree on is that you appear to believe that once the training has taken root the job is complete, whereas Friedrich (for instance) and I could not disagree more strongly.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:15 PM
How precisely am I ignoring a word?

Patently = Obvious



If it was, we wouldn't need two words for it.

This is the dumbest thing you could ever say. Have you never heard of a synonym?

Warriorbird
03-11-2008, 05:16 PM
Latrin should tag in the Necromancer side of his personality and bring in some Foucault references. It'd totally throw you off.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:22 PM
Lol. I just wish he would stop pulling shit out of his ass about training somehow making you less human.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki#Tensions_with_Rumsfeld_while_Chief_o f_the_Army

Just because you under go training does not mean you somehow lose your ability to exert free will.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 05:23 PM
Synonyms are words with very nearly the same meaning. They may yet have separate overtones or connotations, as in this case.
How precisely am I ignoring a word?

Patently = ObviousIf it's obvious, you literally cannot reflect upon it before reaching your decision. It happens immediately. In essence, there is a big red flashing sign.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 05:24 PM
If I had known you would have taken this so personally, I would probably have chosen a different example, but here goes:
Just because you under go training does not mean you somehow lose your ability to exert free will.This is a gross exaggeration of what I'm talking about.

Warriorbird
03-11-2008, 05:24 PM
I've been trained to deal with bloodborn pathogens for a number of jobs. I no longer have free will.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:25 PM
Synonyms are words with very nearly the same meaning. They may yet have separate overtones or connotations, as in this case.If it's obvious, you literally cannot reflect upon it before reaching your decision. It happens immediately. In essence, there is a big red flashing sign.

I'm sorry. Where in your reference did it say "Immediately"?

or is that your projection?

CrystalTears
03-11-2008, 05:25 PM
Synonyms are words with very nearly the same meaning.
Or identical meanings.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 05:28 PM
I'm sorry. Where in your reference did it say "Immediately"?

or is that your projection?It's my ability to open a dictionary to the Os. :)

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:29 PM
Here. Let me quote from the Army Leadership Manual:

4-38. Moral courage is the willingness to stand firm on values, principles, and convictions. It enables all
leaders to stand up for what they *believe* is right, regardless of the consequences. Leaders, who take full
responsibility for their decisions and actions, even when things go wrong, display moral courage.

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:30 PM
It's my ability to open a dictionary to the Os. :)

Uh..
What Dictonary? I don't see the word immediately.

Main Entry: 1pat·ent
Pronunciation: \1–3 are ˈpa-tənt, chiefly British ˈpā-; 4 ˈpā-; 5 ˈpā-, ˈpa-; 6–7 ˈpa-, ˈpā-, British usually ˈpā-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin patent-, patens, from present participle of patēre to be open — more at fathom
Date: 14th century
1 a: open to public inspection —used chiefly in the phrase letters patent b (1): secured by letters patent or by a patent to the exclusive control and possession of a particular individual or party (2): protected by a patent : made under a patent <patent locks> c: protected by a trademark or a brand name so as to establish proprietary rights analogous to those conveyed by letters patent or a patent : proprietary <patent drugs>
2: of, relating to, or concerned with the granting of patents especially for inventions <a patent lawyer>
3: making exclusive or proprietary claims or pretensions
4: affording free passage : unobstructed <a patent opening>
5: patulous, spreading <a patent calyx>
6archaic : accessible, exposed
7: readily visible or intelligible : obvious
synonyms see evident
— pat·ent·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=patently

Daniel
03-11-2008, 05:32 PM
Main Entry: ob&#183;vi&#183;ous
Pronunciation: \ˈ&#228;b-vē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obvius, from obviam in the way, from ob in the way of + viam, accusative of via way — more at ob-, via
Date: 1603
1archaic : being in the way or in front
2: easily discovered, seen, or understood

Tsa`ah
03-11-2008, 07:09 PM
I love when people make my points for me before I even attempt to make the point in and of itself.

Should we revisit your post and go over the "opinions" stated within? You attempted to paint public education as lethal and at the same time stated that children of all ages are taught about sexuality and sex ... which is false.

In doing so you incorporated your in-laws as credentials to your false statement.

It didn't stop there ... you spun it as some sort of "liberal" conspiracy intertwined with the teacher's unions (which your in-laws are a part of).


People say that I'm closeminded and bigotted because of what I believe in. And yet, I always notice that those who claim to be the most openminded are the same who try to shut down anyone else's opinion who may disagree with them.

Here's what you're missing Skippy ... you used some heavy exaggeration and attempted to pass it off as fact. More to the point is that you seem to be under the impression that the world around you has to conform to your beliefs despite the needs of society.

People such of yourself love to take on the victim role ... oh how terrible the persecution must be. The truth is nothing more than a hideous person with an abominable world perspective refusing to take on any sort of responsibility.

Latrinsorm
03-11-2008, 08:18 PM
Here. Let me quote from the Army Leadership Manual:

4-38. Moral courage is the willingness to stand firm on values, principles, and convictions. It enables all
leaders to stand up for what they *believe* is right, regardless of the consequences. Leaders, who take full
responsibility for their decisions and actions, even when things go wrong, display moral courage.How about section 3-9, which in part reads:
"Serving as a commissioned officer differs from other forms of Army leadership by the quality and breadth of expert knowledge required, in the measure of responsibility attached, and in the magnitude of the consequences of inaction or ineffectiveness. An enlisted leader swears an oath of obedience to lawful orders, while the commissioned officer promises to, “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” This distinction establishes a different expectation for discretionary initiative."

Or 4-74: "Under normal circumstances, a leader executes a superior leader’s decision with energy and enthusiasm. The only exception would be illegal orders, which a leader has a duty to disobey. If a Soldier perceives that an order is illegal, that Soldier should be sure the details of the order and its original intent are fully understood."
What Dictonary? I don't see the word immediately.Try not projecting so hard, it gets in the way of your eyes. :)

Daniel
03-11-2008, 09:21 PM
Uh. Do you know what the word perceive entails?

Or rather what you are trying to argue?

You are saying that people in the Army are "Trained" to lose their humanity and thus all training implies a lose of humanity. The first part of that is untrue, as referenced by the fact that a person must A) Perceive the legality of an order, which requires critical thinking and B) Do something about it. In which since, they are not machines but rather rational beings.

The second part is a ridiculous notion to begin with. Training in no way shape or form has anything to do with dehumanization.

Warriorbird
03-11-2008, 09:59 PM
If that sort of thing's dehumanization... a lot of American churches (Latrin's favorite institution) are guilty of the same.

I don't think either is true.