[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
On the right, can you think of an authoritarian libertarian?
[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism is economic authoritarianism, or at least a major enabler for it; it’s all about the rich people’s “right” to stomp all over everybody else, and ignore any and all responsibilities. It’s all about the belief that the only source of the abuse of power is the government. In reality, without government to restrain them, organizations like corporations and churches will just move into the power vacuum. Being beaten to death by a corporate thug for unionizing is just as bad as being shot for denouncing the local President For Life.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Who has said they believe that? Not me. Not any liberal I know. Who are you talking about? Show me a liberal who says that doctors should be allowed to kill full term, in vitro fetuses.
I’ve said the woman has a right to remove it from her body but that the state has a right to keep it alive if it wants to. Do you think that an early inducement of labor is a form of abortion? I don’t.
[/QUOTE]
After reading Lemur’s post again, I think I misunderstood where he was coming from. If the question is only about a seemingly arbitrary demarcation for when a fetus acquires civil rights (at birth, I contend), then all I can say is the line HAS to be arbitrary and that the moment when the entity is no longer inside another person seems to be the most logical place to draw the line.
What;s the difference beween an eighteen year old on his birthday and the day before his birthday? There’s no reall line between a “child” and an “adult” yet we still recognize that we have to draw a line someplace and that “children” and “adults” don’t have the same rights.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Being beaten to death by a corporate thug for unionizing is just as bad as being shot for denouncing the local President For Life.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and being shot for refusing to teach your kid evolution is just as bad as being shot for using too much sugar in your coffee.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this does not make sense.
I haven’t yet read Dean’s book, but I’ve heard him describe and defend it on several TV shows. It sounds like he has put a lot of effort into a subject that troubles him. That is the hijacking, in his opinion, of the Republican party by a bunch a authoritarian butcher-boys.
What’s really amusing is the characterization of the book by some as liberal ranting. The seem to histaken John Dean for Howard Dean.
Here’s the difference between a non-authoritarian social liberal and a Diogenes-style authoritarian social liberal:
Non-authoritarian: Chldren have the right to learn about evolution if they so wish. A parent may send his kid to a religious school where evolution is not taught, but cannot forbid his child from reading about evolution.
Diogenes-style authoritarian: The parents and the child have no say. The state has the right to mandate that the child be taught evolution regardless of the wishes of the child or the parents.
As for the SCOTUS’s position, they have not weighed in on this particular issue, but I think their decision in Yoder is predictive of how they would rule. In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that compulsary education beyond the 8th grade is a violation of religious freedom. The case was brought by the Amish and the court stated:
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Right, and being shot for refusing to teach your kid evolution is just as bad as being shot for using too much sugar in your coffee.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this does not make sense.
[/QUOTE]
Who said anybody should be shot for it, or even punished all. I just think that homeschool kids should have to be able to answer some basic test questions on evolution to receive his diploma (or whatever the hell homeschool kids receive). If he can’t pass it, he doesn’t get the paper or the high school equivalency certification or whatever. That’s all. No shooting. No penalty for the parents. Just a refusal to certify the kid as having the equivalent of a standard high school education. I’m not asking for anything any different than how they’re tested on math or reading skills.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Who said anybody should be shot for it, or even punished all. I just think that homeschool kids should have to be able to answer some basic test questions on evolution to receive his diploma (or whatever the hell homeschool kids receive).
[/QUOTE]
And why evolution? Why not String Theory as well? Your concept of liberalism is what gives amunition to the likes of Ann Coulter when she writes in “Godless” that liberals treat their political beliefs like a religion. Your belief is always right and if anyone disagrees with you, it’s not that reasonable people can disagree about many things, they’re wrong.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And why evolution?
[/quote]
Because it’s every bit as essential to a basic education as reading or history or algebra.
Because that’s not basic and essential.
Wow, I disagree with people who disagree with me. What an insight.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because it’s every bit as essential to a basic education as reading or history or algebra.
[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously stating that evoution is as essential to a basic education as reading? Seriously?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Right, and being shot for refusing to teach your kid evolution is just as bad as being shot for using too much sugar in your coffee.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, this does not make sense.
[/QUOTE]
No, your comparision is what makes no sense; the victim in your illogical example is the kid, who is being lied to. Nor does your silly attempt to mock me make me wrong; it just shows that I am right, you know I am right, so you come up with this nonsense to distract people from the fact I am right.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And why evolution? Why not String Theory as well? Your concept of liberalism is what gives amunition to the likes of Ann Coulter when she writes in “Godless” that liberals treat their political beliefs like a religion.
[/quote]
Neither of those is either a political belief or a religion; evolution is a fact, string theory is a scientific theory.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Your belief is always right and if anyone disagrees with you, it’s not that reasonable people can disagree about many things, they’re wrong.
[/QUOTE]
There are beliefs, and there are facts; evolution is a fact. You might as well disbelieve in gravity.
Homeschool curricula was not one of the things I said reasonable people couldn’t disagree about, by the way. I said that about abortion rights and believe it’s also true about a couple of other things like gay rights and some SOCAS issues but I don’t feel that way about every single left-right bone of contention.
I think homeschooled kids should have to be able to answer some basic questions about evolutionary theory as part of their testing requirements. if you think that makes me a totalitarian, so be it.
I meant authoritarian, not totalitarian. Sorry.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Are you seriously stating that evoution is as essential to a basic education as reading? Seriously?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely as important.
Now you’re going to ask me when anyone needs to know anything about evolution in their daily lives, right? Well, when do they need to know American history or literature? How often do they really need algebra or geometry? How often do they need geography? But I bet you don’t have a problem with putting THOSE subjects on the tests, do you?
I think trying to define an essential education as only encompassing that which has immediate practical value to be a strawman objection. By that standard, almost nothing would be considered essential. Evolution is the very foundation of all biology. It also has some pretty considerable significance to human history in that it explains our very existence. I don’t see how explaining the origin of the human species is any less essential than teaching about the Revolutionary War.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Absolutely as important.
Now you’re going to ask me when anyone needs to know anything about evolution in their daily lives, right? Well, when do they need to know American history or literature? How often do they really need algebra or geometry? How often do they need geography? But I bet you don’t have a problem with putting THOSE subjects on the tests, do you?
I think trying to define an essential education as only encompassing that which has immediate practical value to be a strawman objection. By that standard, almost nothing would be considered essential. Evolution is the very foundation of all biology. It also has some pretty considerable significance to human history in that it explains our very existence. I don’t see how explaining the origin of the human species is any less essential than teaching about the Revolutionary War.
[/QUOTE]
I asked specifically about reading. Teaching children to read. Do you think that evolution is as essential as reading?
Yes.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Absolutely as important.
Now you’re going to ask me when anyone needs to know anything about evolution in their daily lives, right? Well, when do they need to know American history or literature? How often do they really need algebra or geometry? How often do they need geography? But I bet you don’t have a problem with putting THOSE subjects on the tests, do you?
I think trying to define an essential education as only encompassing that which has immediate practical value to be a strawman objection. By that standard, almost nothing would be considered essential. Evolution is the very foundation of all biology. It also has some pretty considerable significance to human history in that it explains our very existence. I don’t see how explaining the origin of the human species is any less essential than teaching about the Revolutionary War.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the problem. You want to rig the test so that if you don’t know anything about evolution you’ll fail. Most poeple don’t care if there are questions about evolution on a proficiency test at a public school. But out of 100 questions, evolution might take up 2 or 3. It’s just not that important a subject unless you’re planning to major in Biology.
I disagree. I think it’s a hugely important subject and that students who can’t answer a handful of questions about it should fail the science portion of the test. I think testing should be harder in general, though, including public schools. I’m kind of a hardass about educational standards in all kinds of ways. I think way too many kids are just passed through the system without really having to earn anything.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]
That is just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here’s the difference between a non-authoritarian social liberal and a Diogenes-style authoritarian social liberal:
Non-authoritarian: Chldren have the right to learn about evolution if they so wish. A parent may send his kid to a religious school where evolution is not taught, but cannot forbid his child from reading about evolution.
Diogenes-style authoritarian: The parents and the child have no say. The state has the right to mandate that the child be taught evolution regardless of the wishes of the child or the parents.
[/QUOTE]
Oh really? It is more authoritarian to say that to be considered as having completed a year in school a child learn evolution - remembering the parent is not required to say it is true, and may teach creationism as well - than to forbid a parent from controlling a minor’s reading material? Can the parent also not forbid the child access to porn? Books on satanism?
I agree that if the parent wants the kid to be marked a high school dropout, all bets are off. But if we’re pretending the kid has learned stuff, we’d better make sure the kid is taught the stuff.
BTW, does anyone know if kids in the south can get a pass out of abstinence only education from a parent? In California kids can get excused for sex ed classes (real ones I’m happy to say) if parents object - I wonder if the the same is true in Alabama.
Sarahfeena, how would you define what is essential to a high school level curriculum?