“Soylent Friskies are alien people!”
Mathematics has a liberal bias, everyone knows that.
Capitalists will tell you yes, they can.
I think the irksome nature of letting the government do it for you is the lack of choice. SSN, Medicare: all entitlements packages to help those people who would fail at investing or saving their own money.
Why do we need the government (Schools in particular) to cater to the lowest common denominator?
Because otherwise the lowest common denominators will occasionally be found lying on your front porch ridden with tuberculosis.
This is a very good point. Even if you or I are very successful, that doesn’t totally isolate us from the misfortunes of others. Those misfortunes can include untreated communicable diseases, or simply the inconvenience of having to step over homeless people (both alive and dead) as you try to walk down the sidewalk. There’s also the issue of hungry hordes desperate to feed themselves and their families.
Shouldn’t we be attempting to ‘raise them up’ instead of lowering everyone else?
There are plenty of governmental programs out there for people on hard times. In need of medical care or otherwise who can flat out get what they need.
An old proverb says: “Give the man a fish and he’ll feed his family today, but teach him to fish and he will feed his family forever”
Clarification: I guess I am referring more and more to how the school system is trending but it is still somewhat applicable here.
To improve society. That’s its job.
That’s a great and noble ideal. Tell me, exactly, how that is improving society?
Analogy: The dumbest Doper doesn’t understand what elucidator writes, does luci dumb it down for him so that he understands or does he berate him into reading up on the subject…
What, for free? No no, research assistant is a paid position. Librarian is a paid position. If you can’t figure it out for yourself, wallow in ignorance.
But I will give a hint. A society in which the infirm and elderly are not reduced to eating catfood is better than one in which they are. Their nutritional needs and in fact their dignity are far more important than you getting a warm fuzzy because your particular ideology is being followed.
-
References to proverbs rarely do anything other than give the impression that the speaker doesn’t understand the complexity of a given situation.
-
You got the proverb wrong. It’s “give a man a fish, and he’ll feed his family today, but teach him to fish and he’ll drink all day.”
So basically, there is one single solitary way for this to occur? My friend, there is enough ignorance here to go around. I guess you being the intellectual superior are going to tell me that your ideology is the correct one.
I still don’t see that catering to the lowest common denominator (no matter how low it actually goes) is a benefit to the society as a whole.
Whoever suggested lowering everyone else?
In truth, we don’t cater to the lowest common denominator. Those are called criminals, and we lock them up for various lengths of time with other people like them. We make little effort to rehabilitate them, and most will be back to doing whatever it is they were locked up for as soon as they get out.
What is your alternative suggestion for caring for the aged, the infirm, the young?
Yet, we feed them, house them, offer them health care for free (and make no attempt to rehabilitate) Some of them are better off for having committed a heinous act to society than they were prior to getting sent up.
Something is seriously wrong in that picture.
I keep hearing about the elderly and the infirm. That isn’t necessarily the lowest common denominator. What about school systems? No child left behind? At some point society is losing out because you must cater to those who don’t get it.
Why are the criminals criminals, aside from the truly insane?
I honestly don’t know and I am open to suggestions. I will tell you that I don’t particularly want to government running it. I don’t believe they are up to the task.
I said no such thing. You asked why your government should cater to the lowest common denominator (as defined by you) and I answered.
I’m not telling you anything except why your government should cater to the lowest common denominator as defined by you: to improve society. It has nothing to do with me or my superior intellect. I would assume the superiority of a system that doesn’t allow businessmen to lock seamstresses in burning factories to one that does would be manifest even if I had never been born.
But you have yet to tell me that catering to that lcd is going to benefit society. The only mathematical solution to that problem is society failing (we all become the lcd)
You don’t know; you just don’t want the government to do it.
. . .
Well, until you can come up with something better, I’m content with the government running it.