 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: Idiocracy |
 |
|
I haven't actually watched the Mike Judge film yet, but I intend to. I found a few clips yesterday and found myself wondering how I could possibly have missed it- maybe I will find out after I see the movie.
Anyways, on to the point of this thread:
Rich developed countries tend to have birth rates well below replacement level. As women's education and equality improve, birth rates decrease. Within these societies you see much higher birth rates among groups with little education and lots of religious fundamentalism. Cultures and subcultures where women have few rights are the ones that are raising the future generation.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? The worst part is that I can't see any good solutions to it.
What can possibly be done? Rolling back womens' freedom in order to turn them into baby machines is unacceptable. Not enough women are choosing to be mothers first and <insert profession here>'s second on their own accord in order to reach the replacement birth rate. Unfortunately, this entrusts the future to the idiots. The ones that think the Earth is 6000 years old and is both an infinite resource and an infinite garbage can. The ones who don't see the satire in Women: Know Your Limits and agree with it anyways. The ones who homeschool to ensure all those lovely values are "passed on" to their children. Are they the future?
Right now Canada sustains the population through immigration, but what happens when women's rights and education improve worldwide? And what happens when we try to import the entire next generation only to find they're bringing with them the same medieval social attitudes that opressed women in the first place?
I recognize that an eternally exploding population isn't sustainable- I will have to keep reminding myself of that as I become part of an ever-shrinking tax base trying to pay for the exploding healthcare costs of aging childless people. But aside from unprecedented birth rate expansion among the progressive and well-educated population, how else are we going to ensure a future that doesn't follow the same path as in Idiocracy? Are we doomed by the theory of natural selection to a future where those who treat women as property and breed like rabbits rule the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ShyViolet
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the solution is to find a way to make men pregnant too 
Ok, anyhow, you can't force anyone to have kids, and I don't think that discouraging women from pursuing higher education is reasonable either... we have as much right to attend college as men (I'm not saying you said that... just kind of "thinking out loud.") I just don't know. I see and hear too much about how women who choose to have careers and not have 5+ kids are selfish. Why? Are we any more selfish than a man who doesn't want 5+ kids and who has career? Having and raising children isn't something that only requires only a woman. Men have to be involved too. Maybe the question should be "How do we encourage smart, reasonable people to have children?" and not focus totally on women. I don't see why this has to come at the expense of us getting an education and having equality (or it least it being framed that way). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17646
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always thought that the idea of encouraging educated people to have kids in order to counteract the numbers of uneducated people having kids, or to pass on their "good genes," has something of a taint of eugenics, myself. So many factors go into "intelligence" and genetics is just one of them.
My solutions? Continue to improve the education system and reduce socioeconomic differences. Improve medical services, not just in Canada but throughout the world, so that children are healthier. Tighten up regulations around homeschooling in terms of curriculum ... not everyone who homeschools is a fundamentalist! Make higher education more universally accessible.
As Vundo points out, we don't necessarily want a population explosion; there are likely too many people on the planet already. Although a birth rate below population replacement levels causes some social challenges, they're not insurmountable. Plenty of studies show that the more educated women are, throughout the world, the fewer children they have, and that those children are healthier and better educated.
Oh, and encourage more feminism! 
Last edited by Tehanu on Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5154
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good call on the taint of eugenics Tehanu. Nice post ShyViolet.
The human race is not on the brink of extinction. I don't see what the problem is AT ALL. If you want better educated and healthier children, invest in the infrastructure that ensures these things like public schools and universal healthcare. As for fear of relying on immigrants to fulfill population needs -- so what? Hasn't that always been the case with Canada.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I definitely think this is a problem that we don't really need to start working to counteract until this condition is being faced the world over, the world population has come down considerably on it's own, and underpopulation is on the horizon as an actual issue.
Once that is the case, I would think the solution is to make it easier for women to plan to have children. Free accesible health-care, free, accessible education, universal quality daycare, healthy social support programs, work environments and policies that don't require them to re-prioritize their careers in order to raise a child/children. Obviously having a child is always going to involve personal sacrifice, but the more unneccesarily external pressures that make it harder to raise youth that can be removed, the more people will make an informed decision to raise a family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ShyViolet wrote: | | Maybe the solution is to find a way to make men pregnant too |
Heh. That's exactly the nature of the problem- we can give women all the rights and responsibilities that men enjoy, but we men just don't have the equipment to take the place of women.
| ShyViolet wrote: | | Ok, anyhow, you can't force anyone to have kids, and I don't think that discouraging women from pursuing higher education is reasonable either... we have as much right to attend college as men |
Exactly. If you were in any way wrong, the solution to the problem would be very simple.
| ShyViolet wrote: | | I just don't know. I see and hear too much about how women who choose to have careers and not have 5+ kids are selfish. Why? |
Because when those with the 5+ kids are retired, their kids are paying taxes and otherwise contributing to society. This is actually a good argument for the so-cons- can we honestly say that it's not selfish to enjoy more material wealth that could have been spent on children during our working years and then turn around and demand fair pensions and healthcare in retirement? Of course there are many other factors that must be considered, but still...
| ShyViolet wrote: | | Maybe the question should be "How do we encourage smart, reasonable people to have children?" and not focus totally on women. I don't see why this has to come at the expense of us getting an education and having equality (or it least it being framed that way). |
The focus is on women because if their rights are respected, they're got a helluva lot more power over childbearing decisions than men do. Male literacy and education don't correlate with low birth rates; female literacy and education rates do. I agree that men should be expected to play a more balanced role, but the choice will still be more of a woman's than a man's because of biology.
| Tehanu wrote: | | I've always thought that the idea of encouraging educated people to have kids in order to counteract the numbers of uneducated people having kids, or to pass on their "good genes," has something of a taint of eugenics, myself. So many factors go into "intelligence" and genetics is just one of them. |
I cringe every time I read about a relationship between genetics and intelligence for that very reason. As much as I hope there is no truth to that, I can't deny the possibility that there may be. But you're right, fortunately there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that it's not 100% genetics.
But it's not the genetics I am getting at, it's the upbringing. It may not matter who the gametes come from, but it does matter whether or not a child is encouraged to read books and explore their talents. I don't think we're gonna get much of that from parents whose favourite pastimes involve beer, pork rinds, and professional wrestling on TV; the ones who get their only intellectual stimulation from listening to Bill O'Reilly.
| Tehanu wrote: | | My solutions? Continue to improve the education system and reduce socioeconomic differences. |
As I pointed out, education and affluence tend to encourage low birth rates. I think we're all agreed that sacrificing education for increased birth rates is a bad idea. That's why there is no simple solution.
Tighten up regulations around homeschooling in terms of curriculum ... not everyone who homeschools is a fundamentalist![/quote]
Not every one of them, but it's a growing trend among the fundamentalists because they don't like the idea of liberalism stealing their children via the big bad public education system. But I certainly agree with making sure that curricula are sound and that standards are well-enforced. That will help bring some children who were raised by unreasonable people into the world of reason.
| Tehanu wrote: | | Make higher education more universally accessible. |
While that makes for an interesting discussion topic by itself, it doesn't address the problem. People who persue many years of higher education tend not to have children while they're studying. Those who can't or won't go to school are then raising the future generation. That's the problem I posed. I started coming at this from more of a hypothetical "what if the satirists are right" perspective. But the more I debate this, the more sense it makes.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vundo Draxon
Leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1712
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparqui wrote: |
The human race is not on the brink of extinction. I don't see what the problem is AT ALL. If you want better educated and healthier children, invest in the infrastructure that ensures these things like public schools and universal healthcare. As for fear of relying on immigrants to fulfill population needs -- so what? Hasn't that always been the case with Canada. |
| Raos wrote: | | I definitely think this is a problem that we don't really need to start working to counteract until this condition is being faced the world over, the world population has come down considerably on it's own, and underpopulation is on the horizon as an actual issue. |
It's a matter of quality, not quantity. Perhaps you should see the video clips that inspired my opening post:
Introduction
The Trial
Fox News coverage of The Trial |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
satori shinobi
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 533
Location: where they hung the jerk that invented work
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, as has been implied, the offspring of a destructive culture will not necessarily carry on that culture if a better one is available to them. At the risk of sounding superior, I'm quite fond of Canadian values (as they are commonly understood) and studies show that children of immigrants from less progressive backgrounds tend to become "Canadian" in this regard rather than adopt the prejudices of their parents. I think this same dynamic is showing itself in all walks of Canadian life.
I agree there is a culture war for a certain set of values, and that the "other side" has a higher birthrate in general, but this doesn't add up to winning the battle. Media is a more effective tool in this than multiplying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vundo Draxon wrote: |
It's a matter of quality, not quantity. Perhaps you should see the video clips that inspired my opening post: |
I apologize, in that I haven't taken so much as a glance at those links, because I don't have time now, so I'm not responding to those.
As far as looking at quality, not quantity, I don't seeing winning the quality game by saturating society in the children of progressives as a positive, because it's exacerbating the quantity dilemma, which could make the whole situation moot anyway. It seems, to me at least, a bit like environmentalists burning all the fossil fuels in a bonfire to force society to adopt less fossil fuel intensive technologies. If we improve the quality of society by saturating it with progressive children, to the point where overpopulation is an even bigger problem and there aren't enough resources to provide a quality life for everybody, did we really "win"?
Just as Jacob Two-Two mentioned, "their kids" will not necessarily grow up to be like "them". More accessible education and social programs to allow "their children" to grow into progressive adults would be a far more productive scenario. If it results in "their kids", now progressive adults, having fewer children themselves, then I see that, at least initially, as a positive, because the Earth is overpopulated. When the population is far lower, and it's no longer an "us vs. them" birth rate dichotomy, if population sustainability is a problem, then would be the time to look at stronger methods to promote progressives choosing to start families in greater numbers, and having larger families. If that is the case, the solution I presented above is still what I would see as the ideal method with which to provide that incentive.
| Vundo Draxon wrote: | | Because when those with the 5+ kids are retired, their kids are paying taxes and otherwise contributing to society. This is actually a good argument for the so-cons- can we honestly say that it's not selfish to enjoy more material wealth that could have been spent on children during our working years and then turn around and demand fair pensions and healthcare in retirement? Of course there are many other factors that must be considered, but still... |
Not in the slightest. If you consider that couple who focused on their career likely had greater wages than the couple who focused on building a family, those 5+ kids, plus the parent not focusing on their career (and how many of those 5+ kids are not contributing as much taxes because they're building a family of 5+ kids as well?), that 7+ person family may only be contributing 2-3 times the taxes as the couple with no children, when those 5+ kids are also understandably demanding equally fair pensions and healthcare, that 2-3 times greater tax contribution is only covering 4-6 people of the 7+ member family, compared to the 2 person couple. Looking at the present, when the adults are "contributing members of society", the couple with no children, earning higher wages, is contributing more in taxes to support their own parents' pensions and health-care, while by this logic, you could claim the 5+ child couple is neglecting their tax obligation to support their own parents, in favour of fostering their own tax base to support their own retirement. Is it really fair to say, in either direction, who's being a good citizen and who's not? I think this is exactly why such things as pensions and health care are a communal obligation to all of society, rather than an individual responsibility, or a family responsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: Idiocracy |
|
|
| Vundo Draxon wrote: |
...Rich developed countries tend to have birth rates well below replacement level. As women's education and equality improve, birth rates decrease. Within these societies you see much higher birth rates among groups with little education and lots of religious fundamentalism. Cultures and subcultures where women have few rights are the ones that are raising the future generation.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? The worst part is that I can't see any good solutions to it. |
Well, to begin with, it seems obvious that if it's rich developed countries that have low birth rates, perhaps one could start by helping all countries to become rich and developed.
One of the things that many people don't, or won't, see is that harsh environments create harsh cultures.
It's not surprising that Afghanistan has the culture that it does. In a country that is mostly above the tree line, and which gives real meaning to the term 'subsistence level', a culture developed that allowed people to live there.
Liberalism is a luxury affordable only by those who have the economic wherewithal. In the harsh environments of Central Asia (and other similar places on earth), it is not only women who are oppressed. The whole society must adhere to roles laid out for them, regardless of their wishes. It is the only way for their societies to continue to exist.
We have the means to ensure they get their share of the economic wealth they help generate. Unfortunately capitalism doesn't, and can't, allow that to happen. So instead of shelter from the rain, they get not only rain, but exploding steel rain from the sky (to go along with the millions of exploding 'stones' on the ground).
Then, with the infinite hubris of the corporate manager, we proclaim their culture as an example of all that is wrong with the world.
By the way, as a child of strictly fundamentalist religious parents, I'll mention that of the four children in my family, not a single one is religious, three of the four got higher education, and three of the four have quite progressive world views (not the same three, by the way).
So just being born and raised in a fundamental religious environment is no predictor of future 'fundamentalist' leanings.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This offends my egalitarism, though it is a very persistent Occidental, fuedal, and USAn moral tale. BTW, Search matched "education AND stealing".
Jailed for "Stealing" Public Education - 12 Years for Wanting a Public Education for her Children
Tanya McDowell Sentenced to 12 Years for Stealing Education
by Lovelylocks; The Savvy Sista - "The Savviest Site on the Web..."; February 28, 2012
| Quote: | I literally am sitting at my desk with tears in my eyes as I type this article. I don't think I have felt this much shame about being an American since the execution of Troy Davis. It is times like these I am reminded that no matter how noble our written intentions are in the Constitution, our system is really only as "good" as the people who run it.
If you don't know the story of Tanya McDowell she made headlines last year when she was arrested for using a friend's address to send her son to a school in a better neighborhood. At the time, McDowell was homeless but wanted her son to have access to a quality education.
Now before we look at her particular case, I have to tell you all that yesterday salon.com ran an article about Presidential candidate Rick Santorum. During his stomp for the Republican nomination, Santorum has frequently referenced the fact that his wife home schools their seven children. Well according to this article, the State of PA picked up part of the tab to home school his children even though his family resided in Virginia at the time. The article went on to characterize Santorum's behavior as unethical but not quite illegal. The school district in PA, which tried to recover its money from Santorum, spent two hundred thousand dollars buying computers, software etc for five of the Santorum children for three years. Oh by the way, Santorum refused to repay the money and the State of PA eventually picked up the tab (what was that again about not making Black people rich by giving them other people's money?).
So this man can lie about his state of residency and use funds from another state to educate his children and NOTHING happens to him but a poor, homeless, mother wants to use someone else's address to send her child to the best school district in her area and it's considered theft of education??? Please tell me I am not the only person who sees something wrong with this scenario.
... |
http://www.the-savvy-sista.com/2012/02/tanya-mcdowell-sentenced-to-... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where has this thread been hiding?
The solution is in electrolytes...or...hmmm, the electrolytes in the solution?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparqui
Dog tired
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5154
Location: Winnipeg
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TWELVE YEARS!
And how is it not fraud to bilk one state government of $200k when home schooling in another state?
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”
-- Gilles Duceppe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, but he's a nice white guy who goes to church! He can't be a fraudster!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So is it the case that neither she nor Santorum did anything wrong? Or is it the case that they should both be subject to the same punishment?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the point is that at the very least some cosistency is in order.
Personally, if leeway's going to be given, it should be to the homeless woman who is trying to do what she can for her kid, not the rich SOB who had a lot more choice in the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm down with consistency. I guess I'm just wondering whether:
a) people basically agree she committed fraud, but note that when Santorum committed fraud it went unpunished
b) people basiclly believe that what she and Santorum did was OK, and that she, like Santorum, should have suffered no consequences for it
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sibjyn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1120
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Punishment should fit the crime. If what Santorum is doing is legal then there's no basis to arbirtraily punish somebody else with a draconian jail term for essentially doing the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would appear that the 12 years is a combined sentence for this and also for four counts of selling narcotics. And even the 12 years commutes to a suspended sentence after 5 years.
So to pass this off as someone receiving a 12 year prison sentence "for stealing education" is willfully dishonest. Good for manufacturing some outrage though.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | It would appear that the 12 years is a combined sentence for this and also for four counts of selling narcotics. And even the 12 years commutes to a suspended sentence after 5 years.
So to pass this off as someone receiving a 12 year prison sentence "for stealing education" is willfully dishonest. Good for manufacturing some outrage though. |
Not exactly. In that the prosecution refused to split the drug charges from the larceny charges, the sentence applies to both. There is also the terms of her probation which could require her to repay several thousand dollars to Norwalk.
Tanya McDowell is not a person I would associate with, but there is another victim, that is, her son. He too is being punished, losing his mother and being removed from a school.
Should we be outraged that someone is charged with larceny and conspiracy for placing their son in the 'wrong' school? Yes.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Should we be outraged that someone is charged with larceny and conspiracy for placing their son in the 'wrong' school? Yes.
|
So you don't figure maybe the narcotics charges and fraud charges have anything to do with it then?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Multiple existing so-called PRIMITIVE cultures along the lines of Restorative Justice would 1) educate the child, 2) hold the States partially responsible for failing its citizen-families, .3) address the disparity, ... .
Meanwhile, some bloviate over black or white.IMNSHO.
FYI http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloviate note the Origin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For what it's worth, I don't think 12 years would be appropriate for fraud, but neither do I buy into the Pollyanna nonsense that she's being punished for "putting her child in the wrong school". It seems her supporters have a hard time admitting that however well intentioned she may have been, she and a friend committed fraud.
To me it's a little like a U.S. citizen "accidentally borrowing" a Canadian friend's address and Social Insurance Number in order to get some health care. Sure, we can say that "everyone has a right to health care", and we can certainly understand someone wanting the best health care they can get, but none of that implies a right to CANADIAN health care, paid for by Canadians. To conspire to get some anyway is fraud, plain and simple. And so was this.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | For what it's worth, I don't think 12 years would be appropriate for fraud, but neither do I buy into the Pollyanna nonsense that she's being punished for "putting her child in the wrong school". It seems her supporters have a hard time admitting that however well intentioned she may have been, she and a friend committed fraud.
To me it's a little like a U.S. citizen "accidentally borrowing" a Canadian friend's address and Social Insurance Number in order to get some health care. Sure, we can say that "everyone has a right to health care", and we can certainly understand someone wanting the best health care they can get, but none of that implies a right to CANADIAN health care, paid for by Canadians. To conspire to get some anyway is fraud, plain and simple. And so was this. |
Here's the thing, Magoo. This happens on a systematic basis here in Canada. All the time people use addresses that are not the child's residence to get into the catchment areas for particular schools. This has become such a problem for some schools in Toronto like Earl Haig that the TDSB has had to reduce Earl Haig's catchment area. So if it is reasonable to call what this woman did fraud, then why should the Toronto Police not be running a massive investigation busting the parents who use an aunt's address or a grandfather's address or whatever to get their kid into a particular school here? For that matter, why not a systematic investigation in the United States? It is naive not to think that this had anything to do with the fact that the mother and child are black and the school district she "fraudulently" got him into is predominantly white.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can see how that would be a problem for any school with a fixed capacity, but isn't it the case that the mill rate is the same from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in Toronto? So no parent who legitimately lives within the catchment area could claim that someone from three streets over pays less in taxes than they do and is free riding.
It would be similar to me having a big cut that needs medical attention and driving out of my way to a "better" hospital in the city than the one nearest me. There's no free riding there.
I'm curious though why, as a lawyer, you put the word fraudulent in scare quotes. Do you believe that your sympathy for this woman makes what she did NOT fraud? If you were to read the law in her jurisdiction, do you think you would conclude that no fraud happened?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maestro
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2359
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | Should we be outraged that someone is charged with larceny and conspiracy for placing their son in the 'wrong' school? Yes.
|
So you don't figure maybe the narcotics charges and fraud charges have anything to do with it then? |
You didn't read what I said, even though you quoted it directly!
What I said was,
"Should we be outraged that someone is charged with larceny and conspiracy for placing their son in the wrong school? Yes.
I said absolutely nothing about the the drug charges. The larceny and conspiracy charges had nothing to do with the drug charges.
Even if the resultant sentence was based solely on the drug offences, the fact that she was charged with an offence for sending her son to the wrong school is ridiculous.
Here's a bit more information for the hard of understanding:
Lawmakers raise questions
| Quote: | State lawmakers are wondering why a homeless Bridgeport woman is being prosecuted on felony charges for enrolling her son in a Norwalk school.
Rep. Bruce V. Morris, D-Norwalk, said Wednesday that since Tanya McDowell's 5-year-old son A.J. was withdrawn from Brookside Elementary School in January, she should be held accountable for no more than half the $15,000 she has been charged with stealing.
If it were $7,500, it would only reach the level of a misdemeanor, he said, stressing that the case underscores Connecticut's record of depriving inner-city residents of the same level of education that is available in the suburbs.
...House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, the city's longtime expulsion and residency hearing officer, said Wednesday that usually a parent is given a low-profile chance to withdraw.
...He said the school system usually holds a probable-cause hearing in which the onus is on the parent to prove they live in the city.
A lawyer, Cafero called McDowell's pending trial a possible "case of first impression" that could set a legal precedent, especially since she is homeless.
"If the person was homeless and their domicile was a homeless shelter within the town, then that town has an obligation to educate that child," Cafero said.
He said parents caught crossing district lines are usually given a chance to move to the city. Often, parents go to Probate Court to place a child into the custody of relatives who live in Norwalk.
..."Norwalk public schools have identified people in the past who have fraudulently used different addresses in order to have their kids enrolled in Norwalk public schools," said Morris, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "However, the practice has always been that those students were disenrolled. The schools have never pushed for any criminal charges. Certainly this is in the extreme."
|
Forget the drug charges. This women was charged with a crime for placing her son in a school she may or may not have been allowed to. In the past, similar incidents were dealt with administratively.
Obviously that is the way it should have been done this time.
By the way, note the parents who place their children in the custody of relatives in order to get them into the apparently better schools of Norwalk. That is a powerful testament to the state of the school system outside of Norwalk.
_________________
On the wilds of the Drive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Even if the resultant sentence was based solely on the drug offences, the fact that she was charged with an offence for sending her son to the wrong school is ridiculous.
|
Ah, so she just "sent him to the wrong school". An honest mistake, right?
In other news, why is everyone so mad at Rob Ford just for wanting to improve subway service??
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | I can see how that would be a problem for any school with a fixed capacity, but isn't it the case that the mill rate is the same from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in Toronto? So no parent who legitimately lives within the catchment area could claim that someone from three streets over pays less in taxes than they do and is free riding.
It would be similar to me having a big cut that needs medical attention and driving out of my way to a "better" hospital in the city than the one nearest me. There's no free riding there.
I'm curious though why, as a lawyer, you put the word fraudulent in scare quotes. Do you believe that your sympathy for this woman makes what she did NOT fraud? If you were to read the law in her jurisdiction, do you think you would conclude that no fraud happened? |
I put it in scare quotes because I don't think it is fraud, and the law should not define it as such.
As for "schools with fixed capacity", every school has fixed capacity! It is limited by classroom space! Can you point me to a school that doesn't have a physically fixed capacity?
Also, you are an educational professional. Do you really believe that what highschool someone attends has so little impact on their life that the difference between them is equivalent to the impact on your life that different treatment for a big cut has? The only difference is going to be less waiting time. As someone who has gone to a hospital for a big cut, let me tell you that the waiting time sucks, but having to wait an extra hour or two is not going to have a major impact on the rest of your life. Going to one school or another has the capacity to make such a change.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I put it in scare quotes because I don't think it is fraud, and the law should not define it as such.
|
If an American were to borrow a friend's Canadian address and SIN in order to get some Canadian health care, would that be fraud? Or "fraud"?
| Quote: | | Also, you are an educational professional. Do you really believe that what highschool someone attends has so little impact on their life that the difference between them is equivalent to the impact on your life that different treatment for a big cut has? |
No, and that wasn't my point. My point was just that I can use the services of any hospital in the city, since my taxes fund all of them.
As I understand it, the municipal taxes of the citizens of Bridgeport don't fund services in Norwalk, and that's at the root of the fraud charge. As I understand it, schools in Norwalk spend about twice as much per student as schools in Bridgeport. I'm assuming that extra money comes from Norwalk taxpayers who may not care to fund the education of someone who's not from Norwalk.
But while we're on the subject of better schools, she enrolled her son in KINDERGARTEN. Perhaps they have better flavours of Play-Doh in Norwalk, or better and more convincing hand puppets. The kind of thing that makes or breaks a child's future, as you say.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The system is fraudulent, and so every fraudulent act undertaken by individuals who live under the system only mimics what administrators of the system permit for themselves. No subsequent act of fraud should therefore be punishable, unless of course it results in physical harm to someone, because those who commit such acts are only living by the example set for them by people like Santorum, in this instance. If anything, an example should be made of hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, ya. Whatevs.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Uh, ya. Whatevs. |
I say 'whatevs' to two standards. Unaccountable fraud artists in power, and fraud artists without power being subjected to accountability by the unaccountable ones. Until such time as things change in that regard, I'll support the grandfathering in of exceptions to the 'rule of law' for those without the means to buy and influence their way around in society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No subsequent act of fraud should therefore be punishable, unless of course it results in physical harm to someone |
But wait! If the "elites" are allowed to harm others with impunity, how is it fair that you and I can't?
Here's the thing. If you care to look for it, you can always find an example of someone "getting off scot free" on something. But the fact that you see someone jaywalk with apparent impunity doesn't suddenly legalize jaywalking. You're just rationalizing.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
6079_Smith_W
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 571
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just catching up with this thread.
On the "eugenics" call, I can understand the inference, but I have to disagree.
In the first place, eugenics is when you actually stop people from having children. Also, it is a concept that has to do with genetics or race, not values and ideas.
More importantly, in many cases I hear some people say they would never want to bring children into a world like this. I think telling them that raising progressive-minded children is the only way to change that is a good thing all around.
Don't want to have kids of your own? Adopt, or just get involved in having a positive influence on the people who are going to take over the world some day. I don't think it really matters.
excuse the short backtrack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | But wait! If the "elites" are allowed to harm others with impunity, how is it fair that you and I can't? |
When it comes to physical harm in the pursuit of economic advantage, it's not a question of fairness if we don't get to or wish to engage in it ourselves. It's a matter of trying to realize another world by not being like them...by refusing what it takes to maintain oneself as an elite.
| Quote: | | Here's the thing. If you care to look for it, you can always find an example of someone "getting off scot free" on something. But the fact that you see someone jaywalk with apparent impunity doesn't suddenly legalize jaywalking. You're just rationalizing. |
No, in this society it doesn't legalize jaywalking by default if a rich person gets let off with a handshake by the attending policeman, and by comparison the average person gets a ticket, or pepperspray and a bruised up arrest for protesting too much. The average person doesn't make the rules, and an insistence by the average person that the rules be applied to everyone only carries so far, as far as the person or office or position where we typically find people who benefit from an unequal application of justice, normally occupied in our society by the wealthy, politically connected elite. There is only the law of the elite that one must conform to, which is quite different from real justice, as has been the case throughout history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | When it comes to physical harm in the pursuit of economic advantage, it's not a question of fairness if we don't get to or wish to engage in it ourselves. |
What if it has nothing at all to do with economic advantage? If Chris Brown can assault his partner and avoid jail, why can't every man? How is that fair, by your standards of fairness?
| Quote: | | It's a matter of trying to realize another world by not being like them...by refusing what it takes to maintain oneself as an elite. |
How is committing fraud "like they do" any kind of attempt to NOT be like them??
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | What if it has nothing at all to do with economic advantage? If Chris Brown can assault his partner and avoid jail, why can't every man? How is that fair, by your standards of fairness? |
I think it's an asinine proposition to suggest that somewhere in the template toward a better society, provision be inserted to facilitate having the masses assault whomever they please with impunity, just like the elite of the current society does now. Chris Brown was able to access competent lawyers and apply them to his benefit in a system where violence and hatred against women is practiced at all levels, including over the elite sponspored airwaves as with recent case of loudmouth Limbaugh.
| Quote: | | How is committing fraud "like they do" any kind of attempt to NOT be like them?? |
A line should be drawn somewhere don't you think? If we're talking about day to day survival in a dog eat dog society ridden with every manner of rampant corruption at the very highest levels, as they have now in the US for example, expecting the masses not to follow suit within such a bare knuckled struggle as a means to obtain their share of life as it exists is too great of an expectation in my estimation. By the same token I don't necessarily believe it to be an excessive expectation to suggest that in the bottom up struggle toward a better society, if that is what is being sought after, that we refrain as much as possible from killing other people. If a general social betterment isn't the sought after objective, and it really is a struggle not far removed from the bestial elements of nature, then we might very well be correct in assigning the blame for such wanton excesses of violence among the masses on the examples being set for them, on the nature they must conform with in order to try and survive as the 'alpha' class does.
Last edited by Slumberjack on Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think it's an asinine proposition to suggest that somewhere in the template toward a better society, provision be inserted to facilitate having the masses assault whomever they please with impunity, just like the elite of the current society does now. |
I'm just following your own logic.
If "regular folk" should be able to commit fraud with impunity because some rich guy can, why is it any different with regard to assault??
It's fair that some regular guy should go to jail for assaulting his partner when someone like Chris Brown doesn't? Tell us how that's fair.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | If "regular folk" should be able to commit fraud with impunity because some rich guy can, why is it any different with regard to assault?? |
Because assault transgresses against the autonomy and dignity of the individual, and fraud in terms of this discussion undermines, little by little, a society built upon fraud, one where the masses are prohibited through an unequal application of justice from partaking in the same delights as it were, that the elite routinely enjoys. And so fraud in this context represents a justifiable defensive mechanism on the part of those elements of society who are repressed by inequality. And we know from all the examples that the elite can only enjoy their delights through varying levels of repression.
| Quote: | | It's fair that some regular guy should go to jail for assaulting his partner when someone like Chris Brown doesn't? Tell us how that's fair. |
Ok, well, not that you were making any sense before, but this is really out to lunch I have to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ok, well, not that you were making any sense before, but this is really out to lunch I have to say. |
It's a very simple question.
If it's unfair that someone go to jail for fraud when some rich guy doesn't, how is it not also unfair that someone go to jail for assault when some rich guy doesn't?
I know you can understand the question. You're just avoiding it.
Consistency is so inconvenient sometimes.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | It's a very simple question. |
It's a pallid attempt at obscurantism, at best.
| Quote: | | If it's unfair that someone go to jail for fraud when some rich guy doesn't, how is it not also unfair that someone go to jail for assault when some rich guy doesn't? |
Boundaries have to be set by any community if they wish to live together in peace, so therefore in a community where individual justice is held to be important, physical assault as you describe would require sanctioning by the community. This is beside the fact that under the current construct, different standards apply depending on one's access to competent representation at trial, along with other advantages due to influence. We needn't say that it should be a free for all just because the rich guys get away with it. It places too great of a burden on those likely to be assaulted, merely to prove a point. We should say instead that this system needs to be bought down so that everyone pays for such crimes.
| Quote: | | Consistency is so inconvenient sometimes. |
No, not at all actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We needn't say that it should be a free for all just because the rich guys get away with it. It places too great of a burden on those likely to be assaulted, merely to prove a point. |
It's not "merely to prove a point" if you're some working-class guy rotting in jail for doing exactly what Chris Brown did. Or for that matter, O.J. I have to think that if you're that guy this would entail far more than making a point.
| Quote: | | We should say instead that this system needs to be bought down so that everyone pays for such crimes. |
Then why not do exactly the same for other crimes??
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | It's not "merely to prove a point" if you're some working-class guy rotting in jail for doing exactly what Chris Brown did. Or for that matter, O.J. I have to think that if you're that guy this would entail far more than making a point. |
It's a question of addressing imbalances. The spreading around of justice and decency just as we'd prefer for our community. This is something the regime in Ottawa with their emphases on crime manifestly refuses to understand. There's little doubt about it being an awfully difficult conception to try and devise however, let alone to maintain. It's just that I prefer if we decided at some point soon to take a crack at it, regardless of the conclusions that Foucault and others arrived at about the nature of power and subsequent replacements.
| Quote: | | Then why not do exactly the same for other crimes?? |
It's not a desirable solution at the moment, because of the imbalances already discussed. But perhaps in a funny way it's possible that you're on the right track with such questions without knowing it. Maybe the repression has to get much worse before many more people all around us begin to devise ways of alleviating it on their own. In that case it could be said that social political attempts that work in conjunction with Capitalism merely slows things down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've scrolled past most of this thread, as Idiocracy is hardly mentioned.
How about going to hospital and having a medical diagnosis made by someone running a keypad that resembles the till at Taco Time?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6048
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last month I went to a conference on education (most of it had to do with using technology, which is typical where I work - the place has a tech fetish) in which a prof from the U of Regina was gushing about all the new gizmos we can use and how they're changing the world.
He was really excited that we can use Google to find out anything we want, and so we can in effect know anything.
I didn't speak up (we were close to lunchtime - generally the most interesting segment of these conferences), but what this guy wasn't noting is that if we can "google" our knowledge, our brains will become useless appendages rather than storehouses of what we know. Computers will have the same effect on our ability to know anything that the printed word has had on our memories. When we went from an oral culture to a print culture we lost the ability to recollect our stories and our histories.
In a few generations we may lose our ability to think.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, come on, Warrior Mom Jenny McCarthy touts "University of Google" as the means to becoming an expert on the causes and cure of autism... Who can argue with that? 
I think the greater danger is not in using google to find things out or look them up (which is entirely different than KNOWING anyway), but in not teaching people how to sort through the vast amounts of bullshit that will come up.
I've spent a bunch of time walking my kids through the critical process when they come up with something on the 'net that just isn't credible. It's too easy to take incorrect information at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caissa
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Saint John
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You might enjoy the book The Dumbest Generation, Al-Q. Talks about the effects of screens on the current generation. The first chapters report some interesting research although I thought the book went off the rails towards the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really see much difference between looking things up on Google, or visiting the public library to browse through hard copy reference material. There's plenty of nonsense on the shelves at any given library that one might have to sift through before finding something that makes sense, or then again perhaps not, resulting in a wasted trip entirely. At least Google wastes less time than an outing at the library, for the price of a few mouse clicks. As for brain storehouses, whether we read hard copy reference books, or pdf, html versions, etc, makes little difference where it concerns our capacity to squirrel things away up there. But critical thinking is certainly becoming extinct, and not primarily because of individual preferences with format. It has more to do with what is being taught, what is predominately being made available before our eyes to absorb, most of which having already been analyzed for us to adapt with. In a sense perhaps google does contribute to a general laziness, which in itself extends toward a laziness in thinking or sifting through things on our own. But this process was well advanced throughout the world of print long before the internet.
_________________
There is this old notion, Bolshevik, a little frigid for sure; the building of the Party. I think that our present war is about giving new content to this depopulated fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slumberjack
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 923
Location: squelch~~big waves and high smiles from the stomach and intestine of capital.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I got a sense of the 'dumbest generation' not too long ago during a very brief conversation with my partner's teenager, set to graduate high school next year with honours if the trend continues for another year, who inquired as to why we have to 'give' things to 'natives'...and why did they come here in the first place. Brief because I was casually strolling by, minding my own business while on my way out to the patio to enjoy a freshly rolled spliff on a fine summer's evening, after which I picked up the pace considerably without attempting an answer.
_________________
There is this old notion, Bolshevik, a little frigid for sure; the building of the Party. I think that our present war is about giving new content to this depopulated fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timebandit
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe it's more the conscious retention of information - we don't hang on to information because we don't have to, we can just look it up on the phone/tablet/laptop/whathaveyou. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics