You can drive at 16, vote at 18, and drink at 21, at least here in Michigan. People in the US do, in fact, have degrees of autonomy, as dictated by actions they are legally allowed to take, as it is recognized that decision making is a gradual improvement. Not some magical switchboard you use "autonomy" as a buzzword for. Basic human rights are actually generally agreed upon as having stages; the abortion argument rests entirely on this matter, as does the legality of compulsory education.
What you have done here is interesting. It's a tactic I have noticed that both Reactionaries and Wokescolds like to use. You have taken what I said, abstracted it, and then essentialized it. In doing so you appear to be answering what I have said but in reality you have pivoted the conversation away from the original topic. Let's examine the process of how you did this.
Initial Statement said:
No you don't. You (general) do not value autonomy at all. As to children being "given" full autonomy... Children cannot be given autonomy. It is either something they have or they do not have. Children do not have autonomy. It is a parents obligation by virtue of the role they have chosen to foster autonomy and independence. But autonomy is not something that anyone can give to anyone else. It is something each individual must learn on their own. The parent is the sponsor and guide but it is beyond their ability to give autonomy, just like it is beyond the ability of a slave owner to give freedom to their slaves.
This isn't just a semantic difference but a fundamental difference. To get what I mean you have to do more than get it you have to grok it on a fundamental level. The autonomy of the child exists independent of the child who has yet to reach autonomy and independent of the parent who is incapable of granting autonomy. It is something which exists within the realized individual just out of reach of the child. Once the child achieves autonomy they are no longer a child even if they are not physically fully capable yet and so considerations of physics must be taken into account just as one would take physical limitations into account with any other individual. What is in the parents (and others) per view is the ability to externally recognize and validate the achievement of autonomy. Autonomy like freedom is a state of mind.
What is being put forward in the initial statement is a philosophical position on the nature of authonomy. Autonomy is something which is internal to the agent and cannot be granted by an external agent. This is reinforced when I say "Autonomy is like freedom is a state of mind.". What is being conveyed here is that simply declaring to someone is autonomous does not in fact make them autonomous.
Abstraction said:
Autonomous people can drive, vote, and drink. There are legal age restrictions as to when individuals may legally participate in these actions.
Everything in the abstraction is true on a technical level. This is crucial for setting up the pivot you are preparing to do. Keep in mind that this began with me putting forward my view on the nature of autonomy. In the abstraction phase you reduce what was said in such a way as to have no baring on the nature of autonomy.
”Essentialism” said:
The age limit at which individuals are legally permitted to partake of certain actions is gradually elevated. Within the law human rights are recognized in stages.
The first pivot was when you switched the topic from that of the nature of Autonomy to the legality of particular actions prior to certain arbitrary age restrictions. Something you yourself recognize as arbitrary indirectly when you mention that those are the ages in Michigan when participating in those particular actions become legal. Your next pivot become even more intriguing however. You move away from the legal age at which someone may preform a certain action to the legal recognition of human rights.
So we move from Nature of Autonomy → Legality → Legal Recognition of Human Rights. The reason I find this interesting is because rather than drawing the conversation back to the beginning by and framing any potential argument in the Nature of Rights, you double down on trying to turn the conversation to a question of Legal Recognition which by your own implicit admission is arbitrary. How are legal age limits set? Do they just pull numbers out of a hat? Are there by chance general principles used to determine how to come to the conclusion that a particular age is the age which should be chosen? What are these principles? How are they derived? What are the arguments that get us from the principles to the policies?
What you have done here is to demonstrate that you are fundamentally incapable of understanding the difference between a principle and a policy. I am trying to have a conversation about the principles. You want to turn it into a conversation about policy. We cannot get to a conversation about policy until at the very least we understand the principles from which the policies are derived. You do not have to agree with my principles, nor do I have to agree with yours, but for the conversation to be productive we need to understand the framework from which the other individual is operating.
My position: The thing (objective), and the recognition of the thing (subjective), are not the same thing (distinction).
Direct question: Are Rights (not the legal recognition of Rights) internal or external?
Sex education as an independent course of its own, no, because the content of it is firmly the domain of biology. A full class curriculum dedicated to the matter is a great deal of time to forbid highly detailed views of acceptable promiscuity. You asking the question of me accepting the inclusion of deliberate advocacy of LGBT acceptance is a perfect example of why to avoid it as a separate subject, because that is entirely a matter of forbidding sexuality to a captive adolescent audience.
I slightly altered the original quote to reflect my understanding of what you said because I am unsure if you meant proscribe or prescribe. The reason I cannot actually tell which word you meant to use was because either way what you said makes no sense. If I am in error and you meant the other please correct me. Either way what you have said is problematic.
First Sex Education is a course which is the domain of sex education class not biology. It hasn’t been the domain of either biology or anatomy for several decades. This is because sex education covers more than just anatomy, although anatomy is a component of sex education it is not the whole of sex education.
Second this conversation is being had within the context of a discussion on free speech absolutism. This means if you are forbidding topics which are relevant to the subject matter you are not only not a free speech absolutist you are also not a platform absolutist.
Third what does acceptable promiscuity have to do with the question? Draw that line for me.
Forth I asked five questions and you again abstracted and essentialized so lets examine the problem you have created.
The first question “Are you for or against sex education in public schools?”. Sex Education is an independent course and again is not part of either biology or anatomy or physical education. This is why it has been and is taught in all three. As to your no answer. Quite interesting indeed. You are for free speech and platforming unless you don’t like it. Good to note. But I already knew you lied about being pro free speech.
The second question “Are you for or against LGBT inclusion in sex education in schools?” to which you answer “A full class curriculum dedicated to the matter is a great deal of time to forbid highly detailed views of acceptable promiscuity.”. I am uncertain as to how the inclusion of the recognition of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transpeople is in anyway related to the question of “acceptable” promiscuity. Sex education is a class about sex and not about the morality of sexual acts. The recognition that sex includes more than just “insert penis into hole” is kind of on point. The class is not “anatomy class” it’s sex education. Sexuality is a component of sex. In regards to the trans portion in particular what would be taught is that biological sex is not binary but bimodal with three sexes. Male, Female, Intersex. The categories of sex along with the spectrum would then be taught. Further that there is a distinction between sex which is the domain of biology and gender which is the domain of sociology. The biology portion would stick strictly to biological science and would go through what science has to say on the existence of intersex and their role in the field of biology. The transition from sex to gender would discuss why the two are separate fields and what each studies and what each does not study. This can all be done in a very straight forward manner without any of the insidious implications you are trying to imply.
The third question “Are you for or against teachers openly advocating for acceptance of LGBT students?” to which you replied “You asking the question of me accepting the inclusion of deliberate advocacy of LGBT acceptance is a perfect example of why to avoid it as a separate subject, because that is entirely a matter of forbidding sexuality to a captive adolescent audience.”. As to forbidding sexuality to a captive adolescent audience… That is sort of beyond anyone. The fact of the matter is that sexuality is a core component of being an adolescent. The fact of the matter is that adolescents will be sexually active. The fact of the matter is that it is cruel to intentionally create a situation in which general ignorance on a subject has disastrous consequences on the ignorant. It is especially cruel given that your motivation is not a rational one but is rather based in your feelings.
Your general willingness to engage in the self delusion that if you simply believe that adolescents wont have sex then it will be so is disturbing on many levels. As is your self delusion that by forbidding adolescents from engaging in sex they will not do so because you told them not to. Wishing does not make something so. We have to deal with the world as it is and as the facts dictate, not on your feelings. This is where autonomy comes in. Adolescents are autonomous agents. You can command them all you want. It usually goes very poorly with them sneaking behind your back to do what they want anyway. That’s kind of part of what it means to be autonomous.
So you are not for free speech absolutism or for platform absolutism. Again good to note.
The fourth question “Should students who's parents foot the education bill be required to have authority figures (teachers, principals, school administrators) tell them they are a degenerate and or that they are going to hell?” You didn’t answer at all.
The sixth question “Should teachers be permitted to teach information which is demonstrably factually incorrect?” you didn’t answer at all.
Conclusion: You are both against free speech absolutism and platform absolutism. I am glad you could demonstrate you care about neither except as an excuse to use them as a weapon to promote reactionary views, and that as soon as you think you can get away with it you will ban opposing views most likely by force of law. Note while I want to destroy certain views I do not want to ban them especially by force of law. I point this out now because NPC’s are predictable.
The questions you asked break down to "Are you okay with setting a class in a mandatory environment aside specifically to instruct moral foundations?"
You are following the formula again. Initial statement/argument → abstract → essentialize. No. That is not what it breaks down to. I do in fact think that there should be a mandatory class specifically for instruction in moral philosophy. If that were what I meant than I would have stated as much. What my questions break down to is “Do you truly believe in free speech absolutism and platform absolutism or are you just a liar.” The answer is you are just a liar as is anyone who answers the questions the way you did. My objective was to achieve exactly the outcome which I did. Namely take your free speech absolutism/platform absolutism and reductio to demonstrate that you are in fact a liar. I did that pretty well. I on the other hand am a free speech absolutist.
That is why I call it indoctrination, because you ask for public education to be compulsory to force exposure to "proper" conclusions, and the framing of the question clearly demonstrates your position is that compulsory participation work to instill moral judgements of whether or not you actively accept a way of life.
You called it indoctrination because you don’t actually know what indoctrination is or how it works. As to asking for public education to be compusory… I’m an anarchist. Of course I don’t think public education should be compulsory. I recognize the difference between my end desire and the way things actually are. I also understand that getting to where I want to go is at the very least decades away (at the very least). This means that I must operate within the structure as it currently exists. As things stand education is compulsory. The purpose of education is to educate. Sex education and the inclusion of LGBT within sex education is no more “indoctrination” or “forced exposure to ‘proper’ conclusions” than teaching the spherical model of the earth is indoctrination. The fact that you do not like the facts is beside the point.
And no framing the questions the way I did clearly demonstrates exactly what I intended to demonstrate and had nothing to do with my own personal positions. Again the point was to demonstrate that you are a liar and that you don’t give a damn about free speech or about platform absolutism. They are just excuses you hide behind because you don’t like that your views are platformed. Guess what I don’t like that your views are platformed either. I just wish you would stop lying about what your views actually are. Science is Amoral. Science recognizes 3 sexes. Science says sex is bimodal not binary. Science says biology has nothing to do with gender. What my first questions assumed was an amoral stance. Each question was placed in the order it was to see where you would draw the line.
Not tolerate and civilly disagree with it within the bounds of law against violence and harassment (the incessant suicide inducing bullying is already illegal, and has been for a very long time), but accept.
The irony here is deep, and made even deeper by the fact that you don’t see it. To start with you don’t tolerate transpeople you sometimes humor them. There is a huge difference. You do not civilly disagree with transpeople or those who advocate on their behalf. You call them mentally ill, you claim that they mutilate themselves needlessly/pointlessly. You lie about biology, you lie about psychology, you lie about sociology. You lie about transgender children. You lie about being LGBT being a “lifestyle”. Being lesbian is not a lifestyle. Being gay is not a lifestyle. Being bisexual is not a lifestyle. Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being heterosexual is not a lifestyle. If a gay person lives and dies without ever having gay sex that doesn’t make them not gay. Being homosexual is not about the sex you do or do not have, it is about who you are sexually attracted to. Being heterosexual is not about who you do or do not have sex with, it is about who you are sexually attracted to. Believe it or not it is possible to have sex with someone and not be sexually attracted to that person.
Being trans is not about “wanting to be the opposite sex” it’s about being a gender other than the one assigned at birth. It’s not something they choose any more than you choose your favorite color, your favorite food, your favorite song, or the food you hate, the music you hate, or the color you hate. The fact that being trans is not about “wanting to be the opposite sex” is also why one does not need dysphoria to be trans. Even then dysphoria is not a mental illness and dysphoria can demonstrably be treated with Hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery.
Now I am going to predict your essentialism so in advance let me tell you what my response will be in hopes that you actually take my response into account. If Man = dick / woman = titties. Then bigger (more) dick = more man, smaller (less) dick = less man. Woman bigger (more) titties = more woman, woman smaller (less) titties = less woman. If you attempt to go to genetics I will point to Swyer Syndrome, to which you will reply “Ya but that is outside the norm so doesn’t count”. An exception to the rule disproves the rule. Genetics has demonstrated one thing. Prior to being able to scan the human genome we knew jack all about sex chromosomes and they are far far far more complicated than we ever could have imagined.
Sex chromosome anomalies - Wikipedia This doesn’t even get into some of the truly bizarre chromosomes.
The thing is as much as I wish I didn’t I honestly and truly believe that you think you tolerate and civilly disagree. To be clear I do believe you believe that. Which is why what you said is so richly ironic. You object to the fact that I want to obliterate your culture because it is veil and corrupt. I want to do so using non-violent means and acting within the bounds of the law. I go a step further however because I don’t think that just because something is legally permitted it is ethical. So in addition to acting within the bounds of the law and non-violence I am further restricted by ethics.
With the last question, I'm fine with it on their own time where it's personal speech. In the classroom of a public school, a place you wish compulsory attendance of youths, that is a very angry, flaming, and enormous FUCK NO YOU AUTHORITARIAN HYPOCRITE.
To be an authoritarian means I favor a strong central government and limited political freedom. Given that every single thing I have said is against favoring a strong central government and that I want to maximize political freedom I guess that means I’m not authoritarian nor am I a hypocrite. In addition the thought experiment was not about my own personal beliefs but rather were about yours and weather or not you were in favor of free speech and platform absolutism.
Because public schools are a government body. The teacher's job is to teach hard facts and ideally reasoning, to teach how to think, not pass down moral judgements or what to think, because they are employed by the government.
And the hard facts are not on your side. Biology disagrees with you. Psychology disagrees with you. Sociology disagrees with you. The facts are the facts and I am truly sorry if you don’t like them.
The one thing you and I do seem to agree on is that government agents do not have free speech so long as they are on the clock. The teachers job is to teach hard facts like there are 3 sexes, that gender and sex are not the same thing and are covered by different fields. The teachers job should be to teach Critical Reasoning skills. I am 1,000,000% with you the teacher should teach how to think. If they are a really good teacher they will teach how to think morally (not what to think morally). In other words how to form moral principles and how to think about ones actions within the framework of those principles.
You are correct they are employed by the government. They are employed by the government hypothetically to turn out informed and knowledgeable individuals who are capable of acting within a civil multicultural society. This means educating them not only on reading writing and math, but also in critical reasoning so as to be able to think rationally and account for bias, in the philosophy of science so they can understand science, in history so they can learn from the past, in political science so they understand the role of government and how to effect change within said government, in art so that they can understand it and it’s influence on society, in ethics so they can have grounded ethical frameworks, in rhetoric so that they can communicate effectively as well as recognize when someone is using it for nefarious purposes, and more. At no point should a teacher teach what to think.
This means that they are either rogue agents working to pass down their moral views in an authoritative, academic setting to people who do not have the option to leave if they are to participate in wider society, or those views are being actively pushed by the fucking government, making it a clear-cut matter of state-operated indoctrination, for the aforementioned nature of the public school environment.
I hope we can recognize irregardless of the teachers positions they will by nature of being perceived as authorities implicitly press their moral views on students. People generally speaking model their behavior on those around them especially those who they perceive as authority figures. I actually think this is dangerous as it causes individuals to preform certain moral behaviors without understanding the driving principles behind those behavior. This means they may preform a moral behavior in a situation or circumstance in which the behavior is actually immoral. Understanding that it is impossible to eradicate a teachers moral influence I would rather it be made explicit with students being encouraged to challenge it.
At the heart of what is at issue though is that you lack the ability to distinguish between what is moral, amoral, and immoral.
Do you seriously not comprehend what the fuck it means for education to be public? Because that's honestly the only way I can excuse you not thinking of pressing moral values of accepting sexuality in public schools that have compulsory attendance as a form of indoctrination.
Yes I do comprehend what the fuck it means for education to be public. It means that students are taught to be productive members of society and learn secular principles in order to coexist alongside individuals who are different from themselves and who hold different theological, philosophical, political, and other beliefs along side learning that people are not culturally different even among similar cultures. This means yes adopting a secular ethic while retaining a personal morality.
And looking back over that segment, I can't quite figure out how to adjust the wording to make this clear while preserving the statement, but my position is an enthusiastic agreement with a teacher pressing for simple acceptance of homosexuality (not the public spectacle of Pride parades) on their personal time; my issue with doing it in class is because they are a government agent in that situation, so their words hold some portion of governmental authority.
You do understand why pride exist and what it is? Pride exists because at one point in time it was illegal to be LGBT and what could legally be done to an individual who were LGBT was horrendous to say the least. Physical torture and death were some of the nicer things. Cops harass (and did more than harass) queers regularly and legally. Short version is a bunch of faggots and trannys got tired of being pushed around by the cops and sent the cops to the hospital. Thus began the stonwall riots and queer riots around the world.
Pride takes place on the anniversary of the first stonewall riot in celebration of pushing the cops out of queer neighborhoods. Pride contrary to it’s name is not about being proud but is about standing up in defiance of those who would seek to shame and punish someone for being queer. The loud in your face visibility of pride is about the queers pushing their way into civil discourse with the understanding that invisibility is what permits abuse against minorities. It has also been quite effective given that queer suicide rates and homelessness have dropped. They are still significantly higher than the standard which is why pride continues. Teens are still being kicked out of their home for being queer, they are still being sent to conversion camps against their will, and in some cases they are being exported to other countries to be sent to conversion camps where the older even more brutal methods are still employed. See that is a historical event. There is a class called American History which deals with highly charged historical political events. And it even has good “American” values. If you are being bullied try to tell people. If you keep telling people and nobody will listen. Break the bullies fucking nose until he stops.
If it's impossible to get your message to more than just those you can physically speak to face to face, what is the functional difference from not being able to speak at all in a society dominated by mass media? If everyone gets their news from the papers, no paper printing a story is just the same as the story never being discovered, or the government coming in to silence it.
The irony just keeps piling on. We have covered the queer angle so lets bring this full circle back to socialism/anarchism. How the fuck do you think we anarchist/socialists have felt for the past 200 years? There is a reason why I am a free speech absolutist. There is also a reason why while I am not a platform absolutist I want reactionaries platformed. I don’t need the veil of ignorance I know what it is like to be on the other side of that wall. Hell in most regards I am still on the other side of that wall.
You think leftists control media? While it’s absolutely true that in the last decade and a half leftist influence has grown in media we aren’t the one’s driving the bus. The god damn neo-libshits are the ones at that wheel and very occasionally we over the front seat and manage to jerk the wheel to a particular on ramp so as to avoid driving over a cliff before being beaten black and blue both by the idiot driver and the other passengers who are hell bent on going over the cliff.
I mean seriously think about what you are saying. The capitalist media owned by very wealthy individuals who very much enjoy being wealthy and who are able to exhort massive influence on the entire population and shape public opinion however they please do so in defense of their wealth and their friends wealth. They exclude us from any public discussion lying about us for centuries. Denying us a platform for centuries, painting us all with the exact same brush. The equivalent would be if every single major media organization said for centuries that every single white person by virtue of being white was a nazi. In addition to this it would be as though no white person were allowed on tv except on very very rare occasions and they always chose the most awful and frankly insane white person to represent every single white person on television. Whenever white people were portrayed on television they would always be portrayed as a nazi or for an extra special treat they might be portrayed as some inbred hick (though at least they are not a Nazi). Any attempt to point out that “no in fact not all white people are Nazi’s or inbred hicks” gets shouted down and people instantly turn off their brains. The message that gets played everywhere is that white people are all violent, murderous, and insane or mentally degenerate retards either way they should all be locked up and the key thrown away. Imagine all that and you will have 1/10th of the reality of the Anarchist/Socialist experience.
The reason I advocate for free speech and responsible platforming is because I know history, is because I know the present. I mean for fuck sake look at the British Labor Party leaks, and the UK is far more left friendly than the US. You think the NeoLib fuckers aren’t doing that same thing here to the leftists? You think in my own lifetime I personally haven’t been deplatformed by Libtards? Yes I am very much against forced platforming. I believe it is unethical. I do believe in responsible platforming. I do advocate for platforming abhorrent beliefs and those who hold them. It’s one of the reasons why I am considered part of the dirtbag left. It’s why I support people like Xanderhal, Vauhs, RGR (Riley Grace Roshong, Contrapoints, Philosophy Tube, etc. It’s why I oppose wokescolds. Curtailment of free speech and platforming is a dual edged sword and it can cut both ways.
Why does everyone think Socialists are violent authoritarian sociopaths? Because the capitalist news media has been telling everyone that for 200 fucking years going out of their way to decontextualize and lie, or to find the worst possible examples. Why does everyone think that Anarchist are all fire happy black nihilists? Again because the media has lied for 200 fucking years going out of their way to decontextualize every story. Does this mean that there are not violent authoritarian sociopaths who are socialists? The law of large numbers demands that they are. I can give you a list of examples of exactly those kinds of individuals. Lenin for one. He was a socialist, he was a violent authoritarian sociopath. Even if the USSR wasn’t socialist itself Lenin was. Just like Hitler was white by any reasonable definition. It doesn’t make all white people Hitler.
I want you out there honestly and openly advocating for your positions full mask off for the whole world to see. I want you doing it not just because doing so helps my side. I want you doing so because I know what it’s like to be placed in a position where you cannot get platformed. Vaush, Vaush will platform anyone. He platformed Erick Striker, Sargon, Stephen Molyneux. He has 4,5,6, and 7 hour streams where he platforms Nazi after Nazi. As much as he hates them he platforms Tankies and Wokescolds. The only reason he doesn’t platform more reactionaries is because they are cowards afraid to bet blown the fuck out.
The thing is that the "platforms" are the public square today. You, yourself, hold that it is possible to eliminate any political relevance of an ideology by denying it access to platforms for public viewing, which means that you fundamentally view it as meeting the purpose of censorship to eliminate an idea.
Deplatforming is not censorship. Censorship is a specific legal term with specific legal connotations. Censorship only applies to actions taken by the state. For example when the public access channel in Alabaman refused to air the episode of Arthur that had a gay wedding that was censorship. Reactionaries can stream on YouTube. They can even be edgy and give some hot takes. Vaush and Xanderhal both walk that line all the time. Hell as much as he is a skeevy little liar who takes shit out of context Actual Justice Warrior puts out reactionary content. Blair White, Praguer U, Steven Crowder, etc all put out reactionary content. All you need to do to put out content on YouTube is not break TOS and even then it’s not guaranteed reactionaries will get booted.
Platforms and platformers hold an ethical obligation to not platform people who are irresponsible without doing something to mitigate the irresponsible individual. The wildfire that was the clusterfuck flat earth movement showed that long before the rise of the reactionary “skeptic” community.
[qupte]You are repeatedly demonstrating you're in a "No Bad Tactics" style of thinking, that all sorts of active and elaborate suppression of ability to communicate is justified because they are "reactionaries", with terms so vaguely defined that they seem to place Hitler and Stalin in the same box, and at the least have Ronald Regan and literal monarchists together. You are not a free speech absolutist if you think that words can ever be something to get rid of from the public, and yet you are admitting that you find the rhetoric something to expunge. Not clamp down on the actions that are the active problem, but silence the voice by calling for every major source of information to take a clearly and wholly opposed stance and make participating in general society contingent on engaging in all the active pressures to abandon their views.[/quote] So to start Hitler and Stalin are in the same box and it’s labeled “Authoritarian”. I am not sure where you get that I am putting Ronald Reagan with monarchists? Unless you think Ronald Reagan is “Mr. Conservative” in which case. No. He’s not. That title belongs to another. And Mr. Conservative was a conservative but he wasn’t a monarchist. I do agree that someone who thinks words could or should be banned from the public square is not a free speech absolutist. I do believe however that certain actors can be banned from private platforms, and should be banned if they mask their beliefs. I don’t care if they are a Nazi or a socialist if you get caught wearing a mask you get the fucking boot. If someone says “i’m not a neo-nazi” but they advocate for every single neo-nazi position. They get the boot. If they say “I’m not a socialist” and they advocate for the workers owning the means of production. They get the boot. None of this soft peddling bullshit to hide what you truly believe to feed them down a funnel.
And yes I want certain rhetoric expunged. I also want certain ideas expunged. Rhetoric in and of itself is not a bad thing. The kind of rhetoric I want expunged is the kind used to obfuscate ones positions. Being persuasive good. Framing your arguments so they easier to understand. Good. Obfuscating what you actually believe to slowly ease people into your belief. Fuck that.
Data please? It has been asked for before, and you did not substantiate the claim that most homeschooling is actually predicated on ideological purity. Meanwhile, in the real world, it turns out the public school system has turned to shit for academic purposes. Just because you crawled out of a hellhole town in bumfuck county, doesn't mean that's actually representative. You don't have general information collecting data on homeschooling as an overall phenomenon, just your anecdotes.
Ya I wonder why it’s turned to shit? Couldn’t be a deliberate act of sabotage on the part of perfectly innocent Christians even when we have their word that is what they did? Even when they get caught red handed over and over again. Couldn’t possibly be that they are terrified their kids might actually learn science and so they make it impossible. It couldn’t be that they rewrite the history books or fuck over schools every chance they get. Of course not.
Beyond the stats in the source above
When one does just a bit of research on their own into the question by simply going to google and typing in homeschooling and then proceeds to check out the ever glorious and wonderful examples so helpfully provided and begins to look at each and examine the organizations for the first 10 pages you begin to get a clear picture (most people don’t go deeper than 3 pages) you see a very interesting trend. Especially when you look at the science sections. Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism dominate heavily with no representation of Biologos science curriculum and no secular or other religious curriculum. Now this in and of itself might not mean anything. Except when we review the history portion as well we see a heavy bent towards reactionary narratives. The 2017 pew poll seems to have been removed from their site but we don’t need it. If I were to polled facebook groups and homeschooling forums and if I were to carry out an extensive survey of home school organizations (say to the first 100 pages) what do you think I would find? Would it be more of the same? Being in the spaces I can tell you what I would find.
Now lets talk about the largest and most powerful home school group out there. Abeka is a hard core Young Earth Creationist organization and is the primary source for other Christian Home School programs.
As a side not you have actually encouraged me to put together a general survey on the topic.
So the data very much exists to show that homeschooling has plenty of grounds on the basis of educational value, since the public school system has gotten worse, meaning the parent's own education can very well be simply superior to what the professional teachers are required to use for curricula. And you have not presented a counter-argument with any meat to it, simply saying that you personally have seen some crazy shit, rather than eloborating that said shit is widespread. Is it one small town? One publisher? Is your only experience the rural homeschoolers, or have you seen a whole cluster of homeschooling in a major city be these assholes?
When homeschooling is done right its great. The problem is most home schooling curriculum is intended to retard education especially as regards science. Outside of the most basic math and reading skills the majority of homeschooling is absolute shit.
As to the data being on your side that isn’t actually true. You are a good example as to why someone who doesn’t know how to read data shouldn’t read data until you learn how. The vast majority of data about homeschooling is incomplete to partial at best. No comprehensive survey exists or can exist. Data collection is extremely difficult and with homeschooling its even more so. You are stuck using secondary and tertiary data to extrapolate the conclusions. The primary data is completely absent. If you do have an extensive primary data source then please provide one. Even the number of how many individuals are home schooled is nothing better than a rough guess.
All of the primary data which exists on homeschooling is extremely problematic as it comes from individuals who were home schooled and went to College or University. This creates a serious survivorship bias among all the data collected. We can track the data for public and private school back prior to college. We cannot do the same for home schooled individuals. It’s absolutely true that the number of people who are home schooled and make into college graduate at a much higher rate than those who were not home schooled. But we lack any real numbers about how many people are home schooled. We lack the numbers on how many people who are home schooled could pass a high school equivalency test vs how many could not. How many are literate vs how many are illiterate? How many can do basic math including multiply and divide?
What you are doing is extrapolating beyond the available data which is unable to account for hidden variables.
I currently live in a major city and am involved in the online space as well so no it’s not just rural. The meat space groups are filled with Christians constantly trying to peddle jesus to both the other adults and to the kids. And that is as much personal information as I am willing to give out.
My own experience was me and my brother being withdrawn because we couldn't behave at school. Routinely suspended, throw in detention, put in "special needs" rooms, so frequently that my brother wound up illiterate until 5th grade because he was not in class long enough to learn to read from all the suspensions and detentions early on and none of the teachers realised this, or didn't care to correct it. And I have social anxiety issues so bad it can take several hours to set an appointment by call to get my now-single prescription (just for attention span problems) refilled.
I was diagnosed with dyslexia in third grade and didn’t learn to read until high school. The school I attended was poor and was a joke. I am a spiteful son of a bitch which is the only reason I taught myself to read and consumed as many books as possible since. I was told I wouldn’t be as smart as everyone else in 5th grade because of my dyslexia so set out to prove the teacher wrong. Best damn thing that ever happened to me. Been there done that got that ticket punched. Social anxiety? Got that one too though you seem to have the worse end of the stick there. I can go out in public and even talk to people fine but put me in a crowd bigger than 20 people and I have a complete meltdown.
My own experience was that it was extremely frustrating to be intelligent and quick to the point of being the prototypical nerd which people sought out for “smart people stuff” as one friend put it. Then to be illiterate through no fault of my own with the teachers completely ill equipped to teach someone who “couldn’t learn to read fast enough” was one thing. Then to be humiliated repeatedly in front of my classmates over it and lacking the ability to tell the teacher to go fuck themselves sideways with a broomstick wrapped in barbwire dipped in battery acid and you get someone who acts out in frustration. Ya I get how bad public schools suck but at this point they are not going anywhere.
I'm a nitpicking ass who can't accept authority for its own sake to the point of a clinical diagnosis, he was a violent near-lunatic to the result of the solid wood sliding door where I'm living having rather significant knife marks in it and me having a detached shard of cartilage from a partially broken nose. And him being stuck in a mental asylum with a schizophrenic threatening to eat him for a few months. And a massive scar from when he gave himself a considerable burn with a red-hot fork.
I know you are not looking for sympathy but I am genuinely sorry to hear about that. As to your diagnosis there are three off the top of my head that I can think of and only one of them is what I would term “bad”. I won’t bother to ask but thanks for the information to work with it helps me understand you better.
I was diagnosed as ODD in my teen years so I very much get the not accepting authority for it’s own sake. Perhaps it is not the same for you but when I had it pointed out to me that if I didn’t accept authority for it’s own sake then what did I accept authority for. That began a very good conversation with the question of what exactly was authority and more importantly how to spot it. After all as much as I have always tried to be an expert in everything there is only so much any one person can know. And at some points we are forced to accept expert authority on some things because we just don’t have a choice.
The way I resolved the problem was by become a general expert in core fields. For example I am a general expert in the philosophy of science. By understanding the how and why behind science I am more able to judge if someone is a quack or if someone is simply talking about something I don’t yet understand. The same goes true for the philosophy of history, the philosophy of art, of literate, politics, etc. In the majority of cases this helps weed out those who have earned their authority from those with pseudo-authority.
Between that a solid Critical Reasoning education, and a basic stats course I can sort the sheep from the goats.
[qoute]This is in Jackson, a city with a population of 33,000 or so and apparently an active ghetto a few streets down, given the time I got hit with a bullet. Copper jacket, didn’t hurt because it had to go through aluminum siding and downstreet at least three blocks (the hole's still there), but the point is that this isn't some bumfuck nowhere. People in urban settings very much have children who need homeschooling because the public schools just can't deal with all children.
[/QUOTE] And this is where I strongly disagree with you again. It’s not that it cannot its that it is not allowed to and that there is active sabotage. To begin with the education system we have now is built off of a 150 year old model that hasn’t been updated in 100 years. Given how much we have learned about learning this is unforgivable. The entire system needs an overhaul top to tail something similar to what they did in Sweden. Systematically go through the entire education system and collect all the data and look at what works and what doesn’t and figure out why it works. And just adding computers isn’t enough. We need comprehensive education reform badly with a focus on Critical Reasoning skills.
As much as reactionaries hate him for saying it Bernie was right. It’s pathetic when the US has a worse education system than a shithole like Cuba.
We're literally hitting.
Levels of delusion here.
If only I were a fucking takie who actually thought the USSR was good you might have a point.
