Healthcare: ❎ “No, that’s communism!”
Mandatory Labor: ✅ “Yes, that’s patriotism!”
🙄
Spin universal healthcare as “Those damn overpayed doctors should be forced to support their nation!” and BOOM, patriotism.
I legit believe it can be a matter of choice of words. I mean, for some issues.
Simply describe any leftist position without using charged words and I guarantee most republicans would be on board.
My mom is “pro-life.” I interviewed her on what exactly she believed should be legislated. Turns out she’s 100% pro choice but just doesn’t like abortion.
Most people are like that. It’s really normal to have views from all over the spectrum, not all from one side. Many libertarians maturely face the conundrum that they will always fight for the liberties of others, even if they personally or morally disagree with them. And I’m talking about actual libertarians, not the US “libertarians” their media has.mislabelled and confused.the nation by basically redefining that term to somethung entirely different.
Kentucky fucking hates Obamacare but if you try taking Kentuckycare (Obamacare+the optional stuff every state was offered+a convenient portal) they’ll fucking riot.
I really am disappointed by the amount of highway litter in the otherwise gorgeous state of California.
Careful, that cuts both ways. They decide what they want the words to mean…
We can do both. It will take time and strong, sustained effort. But we can do it.
Socialism/communism = “someone got something that I don’t think they deserved.”
They’re just bad words to people. I think a lot of the “normal people” on the right are just people who are too stupid to understand politics, so it works like their football team. You don’t need to know anything about the Dallas Cowboys or Patriots to hate them. Democrats are bad because they are the other team. We don’t need to know what “woke” means - it’s just a word that describes people on the bad team.
If you manage to avoid the trigger words, and they haven’t been propagandized on whatever specific topic, it’s really easy to convince them to agree with a lot of left leaning ideas.
Yeah, not doing volunteer farm work to give private people and corporations free work and profit.
If there were some state-owned ones that the food was used to feed public school kids or others on government programs, maybe.
But no way for someone else’s profit.
Plot twist: America does agricultural collectivization in the 2030s
yaaay finally the US can experience famine and starvation as well! 🎉
Finally? Did we forget the great depression and the dust bowl?
Not classified as a famine
Of course it wasn’t. The land of plenty could never suffer from a famine.
Listening to experts because they probably have good reasons for their classification 🙅♂️
Rejecting expert opinions because of my political “America bad” attitude ✅✅✅
In both the Soviet and Chinese famines, collectivized farms outperformed privately owned ones in terms of food produced per hectare. Without collectivization, those famines would have happened anyway, and they would have been worse.
Really? Why did they allow those private farms at all then? My understanding was that the farms that were collectivized only produced enough for themselves to eat, so they went back a little and said “okay, you can have SOME capitalism until we get it figured out”. How they figured it out was quotas, and hey, on paper it looks good. You just have to tell Stalin a good number. Somehow the store room’s still empty.
We already do, I implore you to learn how the omnibus agriculture bill that goes through congress each year actually works. Most food production is entirely government funded, but for some reason a bunch of “profits” also get skimmed off by big corporations. Rural America only exists because of farm subsidies (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just dumb to pretend like it’s not collectivized and allow leeches to profiteer).
Government subsidies are not the same thing as collectivization. Collectivization implies collective ownership, under Capitalism what you have instead is usually consolidation, where large farms buy up smaller competitors and become less efficient over time. America’s approach to agricultural policy is how you get perverse incentives like speculators buying up land in order to collect government money to not grow anything.
Who said it’s volunteer work? They’d better be paying me
Your pay has arrived:
You work all day and what do you get?
They certainly didn’t say it was paid work.
Oh, sweetie, that is precious. You are and have been your entire life.
Here is a complete list of farm subsidies you are paying for. The totals are mind bogglingly huge.
“Our” farms? Farms are a publicly owned commodity? I was not aware of this. I’ll tell you what, when you wrest ownership of the farms from agricultural corporations and nationalize them I’ll sign up for a stint on the farm gang. But I’m over 30 so I guess I get a pass? I’m guessing Kelly is over 30 too.
The same people who would recommend this are the same exact people who are clutching pearls at other people coming in and taking their jobs, and also the same exact people who are least likely to have immigrants take their jobs. What do they actually want? Nobody fucking knows, not even them
They want to be angry.
It’s not just them. Everyone wants to be angry. But just sitting around feeding it without channeling it to a productive* end isn’t improving anything.
I don’t want to be angry. I want healthcare, world peace, and then to lie down.
What are you doing about it?
I don’t need to be a pilot to know a plane crash is bad.
What are you doing about it?
See how easy this is?
Mutual aid most days, , got my town a Little Free Library (research to installation), keep it stocked, planning a community garden, volunteer with my town distributing free, fresh produce.
The billionaires are in shambles due to your actions. Thank you for your service.
Have you written letters, talked to neighbors, helped any out? Mutual aid, direct action?
They want to live like how they imagined their grandfathers lived.
But its mostly media lies and misremembered nostalgia
Will they get to keep the produce? Otherwise, this is just slavery and very much in line with conservative ideology again.
Where does it say you don’t get paid?
Also, in terms of understanding how things happen, this is definitely not a bad thing.
So many people take everything for granted. I worked a couple of years in agriculture. Long days, tough work. I will never look down on a farmer, and it thought me some neat lessons in life too.
You get paid for jury duty. Making a living off of that? When i read national duty i heard conscription in my head. Maybe because i just assume the idea is as good as the compensation.
Oh maybe I don’t worry about this because I’m not American…
Sorry
Where does it say you do get paid?
I worked on a farm from 23-30 and my body is kinda destroyed now. Had surgery on my wrist, my back hurts all the time. I’m getting arthritis in my fingers and knees. All at the ripe age of 36.
It’s definitely valuable work, but there’s a reason old farmers tend to walk like Arthur Morgan.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that if everyone was pitching in for a season of farm work, less people overall would be doing 8/15/etc consecutive years and getting their bodies destroyed.
It depends on the farm. It’s not completely unskilled labor, especially if you’re dealing with livestock or large machinery like what’s used for harvesting/spreading manure/tilling.
Implementing something like what’s being suggested would require some sort if funding from the government to train people to get ready to do it, and honestly a lot of farmers aren’t going to want a bunch of green farmhands all at the same time. In a lot of cases it’d be more trouble than it’s worth.
Asking someone who has never been on a farm to just jump in on an operation and be helpful is kinda setting everyone up to fail. There’s more to a farm than picking crops and cleaning up animal poop.
I mean, something simple like fixing a fence can be a pain in the ass if you dont know what youre doing. Plus, theres a lot of ways to get hurt or killed if you’re not familiar with the environment.
Maybe in that one aspect, but I’d imagine the mandatory labor at likely very low wages will make most people resent it more than anything.
When watching the TV Series The Handmaid Tales I kept thinking that things like their very heavy security appartus, military for the continuing seccession war and heavy use of dedicated manpower doing manual work in house chores (at least for the upper classes) would use too much manpower, taking it away from actual productive activities and thus making a modern nation level of life (in the material sense, not other senses) unsustainable, though Gilead could sorta keep going for a while drawing down on the wealth of the part of the US from were it was formed, before falling down to mid-XX century South American levels of wealth or worse.
However temporary slavery like this “national duty field work” might actually “solve” some of the agricultural production manpower shortage problems in such a society.
So it actually makes sense (in a sick way) that it’s appealing to the most extreme Fascist amongst the Republicans.
Is it better to force poor people to work in farms to survive? In a world where a large number of ‘modern’ westernized countries have active military conscription for young people, I don’t see this as being worse than that, either. The thing with slavery, is that it is lifetime, unpaid, terrible conditions, based on a feeling of superiority, only for the targeted groups, etc.
Of course, the better solution is just to treat farm workers fairly and pay them well, and work on automation at the same time. But rich people were forced to work in farms too, the conditions would probably get a whole lot nicer for everyone involved, and it would probably create a pretty big incentive to start automation as well.
edit: to actually be fine, it would have to be run by the govt. on nationally owned farms, like schools are, for workers to be paid and well treated, and for rich people to not be exempt
Rich people will be exempt, of course.
People in University or with University Education will “of course” be exempted from this duty which, by an amazing coincidence will exempt the scions of the rich and upper middle class.
It’s a similar technique as what’s used in not just the US but also countries like the UK to make sure the children of “upper” classes don’t have to endure certain hardships and have enhanced future opportunities even in accessing Upper Education: it’s not at all *cough* *cough* because they’re the children of wealthy parents, it’s purelly because they frequent (expensive) private schools and the children of the poor and working class too when they frequent such schools have access to those things (the “small” detail that the poor and working class cannot actually afford it, remains unsaid).
Whenever a Neoliberal talks about how meritocratic their system is, remember that they defend privatised education, something which as I explained above just means a two tier system were those who can afford it purchase for their children easy access past certain gatekeepers of future opportunities such as access to certain Universities whilst the rest are in a different track - the state school system - with far lower chances, all of which is the very opposite of a merit-based system.
Yes, usa is a hyper-capitalistic country. Not all (actually none other) countries behave like this. But they all use the dollar as currency. The difference is that usa is the economic superpower but that does not make them control way the world world any longer. It disappeared when the culture war was lost. The war on drug was lost too and now there is a class war. Wonder how that will go
I can almost hear the bone spurs growing…
Poor “volunteers” will do the backbreaking manual labor. Rich volunteers will drive the heavy machinery in air conditioned cabins.
You’ll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Til you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
Saw Jello do a spoken word performance during the 2nd Gulf War.and he asked "Who would trust a country run by a Bush, a Dick and a Colon?
slayer song?
Good guess, and I can Imagine it’s a lyric they would use.
Dead Kennedys - Holiday in Cambodia
Thanks! ill check it out!
First time with surf punk? Try DK’s police truck, soup is good food and Agent Orange’s bloodstains or miserlou.
it is, thanks, i am learning the guiatr. is surf punk dick dale? i remember an album of his
Cases of bone spurs are skyrocketing
Repeat after me class.
FUCK
YOU
PAY
ME
Every* American Citizen
- Except my kids, obviously.
That’s the beauty of it.
Conservatives will push for laws that affect urban public schools and have their kids in private schools or live outside city limits.
As someone who farmed for the first couple of decades of my life - no. We need to utilize drones for farming and ban the use of tires and fossil fuels (which deposit heavy metals) on fields.
Also pretty sure glyphosate/Roundup caused health issues for everyone I know and myself (all farmers/in farm communities). It’s a neurotoxin and is in the entire Ogallala acquifer and most ground water around farms and their watershed. I spoke with a lead state toxicologist in the PNW about this. It verifiably has effects on fish and insects in the watershed here (which Monsanto claims is too diluted to have effects).
My father was a farmer in the 90s and wrote to Bill Clinton to ask for more regulation and study of the effects of pesticides and more protections for farmers in relation to pesticides and Bills response back was basically “No”. It did come on a really nice piece of paper though and had the “from the desk of the president” letter head and everything.
I emailed Trump and Biden both about implementing a free national online school prek-college, using adaptive learning and with no time restrictions. Kids can use this online school as a supplement to regular schooling or in lieu of. This way, parents who are concerned about school shootings or illness can still feel like their kid is getting an okay education.
Adults who have already graduated can take these classes to refresh knowledge (helping to combat misinformation online). If Christians want to teach and learn Christian theory, fine, that can be in a Christian theory area (Christian science should not be considered actual science but instead a theology).
Teachers can compete for best online class and schools and teachers could get bonuses for the most popular material. The grading should be done by either a computer or paras who are employed at the national level.
Students then can also have access to various language accomodations and disability accomodations for all their lessons. This is also why there should be no time restrictions - kids with learning disabilities might take a year to learn a half semester of algebra, or young adults with jobs might also need extra time too. The time limits we place on learning are arbitrary and only help out people with advantages already.
Last there should be no general studies requirement with the adaptive online learning. If a kid LOVES trains, let the adaptive learning teach them all about trains. Maybe that means the kid will learn about calculating the impact speed of two trains colliding, so they incidentally learn math and physics. But we shouldn’t require they learn math and physics if they don’t choose to.
Anyway, I wrote this out to them and got really lame letters back too. It’s crazy because this school idea is a legacy program that could cement a president’s name forever in education, like how Teddy Roosevelt is associated with National Parks. Yet Trump didn’t want the idea. Biden neither. Maybe Harris will like it. It’s quite elegant imo and win/win. I’ve spoken with numerous educators about it and they have no criticisms. It’s like our government doesn’t want progress
I think there’s just too much money in the status quo. I like your idea.
And just for the record, Monsanto is now part of Bayer.
I mean a national labor corps with incentivized participation isn’t the worst idea. Gives people the opportunity to get work experience without necessarily having to understand their career direction in life.
Shouldn’t be a draft in any circumstances but absolute crisis situation, like essential infrastructure is on the brink of total collapse and regular pay incentives aren’t getting bodies on it fast enough.
Who knows, might get some people into work they didn’t realize they’d gel with, plenty of inspector positions are behind work load and I’ve got s feeling a part of that is just people not knowing the work is out there.
I’d be super on board for this. Treat it similarly to the military, where room and board are provided, and they ship you to an underserved part of the country to help.
Especially if we extended the GI Bill to cover participating. Like, do 4 yrs and you get full tuition covered at any public university.
I think it would really promote national unity and help to lift people out of poverty. You’d have people from all over the country working together, bridging a lot of our internal divisions. You’d get people out of their bubbles and echo chambers and have them actually seeing the country.
If we could normalize it, where it’s just what people did after highschool, it would give people time to figure their lives out. Remove the pressure of having to choose a career right away. I know so many people who “had to go to college” because that was the next step, but didn’t have a clue what they wanted in life, so got useless majors and have dead ended. This would be perfect for people like that.
Plus infrastructure in the US is a joke. And even as the OP implies, farming is a broken business in the US for a number of reasons. There are never enough people working soup kitchens and food pantries, or cleaning up our national forests to prevent forest fires. If we could mobilize our young people en masse, we could make a huge difference in this country.
I’m 1000% on board.
Yeah that’s all fine but it’s blocked by one of two major political parties in the US doesn’t believe government should exist. At best they’d support a privatized version of the that siphoned money out and didn’t help people that need help.
We’re going to struggle to get anything done as long as conservatives are treated as if they have any merit.
No, I think that’s actually the beauty of this. The OP meme is a right wing meme. A national civil service is a right wing position.
I think there’s a way to craft this program in a hugely bipartisan way. You get all the “patriotism, one nation, farms and country” stuff the right wants, and all the “infrastructure improvements, social safety nets, free college” stuff the left wants.
I think there’s a real potential to get some solid bipartisanism here.
Isn’t it basically similar to the public work projects of the “New Deal”?
Without a draft it’s just a Keynsian jobs program like CCC or Teach for America. Not the worst idea in the world.
I heard in Finland it’s kinda like this. You have to do something like a year in the military or a year in civil service and I like it. Don’t want to do the military? Fine, do the postal service or some shit just do something. It’s like a great equalizer since rich and poor have to do it and they all have the same options.
Nah, fuck conscription, people only have a limited time in this world and you shouldn’t be forced to waste it on the military/civil service. The options should be there if you want to take them, make it appealing if you want, but no one should be forced into any service.
With Finland it’s seen as a social necessity because they’re neighbors with Russia.
Perhaps they will reconsider the ‘need’ for it with their new NATO membership. Will be hard to remove something so ingrained in their culture though.
I doubt it, but maybe. They’re still what amounts to a front line territory.
The United States has had the luxury of an all-volunteer military for slightly longer than I’ve been alive. My name went on the Selective Service roster. They keep that list. They’re having recruitment and retention problems. And the United States has a much bigger population than the likes of Finland.
We had recruiting problems because we had unrealistic medical standards. For decades people just lied about what they could. Then we decided to use a system that could actually check the records of recruits.
Once waivers were made easily available, instead of months of admin work, recruiting goals were magically met again.
I already think some kind of required (paid) community service year should be required for every citizen, so I guess part of that could be agriculture.
Required I think doesn’t cut mustard, like I said, it should be required only when all other possibilities to address a labor shortage crisis have been exhausted.
Required service is something you do when you’re in a weakened or threatened position with what you’re invoking it for, so doing it unnecessarily just doesn’t help quite as much as one might think.
There’s better ways to address a perceived national attitude problem than forced labor.
We are in a weakened, threatened position. 🤪
There’s great arguments here about how a service corps could bridge divides and give all youth a better pathway from highschool into the (often predatory) worlds of job markets and higher ed, and also great arguments about why mandatory service infringes on freedom pretty significantly.
Is there a way to structure a national year of service idea that gives people the freedom to opt out yet would still get chosen by many kids from diverse backgrounds? Like how do we get kids who have had a college fund ready to go since they were born to see the benefits of spending a year building bridges? It would be a neat cultural shift.
Probably from social isolation by everyone who did do that.
Like if the rich asshole kids wanna mark themselves out by skipping out on a national service that’s their prerogative, just the same it’s everyone else’s to make judgements about them based on that.
That “some of y’all never worked a service job and it shows” tweet hits a lot harder when there’s a federal budget for the messaging about the good of lending a working hand to your fellow countryfolks.
Nobody with a college fund from day one is going to see the service job tweet and care. They already have a rich kids club of other wealthy friends.
Why should we be subsidizing labor costs for large agribusiness?
I can think of a lot more virtuous forms of national service.
The next post explains that agriculture is so important, it should be controlled by the government, with quotas, and rations…
/s
Because then we can seize the means of production.
What’s “our farms” do we own the means of production? Do I get food or resources from this farm? Wtf
they’ll take you to the town square and the agricorps will bid on you
You can eat all the apples you like just make sure you pick 4000 per day.
As long as every farmer has to work in the city for a year.
I so want to make a farmer, who likes to complain that comfy office jobs aren’t real work, work a phone support hotline for a year.
They’ll all have bone spurs and we end up doing it.
There are other jobs for them. Not politics.
Storm government buildings? Sounds like a job they’re good at. Lmao
In talking with some of my RL R neighbors, we all have the same beef, but assign different causes. When we actually got to talking, rather than griping and throwing projections, both sides began seeing commonalities, in causes, and are beginning to see commonalities in addressing the cure.
i think we should force everyone to do at least 2 years of philosophical education and study.
It would unironically be good for the average persons intelligence.
At this point, we should force everyone to just line up to get a solid smack across the face. Real hard too.
we can throw that one into the philosophy lessons somewhere.
Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one.
Interestingly enough, I had fallacies as part of my base native language class. Can’t remember if it was middle school or high school, but we definitely learned about the most common ones like ad hominem, false dilemma, slippery slope, etc.
Kinda imagined it would be similar elsewhere, but unfortunately not I guess
i think these are probably relatively common somewhere in the lines of writing, but i’m guessing that nobody remembers them because they’re all boring.
The thing is, fallacies do matter because they are meant to describe what is not “good faith” argumentation. They are sophistry. It’s like, the basis of our modern western philosophy, and our current legal system. How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith? They don’t even know what good faith is. Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It’s like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world, and then expecting those kids to actually be math literate. You can’t do it. You’re neglecting fundamental (and I mean that word emphatically) knowledge.
It’s like mental gardening. The ability to recognize and respond to fallacies in our own internal thinking helps us stay organized within our own minds and not fall victim to traps or scams.
No, fallacies are not something that you just accuse another person of. An ad hominem attack is a specific thing. A strawman is a specific thing. Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that’s okay. It’s okay to learn a complicated subject.
Sometimes though, when people don’t want to do that hard mental load of learning fallacies (because they’d have to change their own mind regarding many of their own fallacies and heuristics), they dismiss fallacies and say “meh, but I don’t wanna!” That doesn’t invalidate learning about them.
How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?
this is part of what you would learn in philosophy. There are only so many ways to conceptualize things in a productive manner. There are hundreds if not thousands of thought experiments that prove this. Nihilism being a good one. Anti-natalism is another. There may be lines of reasoning that make sense theoretically, or check out in a logical manner, but which do not make sense in a practical applied manner. The age old question of “what is our purpose” is a classic example of this. There is no clear defined answer, and any clear defined answer given is not going to be a very good one. This is also why there are multiple schools of thought, and different frameworks with which to view the world differently, having a comprehensive understanding of these things allows one to conceptualize beyond the normal plane of interactions with other people.
Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It’s like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world
this is actually an interesting point, and i think i broadly agree here. The difference is that we aren’t teaching someone math, we’re teaching someone how to properly experience the world, and how to carry themselves through that world such that they don’t make a fool of themselves for making elementary mistakes such as, fallacy. Obviously teaching people fallacy is the most direct answer to the problem here, but i don’t think it’s reasonable to teach everyone all of fallacy in order to mitigate this. Just like in math, how we stop after a certain amount of numbers, because otherwise it would literally never end. The math is generally the same beyond this point anyway, so it’s redundant trying to cover it.
Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that’s okay. It’s okay to learn a complicated subject.
and this is why i think it’s important to start at a place a little more fundamentally relevant to the problem here. In the same way we can’t just pick someone up off the street and teach the calculus, the same can be said for fallacy. There is a certain level of relevant information that needs to be known before we can move to fallacy.
for example, i think it would be productive to educate people about the general types of fallacy, and the rough mechanisms they follow, so that they can work to stick outside of the scope of these fallacies, and stay within the range of good faith argumentation. I think similarly to this, you don’t need to know fallacy, to call out fallacy. Fallacy is a fundamental failure of reasoning, and if you can point out that failure in reasoning, you can point out the fallacy, it’s just not a formal “diagnosis” of fallacy in this sense.
No, I chose my words precisely here:
How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That’s entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Well, agree to disagree then.
I never stated there was ultimate truth.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
Yes, and that structured, “valid” manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree “philosophy is just a means to an end.”
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it’s a fallacy. If your parents explained it as “it’s not polite,” rather than “it’s nonsense,” that’s on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I’ve been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By ‘previous information,’ what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It’s not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don’t make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can’t communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you’re neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully
like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You’ve spent days arguing against this.
Here’s my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌
Your response:
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn’t have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.
Trump’s new nickname should be the Orange Red Herring
You could probably fit it into the K-12 program without losing any value elsewhere if you cut out things like memorizing maps in regions of the world that are so unstable that those maps won’t be valid anymore by the time kids graduate, studying writers like Shakespeare that lived so long ago that what they wrote in could barely be called English, and mandatory electives.
A lot of schools have this already but are very good about naming them non-obvious things.
My sons is called success 101.
mm, idk i’d have to see the class materials to be able to tell you whether or not this was true philosophy. The best phil classes are the ones by the insane teacher. That’s how you know you’re going to learn something.
Well he’s still pretty young, its like an intro class but theres more as they go. Some schools have kept up pretty well, I’m obviously not in a republican state.
yeah, it’s pretty hard to teach philosophy to someone younger than like 18. Just do to how abstract it is. Below that age it’s more just general life advice i think.
Yeah in first year middle school its framed in ways that makes sense to the kids. Its all practical stuff, how to interact with each other, how to handle disagreements, what is an appropriate thing to say about someone else, how motivation and reward work, etc.
They’ve been talking about diversity and inclusion and such since they’ve been in school so they are eerily polite children. Very weird to me coming from school in the 90s.
yeah, idk i think that’s generally productive stuff, especially with younger children, but i think when it comes to philosophy specifically, you should really just wait until senior year or so, and then just dive deep, and don’t stop at any point. Once you’ve reached that age your brain has developed a relatively significant amount to the point where it can start to conceptualize these things properly.
It’s probably even better in college, but even just doing a psych/phil 101 in senior year of highschool would i think be vastly productive to the average person as they get older.
you would definitely need to push this as a required junior/senior class, the unfortunate thing is that you need a legitimately insane teacher to actually learn something valuable from it. Generic course material doesn’t work as well for something like this i think.
There are definitely some interesting ways to integrate it into english though, that’s an idea.
