|
Post by Vaerris on Aug 12, 2011 19:51:12 GMT -8
Bahahahaha!! That's fucking hilarious, jorgen. @garrin Red - It's hard to determine who the 'deserving poor' that need assistance are versus the 'undeserving poor' who waste government resources. I don't know of an effective measure to categorize the two. Also, what did I say that you disagree with concerning taxes and corporations? posthuman - I'm actually getting into politics so I can tackle educational reform in my state. It's interesting that you're planning on becoming a professor, good luck to you. Teachers should be regularly evaluated. Currently the teacher's unions aren't effectively doing this, especially in lower income schools. As far as how to do this: I disagree with standardized testing for a variety of reasons. They have often been proven to be ineffective in raising scores, and they cause teachers to as you say teach for the test rather than create real knowledge or practical skills for students. It opens the way for abuse as seen in Georgia recently. Most importantly, what is needed in low income schools can be completely different from high income schools, and when they are treated the same, the system often fails. Children should be taught as much as possible at an individual level that adapts to their needs, rather than with a rigid bureaucratic system. I would put power in education out of the hands of the Department of Education for this reason and instead in more local hands, like the state and the school boards/administrators. The closer the decisions being made are to the schools, the more effective they are. School officials and administrators can perform quality evaluations of teachers to make sure they are maintaining good performance. Bad teachers should be fired, without question. You said we need accurate evaluation systems for teachers before we reduce the power of unions. This can't be done however, because by and large the unions are unwilling to accept change in education policy, especially when it endangers teachers' positions (like evaluation systems). Therefore the unions must lose power through loss of collective bargaining rights and control over school functions before meaningful educational reform can take place.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 13, 2011 10:41:38 GMT -8
Vaerris:
You say it's hard to determine who the deserving poor are? Well, that may be true. It's also necessary if we want to ensure justice. We should help the true poor who need help, and stop giving freebies to lazy bums who take advantage of them. Sure it's hard to determine who's who, but it's something we need to work on. A lot of things are hard, but still worth doing.
You said this: "Taxes should not be done based on what seems 'fair', but on what makes economic sense. It seems fair for the super rich to contribute more because they can afford it, I don't disagree with that. But the problem with that is that it creates a huge disincentive for corporations, leading to either job losses, loss of quality/quantity of products, decreased pay or job opportunities, outsourcing, ect. It also scares the market, making it riskier to invest and spend. I'd rather follow a Reagan or Clinton example of recovery than a Carter/Obama malaise."
I'm not sure I buy that. I'm really not sure I buy that at all. How does taxing super-rich individuals scare the market? How does it even cause a huge disincentive for corporations?
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 13, 2011 16:05:35 GMT -8
David Cameron's apparently planning to evict rioters and their families from government-provided housing. There's even cases where local governments are already enforcing evictions, with some prominent cases involving rioters and their parents getting the boot. Erm, if you know whodunnit, maybe taking those responsible into custody, rather than directly punishing their families with them, is the way to go. There's probably a good bit of nuance I'm missing here, or at least I hope so, because this seems like a pretty ham-fisted way to punish the rioters. I find it funny how Cameron says “For too long we’ve taken too soft an attitude towards people that loot and pillage their own community.” Like it was even an issue before these riots. Things have gotten out of control, but I don't think it's because of the lack of anti-vandalism or anti-burglary laws/punishments on the books.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 13, 2011 19:58:52 GMT -8
Vaerris, I'm not sure taking education completely out of the hands of the federal government is the best idea--I'd say the fed gov't should lay down some ground rules, and then the details should be worked out at more local levels.
The problem with local control is that some areas may be unwilling to teach certain things, or will teach certain things that shouldn't be taught. For example, some very conservative communities may want to refrain from teaching evolution (even though, in my opinion, it doesn't threaten Christianity). Some ultra liberal communities may encourage "free love". There needs to be some federal standard for curriculum, though I believe the current standard needs modification.
You are probably correct, however, in that evaluation systems would be best sorted out at more local levels, as long as these systems aren't used to encourage local ideologies. You're probably also right in that unions need to be weakened before reform can occur.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 14, 2011 9:25:59 GMT -8
Some subjects could be taught for standardized tests that don't suck. That is, the AP Exams. Science, math, history, psychology, etc. Even languages. Perhaps especially languages. In my opinion, these are tests that teachers can teach to, and everything will be ok.
However these still don't address the lower-level easier classes for less hardworking students.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 14, 2011 10:51:56 GMT -8
When teachers must teach for a standardized test, any passion or creativity they have is limited by the test. They must focus on the specifics of the test, generally forgoing interesting connections they can make to other material, engaging projects that focus on specific pieces of the material, or positive changes to the material that the teacher sees necessary.
This isn't just for less scientific topics like English, History, and Government; it includes Math and the sciences as well. My calculus teacher went above and beyond the AP test and taught us some differential equations and multi. Psychology, which I am obviously biased toward, can definitely be taught in ways that transcend any standardized test.
Anyway, as Vaerris has said, they often don't work anyway.
Also, I just looked somewhat in depth at the Republican candidates; Jon Huntsman is the only one who appeals to me.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 14, 2011 11:04:42 GMT -8
Huntsman's a pipe dream, but I agree, he's mighty tolerable. Perhaps a bit too aggressively conservative when it comes to fiscal policy, but then again, he is a Republican. Also, he's not batshit insane like some of the others in the running, which is a plus, though that might be due to lack of exposure (or the cause of his lack of exposure?)
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 14, 2011 14:32:23 GMT -8
Also, he's not batshit insane like some of the others in the running, which is a plus Haha exactly. The primary system is really not fantastic, as a radical Republican, like Bachmann, could get through the primary fine by appealing to the hardcore party base and then get killed in the election because she's so radical.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 15, 2011 2:12:00 GMT -8
www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecod.html“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.” “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 15, 2011 5:20:06 GMT -8
She doesn't seem that radical, honestly. She has a point with most everything she has on that page. She seems to have good insight, even if I disagree with some of her opinions based on that insight. I do however love the way education, gay rights, and radical islam are all her #1 issue.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 15, 2011 7:42:39 GMT -8
Garrin, stance on LGBT-issues? Shall homosexuals be allowed to marry or not, for example?
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 15, 2011 9:40:17 GMT -8
I'LL RESPOND INSTEAD I actually like this idea: "If you wanted to get married in the traditional sense, you’d go to your religious house of choice. If you wanted the legal benefits of marriage as it currently stands, you’d get a domestic partnership. And all this would apply to gay and straight couples alike." www.alternet.org/economy/150141/should_the_government_get_out_of_marriage/"Give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage. For people who feel the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they wanted. Religions would lose nothing of their role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that they find in keeping with their tenets. And for nonbelievers and those who find the word marriage less important, the civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples." communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/politics-raising-children/2011/jun/28/gay-marriage-straight-marriage-no-marriage-case-ci/
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 15, 2011 9:51:49 GMT -8
Thank you Post for saying exactly what I believe. I would have been way too lazy to write that all out myself.
Edit: I researched Bachman a little more. I discovered a few things: 1) There are a lot of people interested in making her look worse than she actually is. 2) She is actually kind of reasonable about a lot of things. 3) Her stance on global warming is downright silly. and 4) She is really really Republican and I would not vote for her.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 15, 2011 10:04:14 GMT -8
Civil Unions are, atm, only a state-recognized thing, whereas marriages are recognized at the federal level. It's a bit more complicated than just extending federal recognition to all couples and just calling them all "civil unions" partly because of the "once you go black" effect.
The name is really mostly an aesthetic thing, and that doesn't mean it's unimportant. People, straight and gay, want their partnerships recognized as socially-acceptable "marriages," not just as begrudgingly-issued "civil unions."
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 15, 2011 10:22:41 GMT -8
People were not so upset like they are now when civil unions popped up everywhere. I think marriage is largely symbolic, and so the power of marriage should be given back to churches. There are certainly churches who will perform same-sex marriages if gay people want marriage as well as the federally-recognized union.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 15, 2011 10:32:31 GMT -8
Still agree with Post.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 15, 2011 11:08:15 GMT -8
Major disagreement. Marriage is far from a symbolic act in this modern world. Your proposal is something that would cause anger both from the gays, because they don't get the same "symbolic act" as straight couples (Christian gays would probably still want divine blessing), and those opposed to giving homosexuals the rights they deserve. I'm usually for compromises but I'll never compromise about LGBT-persons rights.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 15, 2011 11:42:25 GMT -8
Marriage is far from a symbolic act in this modern world. Your proposal is something that would cause anger both from the gays, because they don't get the same "symbolic act" as straight couples (Christian gays would probably still want divine blessing), and those opposed to giving homosexuals the rights they deserve. No. First, there ARE churches that would approve gay marriages, as I said in my last post. I guess I need to give examples: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominationsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality#Views_favorable_to_homosexualityAnd yes, it will still upset some people who don't want gay people to have any relationship rights, but it would be much fewer people than the amount unhappy now. Many people oppose federal/state-sanctioned gay marriage; not so many would oppose federal/state-sanctioned gay domestic partnerships.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 15, 2011 21:15:07 GMT -8
Still agree with Post.
Isa, well of course people who are against gay rights would be angry. If a person is against gay rights, that position is usually based on a few other beliefs:
1) Homosexuality is in direct opposition to God's plan for humanity and a grave sin. 2) The government should act based on religious morals and beliefs. Specifically, Christian morals and beliefs. 3) Since the governmet should act based on Christian morals and beliefs, the government should sanction marriages between a man and a woman. 4) The government should..........provide financial benefits to married couples. 5) Since the government should act based on Christian morals and beliefs, it should be opposed to all homosexual relations and deny all marriages that are not between a man and a woman. 6) Furthermore, the government should actively condemn all homosexual relations and indoctrinate children with the belief that homosexuality is absolutely wrong. At the very least, the government must not allow schools to indcotrinate children with the belief that homosexuality is acceptable.
There are a few issues with these beliefs that are seldom addressed: Belief #1 is a faith-based religious belief. It's also based on the belief that a "victimless crime" ought to be punished in some cases, simply because it has been declared "wrong" by a religious or moral authority, or because it seems "unnatural". This belief is opposed to a common American principle: Absolute freedom for everyone so long as they do not infringe on the rights or freedoms of other people.
Belief #2 is directly opposed to another common American principle: Separation of church and state. Which is to say, the government is to be secular in nature and act based on the will of the people, within the bounds of the Constitution. According to the principle of separation of church and state, the government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs.
Beliefs #3, #5, and #6 are all more of the same. The fundamental question is "How much should the decisions of the government be based on Christian doctrine?" Some people say completely. Others say not at all. Personally I don't have a problem with the people who want to "Christianize" the government or the nation. It's hypocrites I have a problem with. The people who claim to oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. The people who preach separation of church and state and then also want the government to make decisions based on religion. THOSE people annoy me.
It's #4 that really throws me off. No one really talks about it, it's kind of just there. Why does the government feel the need to give economic benefits to married couples? Why does no one suggest that the government......not do this? Who determined this is in the best interests of the people, and why? The main reason I can see is to "encourage traditional families". Until it can be absolutely proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these types of families are the best in which to raise children, the idea that a "traidtional family" is ideal is in itself a faith-based belief, whether or not someone believes it due to religious doctrine. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about with this though.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 16, 2011 2:51:29 GMT -8
Most Christians I know don't dislike gay people, they just don't like homosexuality, the sin itself. There are, of course, those who hate gay people and what they do, but people like that will always exist. The point is that this is a minority of Christians. I honestly believe most Christians against homosexuality simply believe it's sinful and they hope that gay people will recognize this and free themselves of sin through Jesus Christ.
I disagree with these beliefs, but I don't have a large problem with them (though I wrote a defense of loving gay relationships from a Christian perspective; it appears the Bible is strongly against certain types of sex in certain contexts, but not against monogamous gay relationships). While beliefs against homosexuality may neglect the largely innate nature of sexuality (among other things), most Christians want gay people to change because they care, because they believe this will lead them to salvation. You may say it's condescending, but I see it more as compassionate.
The solution to marriage I discussed will not eliminate homosexuality, of course, and so will not satisfy gay-bashers, but I believe most people against gay marriage will be happy, as their church would only perform marriages that they agree with.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 16, 2011 4:59:28 GMT -8
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 16, 2011 18:47:25 GMT -8
I like how religion has leaked into our political discussion. Or is religion inherently a part of politics, no matter how hard we try to separate the two? When it comes down to it, politics is nearly as ideological as religion is.
"What looks like politics, and imagines itself to be political, will one day unmask itself as a religious movement." —Søren Kierkegaard
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 16, 2011 19:50:06 GMT -8
Depends how you define "religion". If you define religion as purely a set of beliefs about the creation of the universe, the source of mysterious phenomena, and the afterlife, then it's totally separate from politics.
If however religion includes a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong and moral and immoral(which it does), then naturally these beliefs will always be an inherent part of politics.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 17, 2011 5:10:29 GMT -8
I don't think it's anything especially intrinsic about religion so much as it is just the intrinsic ability of any large/powerful group of people to hold sway in policy considerations. You notice that it's Christian religious beliefs that always come up in U.S. politics, and not, like, Buddhist or Hindu beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Aug 17, 2011 9:19:28 GMT -8
Interesting quote, Nathan. Might be true.
The government, in some sense, is the extension of God's hand. God is the ultimate judge, and he carries out some of his justice through the just governments on earth. Indeed, God even used warring tribes/empires to humble Israel and teach them lessons.
I think a healthy, biblically-based governing system can absolutely provide us with a vivid look at God's justice and provenance, and therefore I can agree with Kierkegaard. Government and God are closely linked, from the Christian perspective.
~
Marriage is a Christian union. When the Romans and later cultures integrated it into the secular community, things were bound to get messy. There should be a distinction between civil unions and marriages. A state-ordained marriage outside the specifications of the bible (where we find God's basis/purpose/guidelines for marriage) is silly, one must admit.
Financial benefits for a monogamous relationship should be available to more than just those married biblically (nuclear families and nuclear-esque families provide stability to the economy, and are thus encouraged/sanctioned/incentivized), but there is no reason to call that financially beneficial union "marriage."
yeah.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 17, 2011 11:13:51 GMT -8
Well, this is basically what I meant. Be aware that I'll be stereotyping liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans; what I say below doesn't apply to the same degree for libertarians or other, less popular, political views. Most people don't really think about politics like this, but conservatism and liberalism are inherently linked to specific worldviews, and so they are sort of "religious movements". Conservatism is obviously tied to Christianity, even though many conservatives may not be good Christians. Liberals, on the other hand, seem non-religious for the most part (besides the occasional use of God in speeches), but are they really? Non-religious in the traditional sense, sure, but look at this definition: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReligionRead it carefully. This doesn't just describe Christianity, it describes the views behind the liberalism as well. The views of typical liberals are just as much "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews" as those of conservatives. The last part is really the most important, "They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature." Liberals and conservatives have very different worldviews, beliefs, and views of human nature which powerfully influence their political views. Conservatives believe that humans are mostly selfish and imperfectible, and so must be constrained through authority, institutions, and traditions to live civilly with each other. This is because of the general Christian view of human nature, which is this (from The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker): "The mind is made up of several components, including a moral sense, an ability to love, a capacity for reason that recognizes whether an act conforms to ideals of goodness, and a decision faculty that chooses how to behave. Although the decision faculty is not bound by the laws of cause and effect, it has an innate tendency to choose sin. Our cognitive and perceptual faculties work accurately because God implanted ideals in them that correspond to reality and because he coordinates their functioning with the outside world. Mental health comes from recognizing God's purpose, choosing good and repenting sin, and loving God and one's fellow humans for God's sake." Because, in this view, people have an innate tendency to choose sin, especially when they are without God, conservatives have a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature. They also believe strongly in responsibility, which influences their views on things like how to treat the poor and the criminal justice system. Now, onto the liberal view. Liberals believe very strongly in individual liberty, and they have a much more positive view of human nature than conservatives do. They think people are perfectible and that people should be left as free as possible to pursue their own lives, their own interests, and their own courses of personal development. Also, while this belief may not be quite as popular as it once was, liberals tend to believe in "the Blank Slate: the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves", and so "the Blank Slate has become the secular religion of modern intellectual life." (again from Pinker's book). Because of these beliefs, liberals think that people are mostly good, and are only bad when shaped negatively by culture. Because of these views, liberals have a weaker view of responsibility. This is why liberals believe that poor people are really only poor due to uncontrollable factors (it's not their own doing), and that all criminals can be reformed. Onto worldviews! Conservatives believe in the Christian worldview. God created the universe, and He made us in His image. Humanity is special and separate from animals because of this. Due to the fact that we were made in God's image, our bodies are sacred things that should be treated as such. This is why chastity is so important to Christians, and why conservatives hate sex education so much—they don't think kids should be having sex at all, as safe sex is just as degrading in front of God as unsafe sex. Liberals believe in evolution (though many don't believe in the implications that come from this). They think that humans are not so different from animals and that our bodies are not temples, or anything sacred like that. Therefore, we have no obligation to be "pure". Sex is just a natural desire and when no one is hurt, there's nothing wrong with sex. Conservatives are worried about the direction our country is headed with things like casual sex and abortion becoming more rampant and with increasing tolerance of sin, such as homosexuality. Liberals basically think conservatives are intolerant, ignorant, and religious zealots. Alright, I think I did a decent job with this. My point is that liberalism and conservatism are not just moral ideologies; they are complete belief systems with differing views of human nature, the origin of humanity, and the meaning of life or what lifestyles are the best. Because of these differences, liberals and conservatives have vastly different moral and political views. I'm definitely not saying that the religiosity of politics is necessarily a bad thing; politics should be tied with values and not simply be about utilitarian calculations. But! I would like to see the general views of human nature, especially the liberal one, evolve to something more accurate. I'd like to add one more thing: both of these views have some things wrong and other things right. For example, conservatives are right that humans have a "moral sense" and are not entirely rational, but liberals are right that humanity developed through evolution and that people are not always drawn toward sin. There are many factors as to why people hold different beliefs, but it's not just the influence of culture. All long-lasting cultures have views that are compatible with our (actual) human nature (there's no society where murder is accepted as normal, or where incest is entirely accepted). The above beliefs do stem from our nature, but the beliefs themselves influence which parts of our nature we exemplify. "Virtues are socially constructed and socially learned, but these processes are highly prepared and constrained by the evolved mind."
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 17, 2011 11:31:39 GMT -8
It's interesting to ask the question: What would a government/ecomony look like if everyone in charge(or just plain old everyone) was a devout Christian truly devoted to God and to the teachings of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 17, 2011 11:35:14 GMT -8
Post, I question that conservatives actually believe in the Christian worldview. They support Capitalism. Capitalism is based on greed and selfishness. According to the Christian worldview, greed and selfishness are bad.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 17, 2011 11:39:32 GMT -8
Well conservatives believe in capitalism because it generally assumes everyone is selfish, and that agrees with they believe. Greed and selfishness are bad in their view, but humans have a tendency toward sin.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 17, 2011 13:12:59 GMT -8
But they not only believe capitalism works, they SUPPORT it. They're basically saying that the best economic system is one in which greed and selfishness are encouraged and rewarded.
|
|