Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know much about the more sci-fi stuff you got into at the end, but I do mostly agree with you.
I hold that in the future, parents will design their children with their doctor.
Originally posted by inimalist
It isn't entirely negative that we are programmed to quickly absorb social influence as a child, rather, we should take advantage of it. And even writing that makes me feel like a fascist, because I know that indoctrinating a child from a young age like that, into anything, is brain washing...I digress. My only concern is that much of what you think is the rational choice of the 18 year old to determine their beliefs is not. Hatred can be passed easily, ignorance can be passed easily.
I was talking about this earlier. The lovely thing about a humans is we can decide against our indoctrinations despite having endured the virtual tortures that indoctrinated us to begin with. When I was referring to the killing off of the "drones" I was referring to people who simply do not have the capacity to "think outside the box" of their indoctrination. Personality is a combination of genetics and environment, right?(This assumes that the person does not have a soul.) If we do not have souls, that means in the not so distant future, parents may get the choice to select things as complex as the personality of their children and, naturally, immunities and strengths. These extreme religious people may consider it to be playing God. It may become necessary to have your child programmed with specific immunities because of germ-warefare or simply new and destructive pathogens. These "drone" types who can't think for themselves, or rather, outside of their dammed beliefs/perspectives, will come to a bridge: the natural progression of things would force them to throw away their stupid beliefs or die. This would help to eliminate the "drone" mentality that seems to damn progression.
I know, that was a lot of information that I inferred that I expected you to pick-up. I apologize.
Originally posted by inimalist
And if I can speak idealistically, a perfect education system, ignoring the political implications of public education, would be so good that the advantages of homeschooling wouldn't be there. It would be individualized and adaptive to engage students. It would be relevant and personal.
You sir, are describing an improbable utopia. 😉
Originally posted by inimalist
As far as curriculum, I also have to disagree with homeschooling in some cases. The religious people that do it specifically to keep their children away from science are doing a disservice to the nation they belong to. They are traitors, plain and simple, because they are making the next generation less capable of dealing with the real problems of the world, and weakening their contry's international standing.
I was referring to these people as the "drones".
Originally posted by inimalist
The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone.
Now that's quite awesome. You must know a lot of people then. Are you a people-person?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.
It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.
There I agree with you, though I feel that home-schooling is bad, generally speaking, as I highly doubt most parents either have a well-rounded ability to teach or they'll actually hire someone with that ability and being in a school atmosphere teaches vital social skills, that can't be learned at home. I still feel if the parent wants to raise an ignorant fool who will be in for a huge surprise when they finally have to go out into the real world, then so be it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but telling a little kid that "Jesus is God and this is how we came to be" etc. etc. etc. IS indoctrination as fact, it's not like you're giving the child a choice in believing or not, is there?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was talking about this earlier. The lovely thing about a humans is we can decide against our indoctrinations despite having endured the virtual tortures that indoctrinated us to begin with. When I was referring to the killing off of the "drones" I was referring to people who simply do not have the capacity to "think outside the box" of their indoctrination. Personality is a combination of genetics and environment, right?(This assumes that the person does not have a soul.) If we do not have souls, that means in the not so distant future, parents may get the choice to select things as complex as the personality of their children and, naturally, immunities and strengths. These extreme religious people may consider it to be playing God. It may become necessary to have your child programmed with specific immunities because of germ-warefare or simply new and destructive pathogens. These "drone" types who can't think for themselves, or rather, outside of their dammed beliefs/perspectives, will come to a bridge: the natural progression of things would force them to throw away their stupid beliefs or die. This would help to eliminate the "drone" mentality that seems to damn progression.I know, that was a lot of information that I inferred that I expected you to pick-up. I apologize.
I was referring to these people as the "drones".
yes, drones might be a good word, but maybe more insulting than I want to be. Drones do what they do with the best of intentions.
I still disagree with you about people overcoming parental influences. Depending on your environment, lessons you learn from your family and direct community can become as hard wired as your understanding of gravity (not the concept, but the fact that things fall and you are able to take that into account without even thinking about it).
People can do it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that it is something we cannot assume is natural. The common folklore of people going through a "phase" of resisting their parents and coming to their own ideas is true, to some extent, however, it is very easy for parents to stunt or disable this growth. From there, the personality characteristics of the child kick in, but I wouldn't even think that 50% of children have the balls to tell their parents where to stick it, and to follow up on that, I don't think an internet discussion forum is going to produce a good sample of people for this. I'm sure there is a higher percentage of confrontational/assertive people here than in the general population at large. So, while I'm sure many people here are willing to stand up for themselves, I don't think it is a quality of most people in society.
I guess thats a bit tangental... I'm not sure I'm too thrilled about the idea of people "dying off", but ya, sink or swim. If it comes to what you are describing, it is totally possible, although I think that would probably just lead to two distinct human populations.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Now that's quite awesome. You must know a lot of people then. Are you a people-person?
actually, no, I don't know too many people, nor am I much of a people person...
Thats just an observation based on my own experiences, so don't take it as written in stone or anything. But thanks, I was hoping that line at the end wasn't pushing the tastelessness of the post.
Originally posted by inimalistI agree in part. I think it can go a couple ways though. In one sense, there are a lot of people out there that are doing ordinary jobs (like you mentioned), but are geniuses and probably could change the world, but certain circumstances flat lined that possibility. The system as you eluded to. For instance, to get a book published, you need an angent, but to get an angent, you need to publish a book. So it is a really complicated system. You have to have connections with a lot of people that are up there in the food chain or at the very least, know people that know people that are up there in the food chain.
The smartest people I know aren't in school. They work at pizza shops or making glass bongs or doing labour. They are more well read, engaged with issues and the world, interested in science, whatever. We don't agree on lots of things, and we have great discussions.The system fails many, many people, and as a result, fails everyone.
On the same token though, there are lot of people that could be more, could be greater than where they are, have that poential, but practically and quite bluntly, are too lazy to get there. They want the system to come to them. They want the success to knock on the door. Instead of taking the initiative to go out there and change the system and beat the system or work within the system in some capacity.
I really think it goes both ways. I'm not sure if I'm even talking about what you were thinking, but nonetheless...
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, drones might be a good word, but maybe more insulting than I want to be. Drones do what they do with the best of intentions.I still disagree with you about people overcoming parental influences. Depending on your environment, lessons you learn from your family and direct community can become as hard wired as your understanding of gravity (not the concept, but the fact that things fall and you are able to take that into account without even thinking about it).
I completely understand your point. These items would fall under learned "behavior" that is executed at the subconscious level. But this hearkens back to my other point............see my below response.
Originally posted by inimalist
People can do it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that it is something we cannot assume is natural. The common folklore of people going through a "phase" of resisting their parents and coming to their own ideas is true, to some extent, however, it is very easy for parents to stunt or disable this growth. From there, the personality characteristics of the child kick in, but I wouldn't even think that 50% of children have the balls to tell their parents where to stick it, and to follow up on that, I don't think an internet discussion forum is going to produce a good sample of people for this. I'm sure there is a higher percentage of confrontational/assertive people here than in the general population at large. So, while I'm sure many people here are willing to stand up for themselves, I don't think it is a quality of most people in society.I guess thats a bit tangental... I'm not sure I'm too thrilled about the idea of people "dying off", but ya, sink or swim. If it comes to what you are describing, it is totally possible, although I think that would probably just lead to two distinct human populations.
I have termed the "God defyers" as "hyperperfects". Yes, humanity would diverge into two groups. Race would no longer be defined by skin color but race would be defined as the "hyperperfects" and the "lessers" and varying degrees inbetween. If humanity suffers atrocities that require artificial construction of DNA, those who do not have the "mods" should die off, eventually. These extreme religionist homeschooler types would definitely fall under the category of the "lessers"...because of their stubborn beliefs...again, they would call the hyperperfects the "God Defyers". This would force the subconscious, almost instinctual, behaviors to come to the surface and be questioned by those labeled as the "lessers". The "lessers" who employ adequate willpower to throw their indoctrinations aside would adapt and take gene therapy and artificially create their children.
Indeed, the subject is tangential. But it crosses my mind when I think about those religious homeschooler types.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, no, I don't know too many people, nor am I much of a people person...Thats just an observation based on my own experiences, so don't take it as written in stone or anything. But thanks, I was hoping that line at the end wasn't pushing the tastelessness of the post.
Do you live in a big city? There is a shortage of the people in my area like the ones you described. Maybe its because I live in the bible belt and instead of self educated, philosophizing intellects, I experience indoctrinated and intellectually damned laymen. 😬
Originally posted by BigRed
I agree in part. I think it can go a couple ways though. In one sense, there are a lot of people out there that are doing ordinary jobs (like you mentioned), but are geniuses and probably could change the world, but certain circumstances flat lined that possibility. The system as you eluded to. For instance, to get a book published, you need an angent, but to get an angent, you need to publish a book. So it is a really complicated system. You have to have connections with a lot of people that are up there in the food chain or at the very least, know people that know people that are up there in the food chain.On the same token though, there are lot of people that could be more, could be greater than where they are, have that poential, but practically and quite bluntly, are too lazy to get there. They want the system to come to them. They want the success to knock on the door. Instead of taking the initiative to go out there and change the system and beat the system or work within the system in some capacity.
I really think it goes both ways. I'm not sure if I'm even talking about what you were thinking, but nonetheless...
no, you are totally on point. I was certainly getting really into the more idealistic stuff, but there are lots of other issues that are much more pragmatic that are much more important to address.
Along with motivation, levels of access to a system would also play a major role, and I'm sure the two would be inter-related. Without an extended rant about inequalities in access, I'd say I agree with you 100%, someone who is not interested in educating themselves doesn't really deserve it. I think it's tragic... But ya, hopefully they end up wanting better for their children.
But ya, I'd be willing to bet the majority of cases of people who completely turn their back on the system were in some way or another excluded from it from the beginning.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I completely understand your point. These items would fall under learned "behavior" that is executed at the subconscious level. But this hearkens back to my other point............see my below response.I have termed the "God defyers" as "hyperperfects". Yes, humanity would diverge into two groups. Race would no longer be defined by skin color but race would be defined as the "hyperperfects" and the "lessers" and varying degrees inbetween. If humanity suffers atrocities that require artificial construction of DNA, those who do not have the "mods" should die off, eventually. These extreme religionist homeschooler types would definitely fall under the category of the "lessers"...because of their stubborn beliefs...again, they would call the hyperperfects the "God Defyers". This would force the subconscious, almost instinctual, behaviors to come to the surface and be questioned by those labeled as the "lessers". The "lessers" who employ adequate willpower to throw their indoctrinations aside would adapt and take gene therapy and artificially create their children.
Indeed, the subject is tangential. But it crosses my mind when I think about those religious homeschooler types.
I don't know, I'll ignore the pretty overt tone set with some of your word choice... But honestly, this isn't really my cup of tea. I'm not a big subscriber to the idea that people are going to start modifying themselves within any time frame that is relevant to me. Sure, we will probably be able to screen for new genetic diseases and eliminate them, but to the point where people are modifying themselves? Thats too speculative for me.
I think I was talking about what, imho, is a natural reverence for authority that we have. We are set up to assign certain individuals as authority figures and we basically never question them due to things like cognitive dissonance and cognitive consistency.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you live in a big city? There is a shortage of the people in my area like the ones you described. Maybe its because I live in the bible belt and instead of self educated, philosophizing intellects, I experience indoctrinated and intellectually damned laymen. 😬
lol, no, its really more that we are drug users, to be honest. Taking psychedelics sort of encourages exploring the mind, and even just being on them makes you ask new questions about common stimuli.
Most people aren't intellectuals, no matter where you go. And the people who think they are, are almost never. Thats one of the things that I really like about the internet. Lacking any real salon to attend and discuss politics and philosophy, there are message boards.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Counterpoint: Telling parents that they can't "pull their kids out of school just to try and get them away from opposing viewpoints" as King Kandy said, is basically forcing indoctrination upon the kids by putting them in an abortion approving, evolution theory pushing, "we as humans were just accidents" mentality that many parents don't agree with or approve of.
My point wasn't to teach kids evolution in the classroom (I don't want to get into that, it's been debated to death.) The point is that in school, your PEERS will expose you to many, many viewpoints, and your parents will only expose you to one. It had little to do with the curriculum (though that's certainly part of it.) Having people's kids exposed to multiple viewpoints is that opposite of indoctrination.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Tests need improvement though. No Child Left Behind isn't the only reason either.If you are proposing the same idea as the other dozen million people who say that, you are saying that you want these tests to be standardized by the state. But if you haven't noticed, state tests are a joke. My parrot could ace half of them (of course, you have to acknowledge my parrot is a lot smarter then some high school students but he's still just a parrot). If I were writing a plan to educate students in my state, I would only use a state accredited university.
It isn't uncommon for major departments of prestigious universities to outline how much a student has to learn clear from kindergarten to be ready to attend college by his mid teen years. Of course you can't get everything from one university because some departments are more cooperative than others. But when there is such a large list to choose from, it doesn't take more than some devoted searching to find education plans for individual subjects from state accredited universities.
That means they could have 3rd grade math tests from the math department of Bowdoin university and 5th grade science tests from Caltech. So I think the governments responsible for education should rely a lot more on universities to set their standards. If the students can't pass a test that is on the path to being in college, they should get extra training in the subject.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know, I'll ignore the pretty overt tone set with some of your word choice... But honestly, this isn't really my cup of tea. I'm not a big subscriber to the idea that people are going to start modifying themselves within any time frame that is relevant to me. Sure, we will probably be able to screen for new genetic diseases and eliminate them, but to the point where people are modifying themselves? Thats too speculative for me.
We are already modifying ourselves with cybernetic enhancements. Amputees and quadriplegics are the first to go down the paths of enhancement. Right around the corner is gene doping(it is rumored that some already gene dope)...and eventually genetically "designing" our offspring. It is possible that the latter will not happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen in just a decade, to an extent. Some argue that it is already happening when you select your "sperm donor"...but that isn't the same thing, imo.
Genetic diseases, environmental changes, and simple enhancements to allow better interfaces with technology (Like changing our blood PH and tissue type or other exotic things that would better interface with electronics.) are all examples of reasons to modify our genetics. Who knows, we never progress beyond very complex "gene doping" type of modifications. (Such as intrauterine(or even injecting straight into the baby as it develops!!!) injections that modify the genetics of your baby as it develops. This example would describe selecting the genetics of your child.)
Originally posted by inimalist
I think I was talking about what, imho, is a natural reverence for authority that we have. We are set up to assign certain individuals as authority figures and we basically never question them due to things like cognitive dissonance and cognitive consistency.
I would agree that there seems to be an inherent attribute of respect for persons higher up in the social hierarchy(Such as parents or law enforcement), but not by any means are these people never questioned. I know you didn't say all people and you realize that the majority of people question authority at some level, but we are talking about overly religious homeschoolers....in which case, I still believe that the parents are questioned by their future drones...it seems to be part of human nature to question.
l
Originally posted by inimalist
ol, no, its really more that we are drug users, to be honest. Taking psychedelics sort of encourages exploring the mind, and even just being on them makes you ask new questions about common stimuli.Most people aren't intellectuals, no matter where you go. And the people who think they are, are almost never. Thats one of the things that I really like about the internet. Lacking any real salon to attend and discuss politics and philosophy, there are message boards.
You use psychedelics? heh heh 😖hifty:
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are already modifying ourselves with cybernetic enhancements. Amputees and quadriplegics are the first to go down the paths of enhancement. Right around the corner is gene doping(it is rumored that some already gene dope)...and eventually genetically "designing" our offspring. It is possible that the latter will not happen in our lifetimes, but it may happen in just a decade, to an extent. Some argue that it is already happening when you select your "sperm donor"...but that isn't the same thing, imo.Genetic diseases, environmental changes, and simple enhancements to allow better interfaces with technology (Like changing our blood PH and tissue type or other exotic things that would better interface with electronics.) are all examples of reasons to modify our genetics. Who knows, we never progress beyond very complex "gene doping" type of modifications. (Such as intrauterine(or even injecting straight into the baby as it develops!!!) injections that modify the genetics of your baby as it develops. This example would describe selecting the genetics of your child.)
lol, fair enough, if that is the extent you are talking about, then of course, a lot of that is only a few years off.
Personally, I can't wait until I can get some bioluminescent genes
Originally posted by dadudemon
I would agree that there seems to be an inherent attribute of respect for persons higher up in the social hierarchy(Such as parents or law enforcement), but not by any means are these people never questioned. I know you didn't say all people and you realize that the majority of people question authority at some level, but we are talking about overly religious homeschoolers....in which case, I still believe that the parents are questioned by their future drones...it seems to be part of human nature to question.
I don't know. I'm not sure how optimistic I am about people. I don't think we question, I think we pick our sacred cow and denounce everything else.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You use psychedelics? heh heh 😖hifty:
ya, I don't necessarily recommend it...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, as long as it's not illegal or harmful, the parent really has all the rights here to teach or "indoctrinate" as they see fit.
Indoctrination is harmful to children.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's silly to pretend otherwise, this is one of a parent's basic rights and until the child is old and experienced enough (18 at least) to make their own responsible choices it's a moot point.. . . And it's the right of every parent to execute , if they so choose. (it's not like "the world" has got it all figured out anyway. Anybody know anybody out there who's got it all explained and under control?)
The rights of the parents do not supercede what is in the best interests of the child.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And if the parents want them taught at home to "indoctrinate" them, it's not much different from what the schools do, it just comes from a certain viewpoint.
In private and public schools, children are exposed to a multiplicity of views. How can this be characterized as indoctrination?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In private and public schools, children are exposed to a multiplicity of views. How can this be characterized as indoctrination?
It depends on whether or not you believe that personal beliefs are based on rational choice.
Or whether or not you believe that the concept of multiplicity is indoctrination.
I actually think this is a very difficult question to answer
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back to the main issue, home schooling is the right of every parent, and the only ones who want to stop it are those that want to stop parents from contradicting the TRUE indoctrination of increasingly secular progressive public schools with the way that they believe.
Yet it is parents who are seeking to limit intellectual diversity, not private and public schools.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
If the kids can meet all educational requirements in all subjects, then this idea that homeschool parents must be certified is complete nonsense. Educationally, they are fine.
Why should home educators be held to a different standard of certification than private and public educators? By your reasoning, any one is qualified to teach in any educational setting so long as students meet educational requirements.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's people that want to promote abortion, evolution, and other theories as truth and stop people from thinking any other way that really would want homeschooling so severly restricted as to make it almost unavailable to parents.
The scientific ignorance illustrated in this post represents one of the dangers of home schooling. Relativity is "only a theory," but you do not question whether or not gravity exists. Yet, you question the validity of Evolution, which has more scientific support than Relativity.
Moreover, the notion that abortion is being promoted in public schools is a conservative Straw Man. In my entire public school educational experience in characteristically liberal Chicago, abortion was rarely, if ever discussed, let alone promoted.
Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on whether or not you believe that personal beliefs are based on rational choice.Or whether or not you believe that the concept of multiplicity is indoctrination.
I actually think this is a very difficult question to answer
Indoctrination is "to imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view." By definition, representing a multiplicity of views is not indoctrination. What one believes about multiplicity is irrelevant.