Would MLK Be Proud?

[Headhunter]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how you can make a value assessment on “therapeutic” learning. Is that not enough value? What you say about African American studies can be applied to every subject–they all fulfill a therapeutic need to “know”.

You are missing the meaning. “Therapeutic” doesn’t mean “filling a desire to know” - it means “to make someone feel better about themselves”. Knowledge should not be shoehorned into the mere purpose of reaffirming someone’s desires. You say knowledge should have no end - but the “Studies” curricula all have very specific ends: that is only reason they exist.

Further, “studies” disciplines are really just pop culture dressed up as serious undertaking. And if someone told you they majored in “pop culture”, I suspect you wouldn’t think much of their education.

Here is the problem - some educations are better than others. Again, we run into your nihilism - that one education is no better than another. Fantastic for your dreamland which you like to refer to - not here. Some kinds of knowledge are better than others, and a good education involves imparting knowledge no matter whose ox is gored.

[/quote]

Welcome to the wonderful world of lib academia! You would simply not believe how that particular bucket of shit makes the rounds in education.

It galls me that people are paid to teach that stuff (we have it here) while I’m busting my balls to teach Trig, or Calc.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how you can make a value assessment on “therapeutic” learning. Is that not enough value? What you say about African American studies can be applied to every subject–they all fulfill a therapeutic need to “know”.

You are missing the meaning. “Therapeutic” doesn’t mean “filling a desire to know” - it means “to make someone feel better about themselves”. Knowledge should not be shoehorned into the mere purpose of reaffirming someone’s desires. You say knowledge should have no end - but the “Studies” curricula all have very specific ends: that is only reason they exist.
[/quote]
Am I missing the meaning or are you making one up? I am well aware of the definition I don’t think you are.

You are very shallow in you view of academia. You view it as a means to an end–this is simply not the case. There can be no definitive conclusion to learning. If there is one thing I do know it is that it is impossible to know everything there is to know about anything. This is why universities exist. They are large collections of knowledge–some very specific some a little more general.

Here is the problem - some educations are better than others. Again, we run into your nihilism - that one education is no better than another.

Other than your belief what can you possibly base this on?

Fantastic for your dreamland which you like to refer to - not here. Some kinds of knowledge are better than others, and a good education involves imparting knowledge no matter whose ox is gored.

Under your theory, a major that teaches that scientifically the earth is flat is no different that one that scientifically teaches the earth is round. Not all knowledge is equal, and to be frank, it bothers me that a teacher buys into that theory.

It is a valid subject to science when value statments can be backed by observation. The soft sciences and humanities can not be judged this way. There are no definitive measurements of humanity. Everything is up for grabs here. I have problems with many schools of thought as a scientist but that does not lead to my conclusion that they are worthless–only that I judge them to be so. I would not assume that an other human does not benefit from it–a la therapy.

No, learning about parts of culture can be fabulous - ask an history or anthropology professor - you keep missing the point. It is not about the topic matter being bad - it is about the nature of the education.

Think of it this way - math is a very useful subject. But if a math class was taught in that there no right answers to math problems, math itself is still useful, but that math class - as it is educating people - is worthless.

Math – which operates under certain axiomatic priciples can not be judged this way. By it’s very nature it defines its own ruls and as such can never be illogical. Humans and that which surrounds them cannot be judged in the same light.

Sure we can - and we do it all the time. Not every subject is a class for higher education. As an example, some suggested there be an “Obese Studies” major unto itself - so students could major in the study of how fat people are treated in society. Worthwhile educational undertaking?

There are studies for things which you have never though possible. Just becasue it isn’t offered at an undergraduate major level doesn’t mean the discipline doesn’t exist or isn’t worthwhile.

http://www.naaso.org/links.asp

http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/news/w97/sobalob.html

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The big irony is that poverty is a necessary part of free-market enterprises becaue without it markets would be over-run with inflation. Poverty sets the price of labor.

I’m not an economics expert, but it seems to me that most systems that aren’t based on free markets tend to solve the poverty issue by making everyone equally poor. Personally, I’d rather risk being poor, but at least have a chance to attain better through my efforts.

By the way, how do you define “being poor?” Just to make sure we’re talking about the same situation.
[/quote]

Poor as in not able to afford basic necessities (like cable tv) and or not having the means to attain it due to ones own socio-economic standing. It is as much a mindset as a state of being. The poverty issue cannot be solved with economics. Economics is just a tool to measure such qualities as poverty.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Am I missing the meaning or are you making one up? I am well aware of the definition I don’t think you are.[/quote]

I am not aware of my own word?

You are very shallow in you view of academia. You view it as a means to an end–this is simply not the case. There can be no definitive conclusion to learning. If there is one thing I do know it is that it is impossible to know everything there is to know about anything. This is why universities exist. They are large collections of knowledge–some very specific some a little more general.

Well, actually, no, since I have experience in higher education. And second, I never suggested anything even remotely close to the idea that there is a limit to knowledge. But education certainly is a means to an end, at least in some respects, and certainly as a function of acquiring specific higher education in society. At the bare minimum, an educated person is better to an uneducated person in that he has something of value the other one doesn’t have.

Western civilization has always thought so, and we still do. But to qualify, I have a broad view of education, and a college degree doesn’t automatically mean you are ‘educated’, just for clarification.

Other than your belief what can you possibly base this on?

This is interesting - this postmodernist-esque bizarreness seems to stew in academic circles - I had thought it dead.

It is a valid subject to science when value statments can be backed by observation. The soft sciences and humanities can not be judged this way. There are no definitive measurements of humanity. Everything is up for grabs here. I have problems with many schools of thought as a scientist but that does not lead to my conclusion that they are worthless–only that I judge them to be so. I would not assume that an other human does not benefit from it–a la therapy.

Nope - using your own toolkit against you, ‘hard science’ deserves no special status. Why privilege ‘hard science’ - based on Western empiricism - above all other explanations of phenomena? In privileging ‘hard science’ above others, you have done what you said is wrong - you are giving one form of knowledge a leg up for no reason, assuming that one is better than another. There is nothing magical about ‘science’ - and it is no better than aboriginal superstition in explaining natural phenomena.

That is, according to your theory. It can’t be a matter of ‘hard science’ and ‘everyting else’ - because ‘hard science’ is one more form of knowledge, and under your theory, it deserves no special position. Privileging ‘hard science’ contradicts the theory you are trying to support.

Math – which operates under certain axiomatic priciples can not be judged this way. By it’s very nature it defines its own ruls and as such can never be illogical. Humans and that which surrounds them cannot be judged in the same light.

Nope - see above.

Not that I am suggesting the humanities can be fixed on hard measurable truths - but that is very different from my contention that some forms of knowledge, even in the area of humanities, are better than others. A good humanities/liberal arts program should teach people how to think and get rid of mushy-mindedness. One of the great achievements of the traditional liberal arts education was that it taught people to be less susceptible to wild, silly ideas because of applied critical thinking skills - now, the opposite is true: no matter how silly or vacuous the idea, it deserves merit, and some empty-headed ‘thinker’ will be talked into anything by having a mind so open his brain has fallen out.

And as for the original point about “Studies” programs - I attack them because they are part of formal education. You can read up on any field you want independently, but if we, as a society, are going to arrange for specific knowledge and education to be imparted via the education process, we will always make a choice between things we want and things we don’t. You can’t major in “Artistic Methods of Licking Dirt” for a reason - and, in my view, the “Studies” programs should be left on the cutting room floor when the decision is made.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You do realize that Democrats simply play the black voters? For example, what did the Great Society program do for the black community? The poverty rate in the US changed from 15.6% to maybe 15.5%. Wow!!

Kinda like how Republicans play the relgious voters. Since most of em who are screaming the loudest about morals and values are some of the debased immoral people I can think of, in or out of politics, in either party. I guess it’s probably a draw. Democrats certainly do ‘play’ black voters to some degree. It’s also indisputable that they have more iniatives designed on aiding the underpriviledged. Poverty’s a dicey issue, and one that will probably never be solved. What have Republicans done to combat it? Trickle-down economics that never trickles down?

You’re solution then is a government program? How many of these do we have to try before we accept the fact that FREEDOM WORKS! Let the market choose.

‘Underprivileged’? What’s that mean? Does it mean that someone else has the ‘privilege’ of access to MY hard-earned money? Because they NEED it? So ambition is here to serve the lazy? Ability is here to serve the incompetent?

What makes you libs think this muck of contradictions can ever work? The Soviet Union tried this on a grand scale and look what they got.

Is this what you guys are secretly after?

[/quote]

How many countries must we have to invade in spectacularly underfunded, troop-low efforts without any plan for political orginization to impose our vision of democracy where the country has little of our own before we realize that it’s not the the way to go about if it’s even the right thing to do.

Mistakes were made this time around that I never dreamed would have been repeated after Vietnam. Every failing the Democratic party is accused of, I could fire back with one for the Republican party threefold. And I’m not a Democrat, either. I’m CERTAINLY not a liberal. [that’s a nice convenient term-a sort of tar-and-feather job every arch-conservative likes to throw out there to try to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with their every opinion]

As far as the specific topic goes, I said nothing about government programs. But, yes some minimal level of safety nets to provide for those disadvantaged from birth with great impediments to progress are what make us human beings and this country great. I’m not talking about a redistribution of wealth, through-the-roof taxation, a massive welfare state as once existed, or affirmative action programs with no regard for merit. But, a little bit of a social conscience is not too fucking much to ask. Freedom doesn’t work. And freedom isn’t free. You can’t look at the market in isolation. Because there are many factors and instiutions that created the current status quo that would exist in the absence of any government regulation. Government relation is often an attempt to shake some of these forces.

How about educational scholarships to those who need and deserve it? This actually shows some promise of coming to greater fruition. And the president looks to actually be jumping on board. How about welfare as it exists now as more of a workfare system with assistance for a limited amount of time and job training?

This country was predicated on the notion of equality of opportunity. But it’s an unreality. That’s what we should at some level strive for. Not equality of outcome. That’s impossible and unjust. If you think a baby born in a one-room tenement to a crackhead mother has remotely close to the same opporunity as someone from a middle class neighborhood, you’ve got a another thing coming. It’s GREATLY diadvantaged and through no laziness and fault of its own. The central problem and dichotomy is to how to give those born in severely disadvantaged circumstances some minimal opportunitity to suceed and better themselves without taking too much from those who are succssful and have worked damn hard to get there. That would also be wrong and un-American. It’s not something either party has been able to answer, though I think Democrats have made much more genuine attempts on these issues.

In my opinion, there will always be poverty and there will always be some underclass. The goal should be to provide some minimal opportunity for those with the brains and ambition to do so to better themselves. 

[jsbrook]

Headhunter, I have noticed one thing generally that underlies all your posts. Your view of what Democrats or even liberals [who I have absolutely no patience for] are and what they stand for is so bizarre and hopelessly skewed, I don’t even know where to begin.

The most traditional conservative politician with the greatest distate for truly liberal politicans [the few that remain today] would shudder at your perception. But be happy that you bought into the dogma hook-line and sinker and in a paranoid fantasy exagerrated it the nth degree.

A sure die-hard ‘conservative’ voter unquestionably bound to party lines for life. You even bizarrely equate liberalism with Communism. Your view of what modern Democrats or even moderate Republicans support is so distorted that it colors every political analysis.

[HendrixJams]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Kinda like how Republicans play the relgious voters. Since most of em who are screaming the loudest about morals and values are some of the debased immoral people I can think of, in or out of politics, in either party. I guess it’s probably a draw. Democrats certainly do ‘play’ black voters to some degree. It’s also indisputable that they have more iniatives designed on aiding the underpriviledged. Poverty’s a dicey issue, and one that will probably never be solved. What have Republicans done to combat it? Trickle-down economics that never trickles down?[/quote]

This topic started out about MLK.

Let’s not forget that MLK was a reverend and a religious man. Let’s not forget that MLK held up family values and all that good hearted stuff that liberals make fun of conservatives for trying to uphold…or at least preach. Let’s not forget that MLK was a pretty conservative guy, all around.

Let’s not forget that MLK didn’t want people to see each other as black or white but for the content of their character. Let’s not forget that MLK was more about uniting people instead of dividing people.

I think a lot of people hold up MLK and forget what he was true message was. I have a feeling that MLK would be rolling in his grave if he knew about some of the things going on in black culture today.

[Mufasa]

In answer to the original question?

5 steps forward, 10 steps back…

So probably not.

Mufasa

[huey_ot]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Most studies in the university system are a product of supply and demand. This study exists because someone thought it relevant enough to pursue on their own and thus became the first expert on it and started offering courses in it.

If it was not relevant students wouldn’t persue it. To say it is a waste of academic discipline implies you think there is nothing original in “African American” culture worth knowing…don’t you think that is kind of short sighted? Why is it ok to study sociology and not African American studies?[/quote]

If thunderbolt and I take the position that ‘African American studies’, as a major, isn’t very useful and is silly… and we provide reasons as to why, you can’t refute our positions simply becuase ‘someone’ think it’s a worthwhile discipline to manifest due to the ability to create a demand for it.

Think of your logic, you’re implying that demand for a product somehow gives it abstract legitimacy. You don’t honestly believe that, do you? There is demand for Peter Popoff’s miracle water and for Pat Robertson’s blessings… does that demand somehow illustrate validity of these products? Of course not. Time for you to try and think up another argument to sell the validity of ‘African American studies’.

I will rephrase my earlier post, though. I am not trying to undermine the fact that there are some commonalities to the ‘African American’ experience in America. Clearly, there was a unique experience of slavery and further systematic discrimination against them. However, these experiences are part of an event that belongs under the umbrella of ‘American History’.

To clarify, I see clearly that there is some truth to the ‘African American’ experience. However, is there enough truth and depth to it to devote an entire major to it? Again, I do respect and appreciate the common experience of blacks during certain eras and regions of America. But personally, it seems like a silly major.

There are all sorts of groups and cultures all across the world who don’t have, and don’t need, to have majors devoted to them. It just seems strange to me to associate a culture with a skin color. I wouldn’t want people to assume certain things about me based on my skin color, and I’m sure blacks also don’t want to be grouped together in some sort of arbitrary ‘culture’ as defined by this or that university major.

You must remember that we’re going off on a tangent from the original question of this thread: Would MLK be proud? My beef is with the premise of this thread, as I don’t like the label ‘African American leader’. African American do not think with one mindset. Just because the media portrays Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakahan as ‘black leaders’ doesn’t make them representative of blacks in the US as a whole.

Just because blacks share an increased mellanin content in their skin doesn’t mean they share the same values and opinions. If we wouldn’t use the term ‘white leader’, why would we ever use the ‘black leader’? That is why the premise of this thread is somewhat ridiculous.

[quote]They do under many circumstances…slavery, for example. Music, religious practices, and food culture can also be viewed from a “monolithic” perspective. I could go on and on. If you don’t care it is your choice not to study it but don’t knock the whole of the discipline because you think it irrelevant.

There are many aspects of American culture that are offered as stand alone disciplines do you also think they are not worth study too?[/quote]

I have conceded above that there is some depth to the common experience of blacks in the US, but this is more historic and much less so true today. But there isn’t enough, IMO, to warrant the use of a discipline dedicated to it. At the end of the day, ‘African American studies’ simply is a narrowly focused major on American history as a whole. Don’t you get that?

[huey_ot]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The great thing about people like you and Dunderbolt (people who assume knowledge is supposed to serve some higher end) is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.[/quote]

I don’t even know what the purpose of your post was. When did I ever imply that knowledge was supposed to serve some higher end? What does that even mean? Have fun basking in your own glory.

[Headhunter]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Freedom doesn’t work. And freedom isn’t free. [/quote]

If it doesn’t work, why would we want it? Why would we care if it was or wasn’t free?

For the rest of your post: why are the needs of one person a claim on the resources of another? Is NEED some sort of magic passcard that allows you to loot the life and works of others?

I need a new yacht. Is this a claim on the earnings of Stephen Jobs?

LMAO!!!

[Headhunter]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter, I have noticed one thing generally that underlies all your posts. Your view of what Democrats or even liberals [who I have absolutely no patience for] are and what they stand for is so bizarre and hopelessly skewed, I don’t even know where to begin.

The most traditional conservative politician with the greatest distate for truly liberal politicans [the few that remain today] would shudder at your perception. But be happy that you bought into the dogma hook-line and sinker and in a paranoid fantasy exagerrated it the nth degree.

A sure die-hard ‘conservative’ voter unquestionably bound to party lines for life. You even bizarrely equate liberalism with Communism. Your view of what modern Democrats or even moderate Republicans support is so distorted that it colors every political analysis.[/quote]

I guess I free to believe what I wish. Wait!! Freedom doesn’t work…oh, no!!!

[BabyBuster]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Freedom doesn’t work. And freedom isn’t free.

If it doesn’t work, why would we want it? Why would we care if it was or wasn’t free?

For the rest of your post: why are the needs of one person a claim on the resources of another? Is NEED some sort of magic passcard that allows you to loot the life and works of others?

I need a new yacht. Is this a claim on the earnings of Stephen Jobs?

LMAO!!!

[/quote]

Because you don’t live on an island. Because there is a price to pay for the freedoms and opportunities that we have and that price is an obligation to make sure that all people have those same opportunities.

I’m not talking about wealth re-distribution - though I’m sure you’ll twist my words into that very idea. I’m not saying that your money should be taken and put diretly into the hands of someone else. I’m saying that money needs to be used to make sure that everyone has the same starting point. Good schools for inner city children, health care for kids that otherwise won’t get it, etc. You know, crazy ideas about making sure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

You want to talk about how everyone deserves what they get in this country because we succeed based on our own merits, well that’s bull. Do you honestly think that a moderately smart kid in south Chicago born to a crackhead mother and a drug dealer father has the same opportunities as a moderately smart kid from Greenwich? Is the first kid’s life situation a result of a lack of effort? If you’ve said yes to to either question then this debate is pointless.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Freedom doesn’t work. And freedom isn’t free.

If it doesn’t work, why would we want it? Why would we care if it was or wasn’t free?

For the rest of your post: why are the needs of one person a claim on the resources of another? Is NEED some sort of magic passcard that allows you to loot the life and works of others?

I need a new yacht. Is this a claim on the earnings of Stephen Jobs?

LMAO!!!

[/quote]

Absoulte deregulation and freedom of the MARKETPLACE. Not freedom as in liberty. Regulation can easily go too far. But government regulation and programs have down a lot of good.
As for the rest, please. When you equate liberals to communist, you open yourself up to all criticism and lose all credibility. It’s like a liberal equating conservatives to fascists and facsist leaders such as Mussolini.
It is nice that you have no social conscience and feel zero obligation to your fellowmen such that you would not give anything to aid. I’m glad others don’t feel the same way. Not only is is morally wrong and fundamentally un-Christian, but the drain on society and the end results would be much worse if there was no facilitation and social programs. It is ludicrous that you attempt to equate ‘needing’ a yacht with the need for food and shelter and resent programs that would bring people UP to the poverty level.

[jsbrook]

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Freedom doesn’t work. And freedom isn’t free.

If it doesn’t work, why would we want it? Why would we care if it was or wasn’t free?

For the rest of your post: why are the needs of one person a claim on the resources of another? Is NEED some sort of magic passcard that allows you to loot the life and works of others?

I need a new yacht. Is this a claim on the earnings of Stephen Jobs?

LMAO!!!

Because you don’t live on an island. Because there is a price to pay for the freedoms and opportunities that we have and that price is an obligation to make sure that all people have those same opportunities.

I’m not talking about wealth re-distribution - though I’m sure you’ll twist my words into that very idea. I’m not saying that your money should be taken and put diretly into the hands of someone else. I’m saying that money needs to be used to make sure that everyone has the same starting point. Good schools for inner city children, health care for kids that otherwise won’t get it, etc. You know, crazy ideas about making sure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

You want to talk about how everyone deserves what they get in this country because we succeed based on our own merits, well that’s bull. Do you honestly think that a moderately smart kid in south Chicago born to a crackhead mother and a drug dealer father has the same opportunities as a moderately smart kid from Greenwich? Is the first kid’s life situation a result of a lack of effort? If you’ve said yes to to either question then this debate is pointless.[/quote]

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all. 

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all. [/quote]

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.

[BabyBuster]

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all. 

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.
[/quote]

Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.

If you honestly believe that all poverty is the result of laziness then you have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears. Look at the thousands of veterans and children that live in poverty - are you saying their poverty is a result of laziness?

And since when is taxation “armed robbery”? Every government ever has had to tax its citizens to run the country, so let’s not make outlandish comparisons to illustrate a point.

Further, you haven’t made a single point as to why government intervention has created poverty. You’re just asserting it as fat and expecting us to believe it. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

[five_twelve]

What the hell happened to this thread. I leave you guys for a couple of days and this is what I come back too.

Just joking

I like the healthy debate. Not very often you can debate someone now a days without being called some type of profanity.

[hedo]

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Seriously. We live in a SOCIETY. It is so short-sighted to demand no drain on personal resources that would improve our lot as a nation. I would just love to see what the world would look like with no taxes and zero programs at all. 

Me too!

You are just forgetting that the need of others do not justify armed robbery, no, not even if elected officials do it, that redisdribution of wealth and government regulations destroy such enormous wealth that the “needy” could be feed and clothed 100 times over and that all the US states spending amounted to 2% of the GNP just 100 years ago, which is why it became the economic powerhouse that it is, without society breaking down.

So, since poverty is a result of government intervention, and of individual lazyness, you argue for more government intervention to reward individual lazyness by taxing the shit out of us in the process?

See, that kind of thinking is exactly why re-distribution does not work.

Equating poverty with laziness is nothing more than a cop out to justify to yourself why you aren’t obligated to do anything about it. It allows you to dehumanize those who live in poverty so you don’t have to feel bad when saying you have no obligation to them, and not just because they are your countrymen, but because they are humans just like you and deserve some simply amount of basic dignity.

If you honestly believe that all poverty is the result of laziness then you have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears. Look at the thousands of veterans and children that live in poverty - are you saying their poverty is a result of laziness?

And since when is taxation “armed robbery”? Every government ever has had to tax its citizens to run the country, so let’s not make outlandish comparisons to illustrate a point.

Further, you haven’t made a single point as to why government intervention has created poverty. You’re just asserting it as fat and expecting us to believe it. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.[/quote]

Do you believe poverty is caused by inequities built into the system or by choices the individual makes?

Is it more important to guarantee opportunity or outcome when creating wealth and prosperity?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is a valid subject to science when value statments can be backed by observation. The soft sciences and humanities can not be judged this way. There are no definitive measurements of humanity. Everything is up for grabs here. I have problems with many schools of thought as a scientist but that does not lead to my conclusion that they are worthless–only that I judge them to be so. I would not assume that an other human does not benefit from it–a la therapy.

Nope - using your own toolkit against you, ‘hard science’ deserves no special status. Why privilege ‘hard science’ - based on Western empiricism - above all other explanations of phenomena? In privileging ‘hard science’ above others, you have done what you said is wrong - you are giving one form of knowledge a leg up for no reason, assuming that one is better than another. There is nothing magical about ‘science’ - and it is no better than aboriginal superstition in explaining natural phenomena.

That is, according to your theory. It can’t be a matter of ‘hard science’ and ‘everyting else’ - because ‘hard science’ is one more form of knowledge, and under your theory, it deserves no special position. Privileging ‘hard science’ contradicts the theory you are trying to support.

Math – which operates under certain axiomatic priciples can not be judged this way. By it’s very nature it defines its own ruls and as such can never be illogical. Humans and that which surrounds them cannot be judged in the same light.

Nope - see above.

Not that I am suggesting the humanities can be fixed on hard measurable truths - but that is very different from my contention that some forms of knowledge, even in the area of humanities, are better than others. A good humanities/liberal arts program should teach people how to think and get rid of mushy-mindedness. One of the great achievements of the traditional liberal arts education was that it taught people to be less susceptible to wild, silly ideas because of applied critical thinking skills - now, the opposite is true: no matter how silly or vacuous the idea, it deserves merit, and some empty-headed ‘thinker’ will be talked into anything by having a mind so open his brain has fallen out.

And as for the original point about “Studies” programs - I attack them because they are part of formal education. You can read up on any field you want independently, but if we, as a society, are going to arrange for specific knowledge and education to be imparted via the education process, we will always make a choice between things we want and things we don’t. You can’t major in “Artistic Methods of Licking Dirt” for a reason - and, in my view, the “Studies” programs should be left on the cutting room floor when the decision is made.

[/quote]

You are basically saying – and this may be where we are in contention with each other – because I view it as worthless for intellectual pursuit it is an invalid study. All independent studies started out this way. Before sociology was persued as more than just a philosophical dialog it was nothing more than conjecture about how individuals interact in society. It required observation to become more legitimized as a field of study.

Similarly, “African American” studies will undergo this legitimization. As it is I don’t see the harm instudying this culture thru an independent lens. I don’t think your arguments are very strong at all.

As far as hard sciences being given deferential treatment, I do no such thing. It is no more legitimate to study physics than sociology–they are both schools of thought that theorize. The fact that you cannot see why mathematics is different in it’s own regard suggest you are not familiar with abstract math (mathematics based on non-Euclidean geometries). Every proof of a theorem starts out by defining how to look at the problem–one ususally will find phrases like assume, take such and such as, given x=B, for all R in S, etc. if you tried to prove these theorem outside of these definitions you would fail. Thes proofs are always based on the axioms of the geomerty which they utilize thus making them self referencing. This does not legitemize math any more than African American studies; in fact math is quite useless on its own with something to apply it to. Why bother knowing calculus if there wasn’t a reason for it? The thing that makes math different is that it is the only discipline that does not utilize observation.

The fact that you cannot relate African Ameican studies to the world you live does not make it true for others.