The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: Lynne on May 10, 2008, 03:51:01 pm ---My apologies, broketrash. I can't see quoted posts on my blackberry.
It is the post that infers Jess is illiterate that I find offensive - herrkaiser?
--- End quote ---
there is no implication that ANYONE is "illiterate". I think that it is clear that anyone who is able to post a legible post, is literate.
however, I have made a direct statement that if one does not know the meaning of a word or suspects that it is "made up", then they can simply turn the pages on the trusty "Webster's Unabridged" rather than complain about the word usage.
and it is a fact, I don't care whether the posts which linked my ideas for welfare reform with Nazi death camps are deleted or if they continue to stand.
On this thread I responded to that type of verbiage by blocking that person's posts from being read while I am logged into my profile. if others read those comments, I am not concerned. the "ignore" button is a great idea.
so now, have we had enough red herrings thrown down to avoid discussing the issues on this thread? should we continue to discuss the state of the underclass?
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Clyde-B on May 10, 2008, 03:52:24 pm ---If we have certain shared social values that most people agree on, why don't we teach them as part of public education? We certainly teach enough other crap.
It would seem to me that there would be very little disagreement in the idea that fathers are important to their children's lives and if you help create a child you have a certain responsibility to him/her. But this isn't formally taught anywhere. Why not? It would seem to me, the younger the better.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting, or what form it would take. Was this ever formally taught? If it was once and isn't now, I would guess the difference might be that schools are more sensitive about avoiding making kids whose fathers are absent, through no fault of the kids', feel stigmatized.
I do see more kids' reading material in which, for instance, the child protagonist has a single parent or other nontraditional family -- the most famous, of course, being Heather has Two Mommies. But again, I think this is mainly about making kids comfortable with their own situation -- and, in the case of Heather, normalizing that situation for their classmates as well.
--- Quote from: broketrash on May 10, 2008, 04:01:14 pm ---so now, have we had enough red herrings thrown down to avoid discussing the issues on this thread? should we continue to discuss the state of the underclass?
--- End quote ---
Personally, I'm done (I hope) fighting a circular battle over this, hurling sarcasm, accusations and veiled insults back and forth that often at least dance near the line of personal attack. And yes, I've been as guilty of it as anyone. Somehow, despite all my concerted attempts at reason and occasionally snarky comments, I have failed to convert broketrash and HerrKaiser to liberalism, so I am going to retire from that kind of debate for now (and just hope that someday they see the light ;D).
I'm still interested in discussing some of the issues here, especially the implications of class in America. But the posts implying that people on one side or the other are more or less intelligent or compassionate -- they must be, otherwise they'd surely see that they are wrong wrong wrong -- those don't seem to have been very effective. And yes, again, I've been guilty of these, myself.
Clyde-B:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 10, 2008, 04:12:11 pm ---I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting, or what form it would take. Was this ever formally taught? If it was once and isn't now, I would guess the difference might be that schools are more sensitive about making kids whose fathers are absent, through no fault of the kids', feel stigmatized.
I do see more kids' reading material, for instance, in which the child protagonist has a single parent or other nontraditional family -- the most famous, of course, being Heather has Two Mommies. But again, I think this is mainly about making kids comfortable with their own situation -- and, in the case of Heather, normalizing that situation for their classmates as well.
--- End quote ---
I'm saying that if our society does stand for something, does indeed have values, that has to be transmitted to kids, and relying on someone else to do it is risky for them and us all.
There has to be a way of teaching that fathers are important in a child's life and have responsibilities, without stigmatizing a child who has no father. It would seem to me that the child without a father would understand the truth of this even more readily than a child with a father.
We have a tendency to talk in blanket terms like "family values" without specifying exactly what those values are, because it's politically expedient to garner more votes by leaving it vague. God forbid you should say something definite and define a value that costs you votes. But if we do have values, somebody's got to do the grunt work to discover what they are and see they get communicated.
Clyde-B:
--- Quote from: injest on May 10, 2008, 04:34:15 pm ---kinda like those 'diversty' seminars they do in businesses that have a problem with racism or sexism??
--- End quote ---
A lot of companies do have EEOC policies that employees are required to reread and certify that they understand every year.
But for it to really take root, we need to start before adulthood. I'm sure those equality public service announcements of the late '40's and '50's had a lot to do with the young adults involved in the civil rights movement of the '60's. Because they started teaching us at an age where we could see the truth of it and believe them.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Clyde-B on May 10, 2008, 04:29:51 pm ---I'm saying that if our society does stand for something, does indeed have values, that has to be transmitted to kids, and relying on someone else to do it is risky for them and us all.
There has to be a way of teaching that fathers are important in a child's life and have responsibilities, without stigmatizing a child who has no father.
--- End quote ---
Well, maybe. I'm just not picturing specifically how it would work. A lot of people think this kind of teaching is the responsibility of families, not schools. Of course, schools have taken over teaching in some areas -- sex education, drug education -- where families sometimes drop the ball. But how would schools teach a unit on the importance of having a father? Especially given that financially strapped schools these days aren't exactly in the mode of expanding their services? I'm not denying it could be done so much as wondering what you envision it looking like.
--- Quote ---We have a tendency to talk in blanket terms like "family values" without specifying exactly what those values are, because it's politically expedient to garner more votes by leaving it vague. God forbid you should say something definite and define a value that costs you votes.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I've written about this. "Family values" is a term that originated on the right, where it was vague code for "anti gay marriage," "anti abortion," and anti other social and lifestyle issues that low-income Democrats might have strong feelings about, in an attempt to lure them to the Republican party. It was pretty successful.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version