"Dissecting Leftism"

[Mujer Libre]

In my attempts to research the contribution of the Hippocratic school to psychiatry I came across this. (http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/) Not sure how it came up in a search, but anyway; I just thought I'd share this piece of sheer idiocy with everyone.

I mean, this guy equates "leftism" with Nazism... rrright- and he has a PhD? Look at the list of his other websites- "PC watch," "Greenie Watch" and "Education watch." Why does education need to be "watched?" I suppose it's because educated people would want to beat the shit out of him. :lol:

He&#39;s right on about me though, I&#39;m a leftie because I want attention. <_<

[Latifa]

mmm.. You can&#39;t go past a bit of greenie watching for some superb entertainment.

But to be quite honest, you&#39;d think somewhere along his long and winding path to a PhD he would have learnt that Nazism and Leftism oppose each other. Idiot&#33; Or did he fish his diploma out of a box of Fruit Loops?


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.

[quincunx5]

That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.


Why? It sounds good to me.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:34 AM


That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.


Why? It sounds good to me.
Because many people would no longer be able to receive education?
Because this would be reverting socially toward feudalism?
Because this would just be another way to exploit the workers?
Because this would allow the government to pick your "educational" path?
Because many "schools" would become propaganda mills (to a greater degree)?
Because teachers would become hired goons?
...
...
...

[quincunx5]

Because many people would no longer be able to receive education?



-- with government-paid vouchers for the poor


Reading helps.



Because this would be reverting socially toward feudalism?


Only if you are allowed to teach.



Because this would just be another way to exploit the workers?


If you think teachers are being exploited now, this would not change that. They can still join unions.



Because this would allow the government to pick your "educational" path?


Put down the crack pipe and listen to what you are saying. That&#39;s what the government does NOW.



Because many "schools" would become propaganda mills (to a greater degree)?


Only if you are allowed to teach.



Because teachers would become hired goons?


And that is different from today, how?

Your problem is that you envision private schools as giant Wal-Marts, or public schools converted for private use.

Private schools will allow you to make your home into a school. You may or may not hire someone to help you teach. Your neighbors will send their kids to you, because they trust you. This will create many small schools. You will like having your kids close by. If you prefer the school next to your job, then you can have your child go to that . You may even be able to come up with different arrangements by alternating between schools. How is choice bad?

Do you not see that this may even further your supposed cause? Someone like you will have a chance to mold the minds of your students to what ever collectivist ideology you follow, provided the people in your community are fine with that. See above.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by quincunx5
Only if you are allowed to teach.
This shows all the maturity of a primary-schooler who replies to an insult with "I know you are, but what am I?"




Because teachers would become hired goons?


And that is different from today, how?

The point is, we want to improve society...



Private schools will allow you to make your home into a school. You may or may not hire someone to help you teach. Your neighbors will send their kids to you, because they trust you. This will create many small schools. You will like having your kids close by. If you prefer the school next to your job, then you can have your child go to that . You may even be able to come up with different arrangements by alternating between schools. How is choice bad?
Hurray, this sounds like a means for parents to exact even more control over their children. That&#39;s exactly what kids need to develop as free thinkers...


Do you not see that this may even further your supposed cause? Someone like you will have a chance to mold the minds of your students to what ever collectivist ideology you follow, provided the people in your community are fine with that. See above.
I can&#39;t speak for everyone here, but I&#39;m pretty sure the vast majority of us have no intention of indoctrinating children, our or otherwise. We don&#39;t want to mould them, we want them to be able to think for themselves, which will be rather hard when you have private individuals imposing their own ideologies through a school.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That&#39;s exactly what kids need to develop as free thinkers...

In other words, if somebody isn&#39;t a communist/atheist.......then you&#39;re just a stupid, indoctrinated drone who isn&#39;t a free thinker.



I can&#39;t speak for everyone here, but I&#39;m pretty sure the vast majority of us have no intention of indoctrinating children,

Installing communist values in kids ISN&#39;T considered indoctrination?

Is telling or teaching your kids how to share and not be an asshole towards other kids considered indoctrination?

[JazzRemington]

In other words, if somebody isn&#39;t a communist/atheist.......then you&#39;re just a stupid, indoctrinated drone who isn&#39;t a free thinker.

It&#39;s equally like if you leave school full of capitalist/statist nonsense then you&#39;re just a stupid, indoctrinated drone who isn&#39;t a free thinker.



Installing communist values in kids ISN&#39;T considered indoctrination?

Then what do you call it when children are only taught the virtues of American democracy and capitalism in school, and told anything else is bad?


Is telling or teaching your kids how to share and not be an asshole towards other kids considered indoctrination?

If you consider Kintergarden an indoctrination camp.

[quincunx5]

This shows all the maturity of a primary-schooler who replies to an insult with "I know you are, but what am I?"


You assume that I was prime schooled. The only reason I said this was because I have a strong feeling that FACTS don&#39;t really matter to 313C7 iVi4RX.



Then what do you call it when children are only taught the virtues of American democracy and capitalism in school, and told anything else is bad?


Hmm...education was dry, my school had dull teaches who just taught us the facts. We studied histories from all over the world through-out all time.

If Capitalism was actually taught in schools today we would be better off. Do you not see today many young adults can&#39;t manage their finances?



The point is, we want to improve society...


And that can only be done by imposing the views of the majority on the minority, the direct democratic way?



We don&#39;t want to mould them, we want them to be able to think for themselves, which will be rather hard when you have private individuals imposing their own ideologies through a school.


So don&#39;t send them to school&#33; Privatized school would make it easy to setup an arrangement so that your child only comes in for some special programs like Music. Dance, or whatever the child picks.

[JazzRemington]

Hmm...education was dry, my school had dull teaches who just taught us the facts. We studied histories from all over the world through-out all time.

I doubt it was objective and without bias. You can study the history of every country in the world, but that does not mean it is without any sort of bias.


If Capitalism was actually taught in schools today we would be better off. Do you not see today many young adults can&#39;t manage their finances?

It is. You ever hear of Economics classes? But who cares about whether or not people can manage finances. It&#39;s usually because 1) they find Finance classes to be boring and dull and 2) they are so rittled with debt by the time they begin actual work and/or leave college they are barely able to manage their finances.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:00 AM
mmm.. You can&#39;t go past a bit of greenie watching for some superb entertainment.

But to be quite honest, you&#39;d think somewhere along his long and winding path to a PhD he would have learnt that Nazism and Leftism oppose each other. Idiot&#33; Or did he fish his diploma out of a box of Fruit Loops?


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.
Some political scientists view all centrally planned economies as leftist.

[quincunx5]

I doubt it was objective and without bias. You can study the history of every country in the world, but that does not mean it is without any sort of bias.


Ok, send your kid to a school that doesn&#39;t teach social studies. No history, No bias.
Stick to the basics: reading, writing, math, and science. That would surely yield a population of free thinkers, just like it once did.



It is. You ever hear of Economics classes?


No, I lived in a cave.



But who cares about whether or not people can manage finances.


Those people who find they squandered them.



1) they find Finance classes to be boring and dull


That&#39;s no excuse. I was bored with some subjects, too. It was only later I realized it was important and had to relearn it for myself.



2) they are so rittled with debt by the time they begin actual work and/or leave college they are barely able to manage their finances.


Hmm, If I finished college I would have a year to seek out employment before I have to pay a cent. The rate I had to pay was affordable.

Barely able to manage finances, and not having finances to manage is very different. Take a look at some lottery winners.

[redstar2000]

The conservative (that is, reactionary) approach to summary and citation.

I had a look at the dissect left blogspot (http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/) and found this...


Lord love us&#33; What has the world come to? In The Guardian, of all places, we find an article reporting that there is such a thing as general mental ability (popularly known as IQ) and that it is highly hereditary&#33; I guess that after around 100 years of scientific evidence to that effect, the truth is getting just too hard to ignore. Excerpt: "Researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry are trying to unravel how much genes, rather than environmental factors, affect a child&#39;s academic prowess. By analysing the test results of 6,000 twins, they were able to see clear genetic factors emerging for both numerical skills and reading ability. They compared test results for seven-year-old identical twins, who share the same DNA, with the results from non-identical twins, who only share 50 per cent of their DNA, to assess how much was down to genes. Yulia Kovas, who led the investigation, said: &#39;Our work shows that there is a substantial genetic overlap between maths and reading, but also between maths and general intelligence. &#39;It seems that there is a group of "general" genes that govern our achievements at school."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1544275,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1544275,00.html)

Wow&#33; Guess that will put an end to all this lefty "equality crap". Leaders of capitalism "really are superior"...it&#39;s been "scientifically proven".

Except...um...

They compared test results for seven-year-old identical twins...

I thought it was generally accepted now that "identical" twins are not truly "identical" after all. They do indeed share the same genes, but there are inevitable differences in the womb that affect how those genes are expressed after birth. One fetus gets a little extra "hormone X" and the other, a little extra "hormone Y", and so on.

Then there is the "twin effect" (a cultural artifact) -- what happens to kids when they are raised as twins? How does that affect their development? How much do they consciously attempt to either imitate one another or try to "individuate" themselves?


Yulia Kovas, who led the investigation, said: &#39;Our work shows that there is a substantial genetic overlap between maths and reading, but also between maths and general intelligence.

You will note that Kovas carefully avoids any suggestion of "how much" is "substantial"...for good reason. Previous claims in this field have generally collapsed in ignominy.


&#39;It seems that there is a group of "general" genes that govern our achievements at school. There could be between 50 and 100 different DNA markers involved, and each plays a tiny role.&#39;

There may indeed be 50 or 100 "DNA markers" involved...there may even be a thousand.

No one has ever found even one.


But they also discovered some genes that appear to make it easier to master maths, and these are linked to long-term memory.

No they didn&#39;t. They infer the existence of "some genes" because of, no doubt, a statistical correlation between math scores on a test and long-term memory scores on a test. Was it really "statistically significant"? The article doesn&#39;t say.


Other research now under way at Cambridge is aimed at discovering whether there might be a specific maths gene. Simon Baron Cohen, professor of developmental psychopathology, and Dr Lindsey Kent are running the world&#39;s first study into the possibility of a maths gene.

:lol: Anyone want to bet that they&#39;ll "discover" that it&#39;s passed through the "male line"? That females never have a working copy of this gene? :lol:

All in all, this story is a really bad example of science "reporting"...possibly because it is really bad "science".

The dumbass at "dissect left" seizes upon it with the appetite of a hog for slop...reactionaries have such a long-standing preference for junk science that their appreciation of any particular "research" is a "marker" that cannot be overlooked.

It doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re wrong about "everything"...but the probability that their latest fashion is crap is, well, very high.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[quincunx5]

Wow&#33; Guess that will put an end to all this lefty "equality crap". Leaders of capitalism "really are superior"...it&#39;s been "scientifically proven".


There are NO leaders in true free market capitalism. There are only leaders in government. And every day leftists like you give them more power, Only to then ***** at them for the injustices they (you) have created.

[JazzRemington]

Ok, send your kid to a school that doesn&#39;t teach social studies. No history, No bias.
Stick to the basics: reading, writing, math, and science. That would surely yield a population of free thinkers, just like it once did.

It&#39;s not impossible to teach history without a bias. But this is pretty much the typical response from the right: either teach history with our bias or do not teach it at all.


That&#39;s no excuse. I was bored with some subjects, too. It was only later I realized it was important and had to relearn it for myself.

So, basically because you were bored means everyone else has to be too?


Hmm, If I finished college I would have a year to seek out employment before I have to pay a cent. The rate I had to pay was affordable.

You miss the important keyword here: I. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove something wrong. Just becuase you were able to pay back whatever your loans or dues were does not mean everyone else will be able to.

[KC]

There are NO leaders in true free market capitalism. There are only leaders in government.

We don&#39;t have true free market capitalism. And leaders in government are leaders in capitalism, as government supports the system.

[quincunx5]

So, basically because you were bored means everyone else has to be too?


That&#39;s a stupid conclusion to make. Every student at some time is bored by the topic at hand. Privatized schooling would allow greater choice of topics to learn, if that is so desired.



It&#39;s not impossible to teach history without a bias. But this is pretty much the typical response from the right: either teach history with our bias or do not teach it at all.


Actually it is impossible&#33; History is by definition biased. "His Story". Cultures have come and gone -- clearly history was written by those that stuck around. Not to mention by those cultures that had writing systems.

All I&#39;m mearly trying to say is that to have "free thinkers", you would only need to teach them how learning is done, NOT what to think. This would mean that you teach them how to read, write, and compute. With that fundemental ability they would be able to pick up any books, newspapers, journals, web sites, etc. and make up their own minds.

Public schools are too restrictive in that department. Hence the problem with it.



You miss the important keyword here: I. Anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove something wrong. Just becuase you were able to pay back whatever your loans or dues were does not mean everyone else will be able to.


You&#39;re right, it isn&#39;t enough. So why did you use Anecdotal evidence yourself? Keywords: everyone else. I do not know or care about everyone else (except for a few). I did not make choices on their behalf.



We don&#39;t have true free market capitalism. And leaders in government are leaders in capitalism, as government supports the system.


Capitalism demands as small and weak a government as possible.

We don&#39;t have it precisely because of collectivists like you, who have favored the expansion of government into our everyday affairs&#33;

[KC]

Capitalism demands as small and weak a government as possible.

We don&#39;t have it precisely because of collectivists like you, who have favored the expansion of government into our everyday affairs&#33;

Oh, and with free market capitalism adn as small and weak a government as possible comes slavery.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Oh, and with free market capitalism adn as small and weak a government as possible comes slavery.

Check out this grammar and spelling job?


I think it&#39;s time for you to go BACK to school comrade.

[KC]

I had a typo. Get over it.

[quincunx5]

Oh, and with free market capitalism adn as small and weak a government as possible comes slavery.


I never defined how small and weak it is. It would still have important functions to perform, one is to ensure our basic freedoms. It is not a government decree to provide freedom (freedom is not a good or service to be passed around). It is us as individuals seeing to create a necessary evil (government) that will ensure that our freedoms do not conflict with each other, i.e. the freedom for me to wave my fist around must be limited by the proximity of your chin.

If you read my other posts, I advocate the right to give, and the right to enter into voluntary contracts that will be mutually beneficial (free market capitalism). I do not advocate the right to receive.

The right to receive forces another individual to give it to you. That is slavery.

The funny thing is that we agree that slavery is wrong. But yet we see different means of ensuring that. I happend to see that all forms of collectivism do not ensure this. In a free society you are not a slave because no one can tell you what to do, you are the master of your own destiny. The problem is that such freedom can only be exercised by a responsible person.

It seems to me that those who can not handle that responsiblity, will use whatever means necessary to limit others&#39; freedom. Those who do not make the best choices with their freedom, do not blame themselves for their failure, but everyone else.

Hence collectivism has grown because, well it&#39;s just easier to blame things on everyone one else, but themselves.


Capitalist Lawyer, please, I know you can do better than arguing spelling.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 11 2005, 05:55 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 11 2005, 05:55 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 07:00 AM
mmm.. You can&#39;t go past a bit of greenie watching for some superb entertainment.

But to be quite honest, you&#39;d think somewhere along his long and winding path to a PhD he would have learnt that Nazism and Leftism oppose each other. Idiot&#33; Or did he fish his diploma out of a box of Fruit Loops?


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.
Some political scientists view all centrally planned economies as leftist. [/b]
:huh:

If schools were all privatised, that is definitely not centrally-planned is it?

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:00 AM
mmm.. You can&#39;t go past a bit of greenie watching for some superb entertainment.

But to be quite honest, you&#39;d think somewhere along his long and winding path to a PhD he would have learnt that Nazism and Leftism oppose each other. Idiot&#33; Or did he fish his diploma out of a box of Fruit Loops?


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

That is quite possibly the worst idea I&#39;ve heard all day.
Actually, he got his Ph.D fair and square...
from a pop-up ad.