Is education related to politics? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14987037
@JohnRawls, Well when children are raised to obey their families and to respect their elders who could potentially be abusive, that is a form of moral propaganda on a massive scale. Society was taught to do this to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness. So people are too busy worrying about their family dramas, rather than trying to get together and rebel against the capitalist elite.

"In general, people will be more trusting of the family to care for the children." This is because many people do not have patience for children, because they're more energetic and "annoying." So people use family biased ideas to help them cope with how annoying their children are. Well, if one is around a child that is not theirs (so they can't say that it is "THEIR child"), they're going to be like "Why should I have respect for an annoying child? They're not mine." So people are raised to only have patience for children that are theirs. So when they're around a child that's not theirs, due to this environment raising people to only have patience for children that are theirs, then they won't have as much patience, thus making them more abusive. So if people are educated to have patience for all children, regardless of genetic relations, then people would be trusted more to handle children that aren't theirs. Public school teachers are trained to handle children in terms of coping mechanisms and psychological patience so that they don't lose patience and become abusive. It would be better for a child to be taught by a professional teacher, than by a hillbilly, trashy homeschooling parent. In other terms, public education is better than homeschooling.

"You believe that family might brainwash the child in to being someone bad so you trust the school to do it." No, families brainwash their children into believing in the family institution. People not complaining about it destroys the road for allowing those to rebel against family. Things like "it's shameful to speak bad about one's family" or "you will be homeless if you don't obey your 'abusive' parents" destroy that road that allows society to rebel against the family.

"Most people will find it very intrusive. People do not like when the choice is done for them or their relatives on what they are going to be tought morals vise especially." Arranged marriages, forced marriages, "carrying on the last names," unreported domestic abuse, forced to marry one's rapist, family stress and drama, and enforced gender roles are all great examples on choices that are made by others (their families that they are relying on). And education can help those who want to rebel against that. Education can help people prove that forced marriages should not be accepted.
#14987096
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, Well when children are raised to obey their families and to respect their elders who could potentially be abusive, that is a form of moral propaganda on a massive scale. Society was taught to do this to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness. So people are too busy worrying about their family dramas, rather than trying to get together and rebel against the capitalist elite.

"In general, people will be more trusting of the family to care for the children." This is because many people do not have patience for children, because they're more energetic and "annoying." So people use family biased ideas to help them cope with how annoying their children are. Well, if one is around a child that is not theirs (so they can't say that it is "THEIR child"), they're going to be like "Why should I have respect for an annoying child? They're not mine." So people are raised to only have patience for children that are theirs. So when they're around a child that's not theirs, due to this environment raising people to only have patience for children that are theirs, then they won't have as much patience, thus making them more abusive. So if people are educated to have patience for all children, regardless of genetic relations, then people would be trusted more to handle children that aren't theirs. Public school teachers are trained to handle children in terms of coping mechanisms and psychological patience so that they don't lose patience and become abusive. It would be better for a child to be taught by a professional teacher, than by a hillbilly, trashy homeschooling parent. In other terms, public education is better than homeschooling.

"You believe that family might brainwash the child in to being someone bad so you trust the school to do it." No, families brainwash their children into believing in the family institution. People not complaining about it destroys the road for allowing those to rebel against family. Things like "it's shameful to speak bad about one's family" or "you will be homeless if you don't obey your 'abusive' parents" destroy that road that allows society to rebel against the family.

"Most people will find it very intrusive. People do not like when the choice is done for them or their relatives on what they are going to be tought morals vise especially." Arranged marriages, forced marriages, "carrying on the last names," unreported domestic abuse, forced to marry one's rapist, family stress and drama, and enforced gender roles are all great examples on choices that are made by others (their families that they are relying on). And education can help those who want to rebel against that. Education can help people prove that forced marriages should not be accepted.


It is your opinion. Without going in circles time after time, i need to say that the problem with schools teaching morality and disregarding family is that:
1) We need to all have same morality.
2) Somebody has to control the morality that is being taught and well prescribe it in the first place.

So since morality is not the same for every individual then the prescribed morality in schools will never be accepted. To put it in a form of an example: Freedom of religion. As i understand from your previous points, you are against religion. So you would be against teaching anything religion related and probably give a more atheist outlook which will inevitably anger any religious person of probably any religious denomination. What do you do if the child ignores those teachings and just states that they are wrong? Expel them? (If you do then it will go against freedom to freely practice your religion for example)

I will also disagree that family is some kind of repressive tool. Family is a bit like school but it is much more. Ultimately family exists to teach you things and to care for you. ( It is hard to give a proper explanation but on a most basic animalistic level i guess this is the case) But it does so on a more individual level compared to school where it is done in mass. So I would say that family teaching morality is more appropriate in this instance since morality is not same for everyone and resolves this conflict of interest between individual and groups.

You will obviously say again, the same thing that family concept is bad. Bla, bla, bad outcomes or bad morals tought. The issue is that same thing happens with schools. Just on a massive, very massive scale. There is no guarantee that we will not be tought that some race is inferior or that some leader is great etc
Even more so if you destroy the family. Basically, what are the guarantees that the morals that such school system will teach us will not be abused by individuals or be simply wrong? Again, remember that morals are subjective and change all the time. Morality of the 19th century is not the same as the 20th or 21st.
#14987398
@JohnRawls, Well morals is basically what society views as right or wrong. It depends on what kind of morals you have. If you have fixated morals that were used to control society under slavery or capitalism, then those kinds of morals must be destroyed.

To answer some of your questions and statements in your second paragraph, a truly moral person does not need religion to motivate them to be good. In a religious society, people are good so they can go to their fictional heaven. Religion gets society into fake morals. Fake morals is when people are moral only for external rewards, such as bribery, money, external respect and reputation from society around them, or to go to a fictional rewarding afterlife. If a child ignores my model's statements on the facts that religion is not correct, then that child must not speak their beliefs, since they can bring potential followers down a hole that's hard to climb out of (it's very hard to be a freethinker in a fundamentalist society, it often takes generations to go multiple steps, but it's VERY easy to go back to a religious phase, having religious people shaming freethinkers, religious manipulation, and scaring people about fictional afterlife stories and false predictions).

Public, non domestic schools can teach people things. Books, libraries, the internet, documentaries, and recorded lectures can also teach people things. What if someone doesn't have a supporting family? Some people don't have families, such as orphans. Some people have abusive families. Some people have controlling and strict families who support forced marriages, and oppress LGBTQ rights and any forms of feminism. Some people don't like their families. Some people have annoying families. Not everyone has the supportive family that they need to help them survive in a capitalist system. And families teaching morals to their offspring can be alienating because what if one person has an abusive family who is a threat to their health? That abusive family will teach that person that "they're not abusive" and they will shame them, so that they will not think that their family is abusive. Some families are more regressive and reactionary than others. Some families are more sexist than others. Abused children need to know that their abusive parents are NOT correct. Because if an abused child is isolated with their abusive family, then that abused child can't crawl out of the repressive hole that was created to control them, and they would need to be controlled by their family because their family Knows that there is a FLAW, so they need to trap them to prevent them from 'escaping.' How would your non socialist model handle domestic and child abuse?

The reason why family is bad is because for a family to determine your last name, occupation, economic class, religion, marriage (arranged marriages), and how you live is a form of social (and economic slavery in the lesser advanced economies such as feudalism) slavery. Massive, public schools do not determine who one marries, what their economic class is, nor the students' last names. This is because when enterprises and infrastructures have more people, the social contexts Are NOT CLOSE KNIT. When society is not close knit, there is MORE PERSONAL FREEDOM for each individual. This is because when populations are higher, or are less close knit, there is more of a socially anonymous environment, and that society is not a "face to face" place. This is why during feudalism, poor people who lived in cities were called "Freed men," because cities were not as close knit as family oriented farms or villages. People have more freedom in cities and suburbs than they do in rural villages. Children have more personal freedom in public schools than they do in homeschooling environments, because no boss is on someone's shoulder a lot. The more close knit a society is, the less freedom there is.

A public school system that is abused by the teachers? Well those abusive teachers are traitors to society, and destroy the pavements of the roads to liberation. Those teachers must not exist with their roles, since they are self destructive. Morals are subjective and change all the time because THERE IS NO FIXED HUMAN NATURE!
#14987422
SSDR wrote:@JohnRawls, Well morals is basically what society views as right or wrong. It depends on what kind of morals you have. If you have fixated morals that were used to control society under slavery or capitalism, then those kinds of morals must be destroyed.

To answer some of your questions and statements in your second paragraph, a truly moral person does not need religion to motivate them to be good. In a religious society, people are good so they can go to their fictional heaven. Religion gets society into fake morals. Fake morals is when people are moral only for external rewards, such as bribery, money, external respect and reputation from society around them, or to go to a fictional rewarding afterlife. If a child ignores my model's statements on the facts that religion is not correct, then that child must not speak their beliefs, since they can bring potential followers down a hole that's hard to climb out of (it's very hard to be a freethinker in a fundamentalist society, it often takes generations to go multiple steps, but it's VERY easy to go back to a religious phase, having religious people shaming freethinkers, religious manipulation, and scaring people about fictional afterlife stories and false predictions).

Public, non domestic schools can teach people things. Books, libraries, the internet, documentaries, and recorded lectures can also teach people things. What if someone doesn't have a supporting family? Some people don't have families, such as orphans. Some people have abusive families. Some people have controlling and strict families who support forced marriages, and oppress LGBTQ rights and any forms of feminism. Some people don't like their families. Some people have annoying families. Not everyone has the supportive family that they need to help them survive in a capitalist system. And families teaching morals to their offspring can be alienating because what if one person has an abusive family who is a threat to their health? That abusive family will teach that person that "they're not abusive" and they will shame them, so that they will not think that their family is abusive. Some families are more regressive and reactionary than others. Some families are more sexist than others. Abused children need to know that their abusive parents are NOT correct. Because if an abused child is isolated with their abusive family, then that abused child can't crawl out of the repressive hole that was created to control them, and they would need to be controlled by their family because their family Knows that there is a FLAW, so they need to trap them to prevent them from 'escaping.' How would your non socialist model handle domestic and child abuse?

The reason why family is bad is because for a family to determine your last name, occupation, economic class, religion, marriage (arranged marriages), and how you live is a form of social (and economic slavery in the lesser advanced economies such as feudalism) slavery. Massive, public schools do not determine who one marries, what their economic class is, nor the students' last names. This is because when enterprises and infrastructures have more people, the social contexts Are NOT CLOSE KNIT. When society is not close knit, there is MORE PERSONAL FREEDOM for each individual. This is because when populations are higher, or are less close knit, there is more of a socially anonymous environment, and that society is not a "face to face" place. This is why during feudalism, poor people who lived in cities were called "Freed men," because cities were not as close knit as family oriented farms or villages. People have more freedom in cities and suburbs than they do in rural villages. Children have more personal freedom in public schools than they do in homeschooling environments, because no boss is on someone's shoulder a lot. The more close knit a society is, the less freedom there is.

A public school system that is abused by the teachers? Well those abusive teachers are traitors to society, and destroy the pavements of the roads to liberation. Those teachers must not exist with their roles, since they are self destructive. Morals are subjective and change all the time because THERE IS NO FIXED HUMAN NATURE!


Not necessarily just cheaters. Some of the teacher sure but a bad teacher is only part of the problem. What if somebody decides to teach some morals that are less than desirable: master race, great leader come to mind straight away but is not limited to only that.

As i said before, both situation can have abusive situation. I understand that there are opressive families and not all of them are good. But i also do not advocate teaching morals only in the family. There are 2 kinds of morals 1) Fully accepted by society at large 2) More subjective ones. The fully accepted ones can be taught by the society itself or the family. While more subjective ones can be taught by the family as long as they don't violate the accepted ones. By accepted ones i mean morals such as "Do not kill","Do not steal", "Do not rape","Do not abuse children". It obviously depends on the country but in the West this also includes "No forced marriages", "No Genitalia mutilations" etc. Usually things like this are codified in to law.

But there is a significant problem when you move not fully accepted moral norms like "Acceptance of Abortion/Denial of Abortion" or "LGBTQ Rights" in to the school program. This will create conflict within the society. You need to first reach societal consensus on the matter in one form or the other and then probably codify it in to law. Then again, if it is codified then it means the society itself will teach the individuals about it and there is no point in putting it in the school system in the first place.

Note, when i talk about this i am mostly talking about Western societies. I do not try to force my opinion on top of non-Western countries. I do not expect non-Western societies to follow humane moral norms in the first place.
#14987497
I think that @SSDR and @JohnRawls have gone a bit offtopic from the thread.The thread was more about children that enter in gangs(like in mafia) and succeed in joining political parties because they had teachers involved in these cases.How do I know that?Because I heard my colleagues from my school when I was a scholar that if you don't skip classes and mock teachers when you see them in streets then you are a nobody in front of them and you will remain for them a clown,an idiot,a dumb person.
Even in political parties I see this word gang.It sounds like everything to my school classmates is popularity.If you don't act like them,you are not worthy of them.Is that what school represents now?Popularity with gangs?
It's like the word popularity is in the center of their universe.
What happened to the days when school was respected?What happened to the teachers who were struggling with specimens of kids(I said this word because not every child was pure hearted,there were also failures of society) for improvement?Now teachers no longer do their job and they just pass scholars and highscholars into idiots with degrees who have no idea what reality is in this world.
Let me give you a small example:,,Mark graduates a navy school in my country and after 3 years of study he finds himself with a crew who has more experience and knowledge than he had from reading the same books in 3 years.Now,Mark paid the voyage for 6 months and after a while he doesn't know how to work at the deck but he has a degree as a deck officer.Sure,he read about all the lessons in his training manual but did he learnt about some practical experiments from that navy school?Of course,he didn't achieved that in the school because the whole idea of the school was to select some idiots to join this programme with money and after they finish they can have a degree in the sea field.''
Please,explain to me how school should be based in your opinion because in my opinion some sailors from the navy told me that school no longer values the importance of knowledge,practice,respect and it values bribery,stealing,deceiving.
#14987554
@JohnRawls, Yes if the topic doesn't really have an impact on society, then it wouldn't matter and it probably wouldn't need to be taught. Such topics, from LGBTQ rights, to a master race, would itself be another political discussion that could potentially get off topic in this forum.
#14987555
@wolly, Well, most schools, especially higher education schools like secondary schools or universities, what they teach doesn't really relate to one's occupation, depending on the scenario. For instance, what does a calculus class have to do with getting a Bachelor's Degree in psychology? Even the most advanced fields of psychology do not really require knowledge of calculus. The same with secondary education. What does "y = mx + b" have to do with sweeping floors or driving box trucks? One of the reasons why some teachers let some students cheat/slide is because their subjects may have NOTHING to do with their future occupations, like how I have mentioned previously.

"at the deck but he has a degree as a deck officer" - Yeah umm that degree probably didn't train him to do his occupation. That degree did probably teach him some "y = mx + b" shit or some history shit from the 1200's.

Schools should enforce knowledge, brain exercise, and talent. Many schools don't teach subjects that relate to what occupations their students will get into in their futures, so this is why some teachers are getting into bribery, corruption, and deceiving.
#14987657
@SSDR Actually that example that I gave you had nothing to do with history as a subject.A navy school is more based on physics,chemistry(I believe that chemistry has a role but I doubt that learning about compunds and acids would help you in this field) and math.
But what you said didn't really answered my questions about the change of education in schools.I was more interested about why and how the teachers changed their mentality and emotions on scholars.It's not right for a teacher to have a salary from the minister and not giving a penny on us.Even homeroom teachers don't give a crap about us and they passed us the grade levels(5,6,7,8) like we were in a playground.
And why do teachers have to teach advanced physics and chemistry to us instead of talking to us about our occupation which we choose?Sure,it's okay to have a general culture about certain things but how does the information from physics in thermodynamis about the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics help us in our choosen career?Why do teachers have to teach these stuff?
I,for example,wasn't a pure child like others were and I was a dumbass,a rebel.I could barely afford a diode,a battery and a few resistors from the electronic store but others had a middle salary and they could afford more than I could.Of course,the homeroom teacher told us that he will take care of us(including myself) but when I saw him with a girl from my class about her financial problem he acted like she was a begger and gave her an amount of money for her resume because she didn't have money to buy paper from the store or buy a printer for her home.That's an humiliating act to ask someone to give you something that you don't own.I don't call that an altruistic act because the girl had parent who supported her.
#14987902
@wolly, But most college degrees usually have off topic classes that can sometimes be hard, depending on the student, that have nothing to do with one's future occupation. A history class that is credited has nothing to do with being in a Navy.

"I was more interested about why and how the teachers changed their mentality and emotions on scholars." This is because teachers' politics may change in this example.

"Even homeroom teachers don't give a crap about us and they passed us the grade levels(5,6,7,8) like we were in a playground." Most of the things I had to learn in those grades have NOTHING to do with my life rn. Also, you talking about "don't give a crap about us" makes you sound very Christian lol. Nobody needs to care for anyone. Caring is just a motive to motivate people to help others in need.

"And why do teachers have to teach advanced physics and chemistry to us instead of talking to us about our occupation which we choose?" Because they want to exercise your fuckin brain. When you learn things, your brain is exercising.

"Sure,it's okay to have a general culture about certain things but how does the information from physics in thermodynamis about the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics help us in our choosen career?Why do teachers have to teach these stuff?" lmfao ikr.

"I,for example,wasn't a pure child like others were and I was a dumbass,a rebel.I could barely afford a diode,a battery and a few resistors from the electronic store but others had a middle salary and they could afford more than I could." Then you shouldn't of bought those things. You should of told your fuckin teacher "Hey look my mom can't afford to buy me equipment you are enforcing us to use." They can't say shit to that.

"but when I saw him with a girl from my class about her financial problem he acted like she was a begger and gave her an amount of money for her resume because she didn't have money to buy paper from the store or buy a printer for her home." And women (unlike men) have periods. Men are more likely to get hired than women. Men also are more likely to get higher pays than women.

"That's an humiliating act to ask someone to give you something that you don't own." That shows how much you care.........

"I don't call that an altruistic act because the girl had parent who supported her." Maybe her parent was strict, abusive, or mentally insane. Not everyone can rely on their parents.
EU-BREXIT

@Kaiserschmarrn In truth, I don't give a fuck[…]

I appreciate the boundless forgiveness that some […]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19[…]

You sound so childish with your facile dismissive[…]