[Zyx]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, I used the slavery example for the sake of showing that a parent is not necessary for child rearing. My memory has come back, and it is true that at times the mothers would teach the children how to read or something. Still, this is not an argument for how children can best learn to read if their parents teach them.

So schools are teaching kids about political positions, religion, morality, social skills, etiquette, culture, etc? And it seems to me that the students that do best in school (the rich) have parents who are the most active in their lives.

Schools can teach all of these if we allow them. That's actually the point of my system. As to rich and doing best in school, it has to do with neuroscience and the conversations children have with parents. I'd essentially spread the best science over all children equally: probably through the use of an internet MUD system. So, rather than your system which would allow for poorly performing children, mine would be less varied and more concentrated around high proficiency.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Schools can teach all of these if we allow them. That's actually the point of my system.

No, the point of the system is to brainwash kids into loving the federal government, which is also the point of your system and why your system fails. Eventually you'll just get brainless followers with no actual thoughts or original ideas. Everything will be about being "orthodox". No one is orthodox enough, of course.

My memory has come back, and it is true that at times the mothers would teach the children how to read or something.

Yeah I'm sure the parents had their slaves reading to their children. Oh wait, it was illegal for slaves to read.

As to rich and doing best in school, it has to do with neuroscience and the conversations children have with parents. I'd essentially spread the best science over all children equally: probably through the use of an internet MUD system. So, rather than your system which would allow for poorly performing children, mine would be less varied and more concentrated around high proficiency.

To think, there are actually people out there who believe that government is efficient enough to be able to do this. And the nerve of these people to believe that if a government were to do this, that it would be in the context of their perfect little world.

Your system is flawed because it's inefficient, unmanageable, and impossible.

[Zyx]

No, the point of the system is to brainwash kids into loving the federal government,

This was, actually, the American dream. Many of the federalist agreed with having national schools for this purpose: "unity." Indeed, this idea even streams in some of the political parties on POFO; namely, Nets' (compulsory national service.)

Eventually you'll just get brainless followers with no actual thoughts or original ideas.

We already went over this. Original thoughts and ideas have nothing to do with the prevalence of education.

Yeah I'm sure the parents had their slaves reading to their children. Oh wait, it was illegal for slaves to read.

Way to kick someone down. I already conceded that the parents taught their kids: this has no relevance whatsoever, though.

To think, there are actually people out there who believe that government is efficient enough to be able to do this. And the nerve of these people to believe that if a government were to do this, that it would be in the context of their perfect little world.

I do not understand this criticism. I get that you are backing out, which is reasonable, but to back out with so little grace--I don't understand your inspiration.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

This was, actually, the American dream. Many of the federalist agreed with having national schools for this purpose: "unity." Indeed, this idea even streams in some of the political parties on POFO; namely, Nets' (compulsory national service.)

A healthy nationalism is different from total brainwashing though, which is what you seem to be advocating. I'm personally in favor of compulsory national service and even to some extent "reeducation" (preemptive education of the children of rich people so that they don't have globalist aspirations).

We already went over this. Original thoughts and ideas have nothing to do with the prevalence of education.

Original thoughts and ideas do have something to do with requiring a certain method of thought or teaching a certain dogma of political view (over all others). That's why I think that public education has far too much scope in the lives of our kids. Already its making the poor highly unproductive by transitioning them from being the working class into being the service class. And that's just by telling people that the only option they have is college (something that you are probably apeshit about).

I do not understand this criticism. I get that you are backing out, which is reasonable, but to back out with so little grace--I don't understand your inspiration.

I'm not backing out, I'm saying that your idea is impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong. Oh wait, you can't! (you know, to use your argument. Isn't that frustrating?)

[Zyx]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, the only thing that is impossible is to prove that something is impossible.

As to brainwashing, it's a meaningless phrase. It assumes that there is something in the brain that is washed away.

As to original thoughts requiring a certain method of thought, it's ignorance. Everyone knows that 'original' thought is truly improving on what has already been thought. There is no 'original' ideas, just expansions. Therefore, the task is just to make people aware in order to be a progressive society. Our society where few people are aware of anything is an unoriginal society. If you don't believe me, tell me what unique ideas anyone that you are familiar with have come up with. Notice that everyone you name has been formally educated to make original ideas.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

As to brainwashing, it's a meaningless phrase. It assumes that there is something in the brain that is washed away.

Do you remember what it was like to find out that a lot of the stuff that they taught you in middle and high school was oversimplified or flat out false? That's what your future is going to look like on a massive scale. People will be learning things, but they could be complete fabrications. That's the problem with non-peer reviewing, it sure generates a lot of bullshit. The only thing your government will be is an exercise in human enslavement.

As to original thoughts requiring a certain method of thought, it's ignorance. Everyone knows that 'original' thought is truly improving on what has already been thought.

Actually it's more accurate to say that original thought replaces old thought, in my opinion.

If you don't believe me, tell me what unique ideas anyone that you are familiar with have come up with.

Well there was this one guy I knew who figured out that if he bought a blotter (container) of MDMA and sold it instead of buying an ounce of weed, he could make 4x the money and by 5 more ounces of weed. That was a pretty solid idea, not done by someone formally educated.

[Korimyr the Rat]

As to the concept of 'love.' It can be doled by anyone. There is nothing unique in genetic similarity.

Perhaps not in genetic similarity, but in bonds of kinship for certain. The family is the natural human form of organization immediately beneath the tribe, and it is the most wholesome environment for children to be reared in. There have been previous attempts at communal child-rearing in the past, and they have failed because they are incompatible with natural human social organization.

[Mazhi]

Sorry bro but I can't possibly vote for someone who thinks parents shouldn't raise their own children. It goes against...Well, everything reasonable and logical and natural. Even fascists or Nazis wouldn't do that.

[Vladimir]

If it can not, fair enough. What's heavily taxing people, though, have to do with aiding the worker's political and economic organization?

Heavy progressive tax isn't just heavily taxing people; it means increasing state revenue (which we can use for the given purpose) at the expense of high incomes and to the benefit of low incomes.

If your party's policy was what you wrote to me and everything was consistent to that ideal, you'd get my measly vote.

Trust me it is And I don't think one vote is that measly in pofo

[Capitalist]

This party should be renamed The Witch Logic Party.

[Zyx]

Do you remember what it was like to find out that a lot of the stuff that they taught you in middle and high school was oversimplified or flat out false? That's what your future is going to look like on a massive scale. People will be learning things, but they could be complete fabrications. That's the problem with non-peer reviewing, it sure generates a lot of bullshit. The only thing your government will be is an exercise in human enslavement.

I'd have a grand science community, so this is not necessarily a flaw. If everyone believes in Newton's view on gravity, there really is not much harm. At some point, we'll all believe Einstein's and that is merely another step forward.

As to today, we have Jews believing that their ancestors built Pyramids in Egypt and Whites believing that they are different people than Blacks. Science and Historical accuracy are meaningless.

Actually it's more accurate to say that original thought replaces old thought, in my opinion.

You are free to explain how we differ and what you mean to say.

That was a pretty solid idea, not done by someone formally educated.

I have no idea what you mean with your story. You understand my point, I imagine. Don't be difficult.

There have been previous attempts at communal child-rearing in the past, and they have failed because they are incompatible with natural human social organization.

This is nonsense and doesn't suffice as an argument. You are telling me that there are empirical failures, but there are empirical failures in everything. If you want to disprove something than you take the theoretical route. If you mean to tell me that children raised in groups in an elaborate system utilizing neuroscience, psychology and other fields can not succeed, then you are out of your mind.

Even fascists or Nazis wouldn't do that.

Oh, how far did the Nazi Youth go? Besides, this doesn't matter. It's wrongheaded to think that a family situation can not be perfected by a agent without biological connections.

Trust me it is And I don't think one vote is that measly in pofo

Well, no one really cares for one vote. Whatever, I'll disband my party and vote for your own. :-\

This party should be renamed The Witch Logic Party.

I had no idea what this meant, watched the Monty Python episode and had a low chuckle. The name is definitely cute, though.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I'd have a grand science community, so this is not necessarily a flaw. If everyone believes in Newton's view on gravity, there really is not much harm. At some point, we'll all believe Einstein's and that is merely another step forward.

And then quantum mechanics.

As to today, we have Jews believing that their ancestors built Pyramids in Egypt and Whites believing that they are different people than Blacks. Science and Historical accuracy are meaningless.

These are things that you don't believe, not things that everyone doesn't believe. Except for the whole Pyramids thing, that's probably not true.

In any case, that's exactly my point. Inaccuracies will be institutionalized in your system, except there will be no one to dispel them.

You are free to explain how we differ and what you mean to say.

One scientific theory replaces another. Heliocentrism replaces geocentrism, relativity replaces newtonian physics, etc.

I have no idea what you mean with your story. You understand my point, I imagine. Don't be difficult.

Just having a lark.

Henry George didn't have a formal education after 14 and he is one of my favorite political economists.

[Zyx]

And then quantum mechanics.

I doubt it.

In any case, that's exactly my point. Inaccuracies will be institutionalized in your system, except there will be no one to dispel them.

Inaccuracies are not bad if scientific, you know?

One scientific theory replaces another. Heliocentrism replaces geocentrism, relativity replaces newtonian physics, etc.

I still do not get what you are trying to say. Furthermore, you're jumping too much. There were decades, centuries even, between paradigm switches. In the interim, there were dozens of old thought experiments that were very useful. Like, Netwonian Physics was, supposedly, verified with the discovery of Neptune. They're not fools tricks, you know?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I doubt it.

Why? This is your dream society, isn't it?

Inaccuracies are not bad if scientific, you know?

Yeah they are, if they're pseudo-scientific. What exactly is your educational system based on, and what are you going to "raise" children to believe?

[Zyx]

Why? This is your dream society, isn't it?

Quantum Mechanics, as I understand it, works on small scales. I just can't imagine that it could be applied on a large scale like the solar system, much less the universe.

I'd be surprised.

Yeah they are, if they're pseudo-scientific.

This is not what I wrote though. Something scientific is not pseudo-scientific, you know?

What exactly is your educational system based on, and what are you going to "raise" children to believe?

What I say now, would be different than what could possibly be implemented. Naturally, I'd pursue the most ideal settings for each child. Of course, loyalty to the state would be important, but beside from that, I'd flood each child with advanced work in all sorts of fields and give them stories, true or false, that have a good moral basis for the sake of a good population. Beside from this, individual study, unless proven bad, would be highly emphasized, so that children will solve things, they believe novel, that require quite a bit of ingenuity so that they may be able adults when the time comes. But, bleh, this is ideal stuff--crazy people talk.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

What I say now, would be different than what could possibly be implemented. Naturally, I'd pursue the most ideal settings for each child. Of course, loyalty to the state would be important, but beside from that, I'd flood each child with advanced work in all sorts of fields and give them stories, true or false, that have a good moral basis for the sake of a good population. Beside from this, individual study, unless proven bad, would be highly emphasized, so that children will solve things, they believe novel, that require quite a bit of ingenuity so that they may be able adults when the time comes. But, bleh, this is ideal stuff--crazy people talk.

What if it turns out that different abilities aren't the result of culture but the result of genetics? Wouldn't it just make your system costly and unnecessary? Also how do you incentivize work (or research if you'd like) without a monetary system in place? What if removing people from the family lifestyle make them depressed and idle? What if you're wrong about children not needing their parents? What if this whole thing has consequences no one envisioned? How are you going to fund such a costly system?

These are just a few details you should probably get hammered out before you start flaunting it like the perfect system.

[Zyx]

Actually, Cheesecake_Marmalade, you would probably be surprised but these ideas were of Pre-Kumatto origin*. I'll hammer them out, of course, and will not try to push something that had flaws I knew of without mentioning it.

Thanks for the concern.

*(If it sounds childish, it's because it is.)

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

So this is when you were a kid?

Your childhood must have sucked.

[Zyx]

The thought experiment, yes, not the actual experience of a commune.

As to my childhood, I rather liked it. I found that 'thinking' on matters was very beneficial to me at the time. Of course, I forgot most of my childhood so I really can't judge whether I was right or not.

[Zyx]

Meh, TLP returns.

I may as well sit at the Congress and help some laws.