Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Idea for new invention: power generation through word twisting

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 7 months ago

User Journal 138

The workings of other human minds continue to fascinate, as what amounts to Making Stuff Up out of whole cloth rages in the greymatter of others:

The workings of other human minds continue to fascinate, as what amounts to Making Stuff Up out of whole cloth rages in the greymatter of others:

Except that simply has not happened. I tell you: you spend a career supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, the 5th Amendment of which states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I suppose I could get insulted or something; these slanders are about as valid as accusing me of immorality with farm animals. What would be more useful, though, would be to figure out how to attach all that logical torque to a turbine somehow. With the proper engineering, I'm sure we could light a small city.

cancel ×

138 comments

But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45853013)

You have been dodging the matter quite successfully over the past several years though. This time you claim to care about the 5th amendment; although you have shown before that you do not respect all parts of the constitution equally, at all times.

So what would you do then if a trial were held and he were found not guilty? Hold another trial until you get what you want? You certainly have thrown out enough conspiracy theories already that if the first one were to proceed towards prosecution (really the more appropriate term here would be persecution though as you want it to proceed without any meaningful evidence, on the basis of your assertion that someone else is evil) today, you could keep a court busy well past 2017 going through your list.

But don't start pretending to care about the rule of law now. You didn't care before. Previously you showed that you just wanted the (D) out of the white house and that to you the law was less important than the goal. Quoting the constitution is not convincing either when you have already shown that you see some parts of the constitution to be less important than others.

I do appreciate you dedicating yet another JE to me, though. Not really much of an honor when it only makes you look increasingly absurd, but worthy of note nonetheless.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

pudge (3605) | about 7 months ago | (#45854059)

you have shown before that you do not respect all parts of the constitution equally, at all times

Perhaps, but so what? I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments very much. What's that got to do with anything? I accept they are law, and respect them in that sense, and defend them as such, but I would be happy to remove them as law, and I suspect the same goes with smitty1e, so if that is what you mean by "respect," you're lying. Again. As usual.

So what would you do then if a trial were held and he were found not guilty? Hold another trial until you get what you want?

Have you stopped beating your mother? (Oldie, but goodie, and completely appropriate.)

But don't start pretending to care about the rule of law now. You didn't care before.

You're a liar. Ibid etc. ad nauseam.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45855421)

I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments

So what gives you the right to disregard parts of the constitution? Those amendments were added with the mechanisms put in place for our federal government to use for amending the document. Why are you special and allowed to disregard parts that you don't like? You should take, or reject, the document in full.

Of course, you have shown that you do that with other documents as well - the Bible comes to mind.

defend them as such

Really? What are you doing to defend them when you are stating that you do not respect them? Or for that matter what are you doing at all to defend them? Blogging about the constitution is not in any way the same as actually defending it.

So what would you do then if a trial were held and he were found not guilty? Hold another trial until you get what you want?

Have you stopped beating your mother? (Oldie, but goodie, and completely appropriate.)

First of all, it is not appropriate. Second it is not even close to actually relating to the matter. Third, it is supposed to be "wife" not "mother".

But don't start pretending to care about the rule of law now. You didn't care before.

You're a liar. Ibid etc. ad nauseam.

I can't force you to actually read the discussion that you just inserted yourself in to. That said, it is so far beyond your intellectual level that you couldn't reach it with a jet aircraft.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45855919)

I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments

So what gives you the right to disregard parts of the constitution? Those amendments were added with the mechanisms put in place for our federal government to use for amending the document. Why are you special and allowed to disregard parts that you don't like? You should take, or reject, the document in full.

Wow, you really are a dense piece of work. To say one lacks respect for something, e.g. the 16th Amendment, is not to say one "disregards" it, the way, say, President Obama disregards the Affordable Care Act [foxnews.com] . Is it your contention that Pudge disregards the 16th Amendment, and is, therefore, a tax cheat?
If that is a correct inference, such an allegation would be as bonkers as your claim that I disregard the 5th Amendment, as cited in this JE.
What ever happened to the day when we gave the other person the benefit of the doubt in conversations? A bit of hyperbole from time to time isn't the end of the world, but it's like salt in your food man: a little dab'll do ya.
Lighten up, Francis.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45856127)

What ever happened to the day when we gave the other person the benefit of the doubt in conversations?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt - many, many times. At several different occasions I directly asked you if you wanted to have an impartial investigation recommend whether or not to proceed with a fair trial - and if you would accept that conclusion. Not once did you say you would accept such a result. Now you are pretending to be concerned about the 5th amendment, while rejecting other amendments.

It appears that you are willing to set the entire country ablaze just to drive out one person who you despise. Worse yet you appear to despise him almost exclusively based on the fact that he comes from a party other than your own, even though his actual actions are not that different from those that came from your own party.

If there has been anything you have been abundantly and directly clear on it is that you will stop at nothing to drive out and destroy the reputation of President Lawnchair. If a mob of people like yourself organizes to pull him out forcefully will you still be blogging about the 5th amendment, or will you just make yourself a bowl of popcorn?

For example (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45861741)

I accept the election results.
Increasingly, reality is just that thing you brush aside.

If a mob of people like yourself organizes to pull him out forcefully

Nobody but you is mentioning force. No one.

Re:For example (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45862595)

I accept the election results.

How many times have you said

elections have consequences

?

Sure, you accept that an election occurred but you certainly are not content with the outcome or willing to allow the re-elected POTUS to finish his second term if you can prevent it.

If a mob of people like yourself organizes to pull him out forcefully

Nobody but you is mentioning force. No one.

Your path has a very high probability of leading to force, as it has almost no chance of leading towards a peaceful removal and removal is the only outcome many of you would be willing to accept. Not once have you been willing to describe force and violence as being unacceptable paths to your preferred outcome. Many times you have shown approval of extralegal measures.

Re:For example (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45862813)

Only in your mad realm am I culpable for the outcomes of your fantasy life. The least you could do is throw in a good salad and some tea.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45854883)

What Pudge said.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45855289)

What Pudge said.

I am sorry to see that you have lowered yourself to his level of discourse. You used to be willing to honestly represent your ideas and hold a respectful discussion. Endorsing the pudge-script only suggests you don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't share your views.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45855959)

I'm happy to talk to any stable human being. A river of bile is a something else entirely. I suppose I should forgive you, on a theological level. And I do, being a low-baggage sort of fellow. But I wouldn't invite General Sherman's Lawn & Garden back for a reprise, and it's not clear what we have to talk about, when it appears you've absolutely nothing to offer but distortions.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45856193)

You have been dodging direct questions for months. You have been consistently insulting me and mocking my comments - at least, the small parts of them that you opt to quote in your responses while disregarding the bulk of the text. Meanwhile you intentionally give partial statements of your aspirations and then feign insult when I dare to point out where they lead. It does not surprise me that you would compare what I have said to a

river of bile

That said I do not ask you for forgiveness. I ask for an opportunity to actually have an honest conversation where we both answer questions directly and give direct statements of what we believe. Your writings as of late have suggested you do not want that.

General Sherman's Lawn & Garden

If you are aiming for a comparison to a scorched earth policy, the policies you endorse come much closer than mine.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45861757)

If you are aiming for a comparison to a scorched earth policy, the policies you endorse come much closer than mine.

Um, no, you're the one peddling all the violent rhetoric. I deliberately eschew such, for reasons we see here: it's too great a distraction.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45862577)

If you are aiming for a comparison to a scorched earth policy, the policies you endorse come much closer than mine.

Um, no, you're the one peddling all the violent rhetoric. I deliberately eschew such, for reasons we see here: it's too great a distraction.

So you are saying that you don't want to talk about mob-driven overthrow not because it is extralegal in nature, but rather because you see it as distracting from your constant drumming for your conspiracy theories. Yet once again, you refuse to actually say that you would not approve of a violent overthrow of the POTUS (or anyone with a (D) after their name, for that matter).

Equally important though is that your conspiracy theories would be enormously wasteful to pursue. You have a grocery list of conspiracies that you want to throw Obama out over, and no evidence for any of them to support such drastic action against the POTUS. If congress were to start an investigation into your top favorite conspiracy theory this evening, it could easily cost hundreds of millions to do, and would consume an enormous amount of government resources. Furthermore if the complete absence of factual information that you have provided to warrant such an investigation is any indication, the independent congressionally-authorized investigation would not produce enough evidence to warrant an impeachment trial anyways.

And what would you do at that point? Would you then just start over from square one with your next favorite conspiracy theory, and waste more time and money on that? You have more than enough conspiracies to keep an investigator going well past January 2017. Furthermore with each iteration your ilk would only get more enraged and more people would be willing to light torches and march on Pennsylvania Ave. Or would you instead insist that the investigation was intentionally bungled by some combination of "leftist media" "leftist politicians" "leftist educators" and/or "leftist martian invaders" and insist on starting the exact same one all over again?

Regardless the least violent outcome of your path to overthrow would result in an incredible amount of wasted money and a lot of angry people claiming that the government isn't listening. At least equally likely is enough of those people would rally with their anger and become a violent mob.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45862797)

No, really: the game where I empower you to force me to deny your every fickle, feverish, fetid, fecal fantasy is not one in which I have to engage. Get stuffed, fall off the planet, and land somewhere that you can find some playmates.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45862895)

your every fickle, feverish, fetid, fecal fantasy

There is nothing fantasy about this. You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS; some with the same invalid reason that you so deeply love, and some for other invalid reasons.

More so, I have asked you only about one scenario and one scenario only. You are the one who is rallying the angry mob, not me. You know that you do not have the evidence for a trial nor do you have ample reason to believe that any such evidence exists to lead to a trial and a conviction. However you have been calling for the overthrow of the POTUS for varied reasons since roughly June of 2008.

The fact that you refuse to reject a violent overthrow from being a favorable or acceptable outcome speaks louder than your only recent attempts to feign concern for the rule of law.

Get stuffed, fall off the planet, and land somewhere that you can find some playmates.

So now you want people who actually respect the rule of law to "fall off the planet". You're so kind. I wonder what you would install as a leader if your mob threw out Obama; as you don't care much for democracy I suspect it would not be someone elected.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45864305)

You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS

No. No, I am not rallying an angry mod. YOU say this, but there is no reality with which to correlate the assertion beyond the borders of your noggin.

You are the one who is rallying the angry mob, not me.

Repetition does not create reality.

I wonder what you would install as a leader if your mob threw out Obama;

*yawn*. Are you done?

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45864873)

You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS

No. No, I am not rallying an angry mod. YOU say this, but there is no reality with which to correlate the assertion

You have, on many many occasions, indicated that you see removal of the POTUS as either a critical catalyst or necessary outcome of any of the following aims:

  • "justice"
  • "budgetary realignment"
  • "defending the constitution"
  • "consequences of ..."
  • "the true will of the people"
  • "elections as described in the original constitution"
  • ... and various other bits of bullshit that don't come to mind immediately

Being as none of your situations actually have anywhere remotely close to enough actual data to support moving forward with impeachment, in spite of what you and your legions of like-minded anti-POTUS types believe, you can only be disappointed by the outcomes. Even if billions of dollars were spent on investigations into all of your favorite conspiracies, the likelihood of a legal removal of the POTUS is quite nearly zero. At that point you have an even angrier mob. Whether or not you want to take credit with rallying it, you are assisting in its growth and agitation.

I wonder what you would install as a leader if your mob threw out Obama;

*yawn*. Are you done?

Well... you don't feel that the law is required to remove the POTUS. You also don't feel that elections as we currently have them are the right way to elect federal representation. I don't expect you to actually answer this query but it is an interesting exercise. I can help but wonder who would be adequately authoritarian and extreme for your interests.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45864905)

Well... you don't feel that the law is required to remove the POTUS. You also don't feel that elections as we currently have them are the right way to elect federal representation. I don't expect you to actually answer this query but it is an interesting exercise. I can help but wonder who would be adequately authoritarian and extreme for your interests.

What, are you jacked into my nervous system? The only fascinating question here is whether you're (a) completely unhinged, or (b) portraying such a sick person for tasteless effect. Lord have mercy on your dented wastebasket personality.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45865105)

Your own comments demonstrate your aims. You can pretend that not to be the case, but its already out on display for us. You have behind you a multi-year history of championing various conspiracy theories that you see as being sufficient to warrant the immediate removal of the POTUS (legal system be damned!). You have further demonstrated plainly that you do not see the people of this nation as being qualified to elect all of their own representation in Washington.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45865325)

No.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45866747)

That is the response I would expect from you if the question was "do you support only using legal means to remove President Obama from the white house, accepting the possibility of legal means not resulting in impeachment?"

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45867007)

What's become clear of late is that there are many voices in your head holding all manner of discussions.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45867371)

You have a long list of ways to avoid discussion. You are willing to take a stance, but not responsibility. You certainly can't seem to be bothered with thinking things through much anymore, either.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45867737)

You are at the point of Making Stuff Up out of whole cloth. It's not clear why you need any further external input.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45867941)

Not even close. You have been supporting my argument of you being driven by your desire to unseat Obama for years. You just seem to think that by dodging the matter instead of facing it head on you can avoid an actual conversation on the legality of your wishes and the outcomes that would come of them. If anyone is "Making Stuff Up" it's you, when you claim that this is a new conversation. You have been calling for removal of the POTUS for quite some time now. I presume that you wouldn't call for it without some plan in mind for what you would want to see happen next - regardless of whether or not the reality of the situation conforms to it.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45868515)

You have been calling for removal of the POTUS for quite some time now. I presume that you wouldn't call for it without some plan in mind for what you would want to see happen next - regardless of whether or not the reality of the situation conforms to it.

The dumbest thing that could possibly occur would be to permit any literal or metaphorical martyring to occur.
This is probably among the reasons the Vichy GOP has been so silent; the thing that threatens Obama the most is his record, i.e. ObamaCare.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45868823)

The dumbest thing that could possibly occur would be to permit any literal or metaphorical martyring to occur.

Then you should have stopped at just one conspiracy theory for overthrowing Obama. Furthermore you should actually be willing to present evidence to support you goal of overthrowing him that goes beyond your constant refrain of "because I said so". Right now you - and others on the right - are leading a witch hunt against him that is even more pitiful than the one brought against Clinton. You are willing to commit untold volumes of time and treasure to pursue this for no justifiable reason.

It appears your plan is something like:

  • A. Benghazi, first by an independent investigation. This won't go your way.
  • Obamacare, by another independent investigation. This won't go your way either
  • C. Benghazi, part II. At this point you'll present some twisted "logic" to overcome the double jeopardy clause in the 5th, or just admit that you don't care about it in this case. This won't work either.
  • D. Turn to the mob you rallied during A, B, and C. This has a better chance of going your way than A, B, or C, but could also go catastrophically bad. You will likely use a combination of the 2nd amendment and the federalist papers to support action D.
  • E. More birther crap that won't work
  • F. Something about the government helping General Motors; this also won't work
  • G. Something about the stimulus program, which also won't work.
  • H. More assistance from your angry mob.
  • I. Something about his scary middle name and/or various fun conspiracies about him in Indonesia as child; these also won't work
  • J. Guantanamo, which also won't work
  • K. Some new-world-order / union takeover of [favorite industry] crap that also won't work
  • L. Something with the departments of Education and/or Energy, which also won't work.

I probably forgot some of your favorite conspiracy theories in there, it is getting late at night.

"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45869959)

The important thing to recall here is that I'M the tinfoil hat nutjob here. Me. No one else. And for a certainty, not you, Tomás de Torquemada.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45871351)

I never called you a nutjob. I have shown you to be deeply embedded into hyperpartisan politics. The list I just gave was primarily an abridged list of the conspiracy theories that you have championed for the removal of the current POTUS (I'm sure I forgot some from that list).

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45871985)

You've shown nothing but a propensity for accusation. It sounds as though you've succeeded in convincing yourself. Sad.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45872357)

Accusation? No, you have shown in your own writing that you want Obama out of the office for - at the very least - those causes and more. Accusing would be if I were to claim you wanted to be the executioner or in charge of selecting his replacement; those are things you have not directly stated aspirations for. However you have a long trail of comments and JEs here where you have directly demonstrated your wish to see Obama removed for causes that do not meet the requirements for impeachment based on evidence currently available.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45872939)

I have no choice but to forgive you both the accusations [slashdot.org] , and the inability to own up to the fact you've made them. I forgive you. You cannot halt the forgiveness. You can certainly ignore it; that's your choice. Your purpose for this behavior remains inscrutable. But this IS your behavior, both with me and Pudge.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45874147)

You don't have to like President Lawnchair, and obviously you do not. You are even free to hate him as much as you like provided you don't personally commit or threaten a violent act against him. You are also free to call for his removal over matters that do not warrant such actions, which you have done a great many times.

Similarly, I am also free to point out that you have on many occasions called for the removal of the POTUS under conditions that do not warrant his removal. You can pretend that you haven't made such calls but your comment and JE history shows us otherwise.

But this IS your behavior, both with me and Pudge.

You shouldn't insult yourself like that by comparing yourself to Pudge. You are capable of being reasonable, while Pudge generally is not. You are capable of thoughtful replies to my comments, while Pudge certainly never has been. Pudge has me on his perma-hate list, while you do not. When you compare yourself to him you insult yourself and you make him look like more of a reasonable person than he has shown himself capable of being. You don't do yourself any favors when you do that.

As for my "behavior" towards him, I have given up on any attempts at reasonable conversation with him. I know what he will do so rather than try to get any other response I just brush him off.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45874553)

I really don't feel much about President Obama as a man.
What I feel is a great sadness/contempt for a people who have permitted a sad state of affairs to drag on for far too long.
Had Obama balked or whatever, a similar piece of work should have been trotted out.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45875705)

I really don't feel much about President Obama as a man.

Sure, aside from your view of him as a far-left "Progressive" democrat, who you see as determined to transform this country (AND TEH WURLD!) into a hippie radicalist fascist atheist socialist anarchist islamist communist nightmare. Obviously this means that the only thing you can do as a True American (TM) is to do everything possible to try to prevent him from completing a second term, regardless of the consequences to life liberty or treasure required.

Fortunately for you, while under the previous administration anyone with your magnitude and duration of intent would have been (at least) labeled by all of the government and all of the media as "UN-AMERICAN" and (quite likely) suppressed in a number of ways by the same, you are welcomed to do that without consequence in this day. You then show your appreciation for those recovered freedoms by hyping up every conspiracy theory you can find in support of throwing Obama out of the White House, in spite of there being nowhere near enough evidence to support any of them even going to an impeachment trial let alone through one to a conviction.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45876801)

The shame is that a country founded to overthrow the boot of aristocracy has fallen prey to a "permanent political class", and a line of "Progressive" hooey that has turned the country into a vast plantation through debt, bread & circuses (entitlements).
Then there is the parade of pseudo-intellectual twerps in the Information Age who, like some vast, demented electronic warfare system, seem bent on crapflooding all dissenting voices into silence.
You're the best.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45877563)

"permanent political class"

The Tea Party is funded by a different economic class that wants to become the new "permanent political class". Perhaps you feel that the top economic echelons will somehow do better, but make no mistake they do not want to include the input from anyone lower than their own position on the economic ladder. Considering part of their platform includes rolling back some of the federal elections that this country has granted over the past 200 years, your leaders are likely to bring about a swift lock-out mechanism to squelch the middle and lower classes from having a say in the course of government.

through debt, bread & circuses (entitlements)

Yeah, yeah. We see that word a lot. We know that you use circus interchangeably with entitlements, just like the rest of the "mainstream" media. You can talk about the part of the budget that goes to these entitlements but you should also look at the amount of the entitlements that are paid for in earlier years by those who collect them. If you want to make an argument to end social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, and the VA entirely, do that. Pretending that you can make a meaningful change to the federal budget by only slicing up one of those is disingenuous at best.

seem bent on crapflooding all dissenting voices into silence.

You ain't seen nothing yet. If the Tea Party took full control we would see silence like none we have before. They've already been buying media outlets, they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45883309)

If the Tea Party took full control we would see silence like none we have before. They've already been buying media outlets, they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will.

Lord have mercy on you for slandering good Americans.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45883735)

If the Tea Party took full control we would see silence like none we have before. They've already been buying media outlets, they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will.

Lord have mercy on you for slandering good Americans.

Please, please, please. Show me where I committed such an offense. The Tea Party brothers themselves were just raising a holy stink about factual reporting that displayed them unfavorably [mediaite.com] . Couple this to how the conservatives have been buying up TV and print media as quickly as they can get away with and you can see the future that they want to set up for themselves. Soon freedom of the press will be a luxury for the wealthy.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45884203)

Show me where I committed such an offense.

OK

they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will

I'm really, really bored with your series of slanders of both me and other decent Americans. Cut that out.

Re:"plan" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45884415)

I showed you evidence of Tea Party leaders trying to silence an existing media outlet. Their work towards buying out the media is well documented. Several laws relating to how many media outlets can be owned by a single group have been revised upwards in the past decade to allow for more consolidation. Your allegation of slander does not reflect reality.

Re:"plan" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45885787)

I mean, it's your own words: "quickly revise the laws to allow them to . . . shut down all the rest of them at will".
Alternatively, you seem to think throwing in "or purchase" in the place of those ellipses, a presumably legal transaction, is somehow a prophylactic, a fig leaf, that justifies saying people who actually care about freedom of speech are going to pervert our laws, and re-enact anything akin to a Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] ?
Yes, that occurred, as did the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] . Because the sort of fascism the Tea Party struggles against must always be opposed then, as now.
If I enjoy any success for the hours poured into speaking truth to you, I hope you grasp this. As for your attempt to justify slandering good Americans, all I can do is point to your dissembling and say: Really?

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45879359)

POTUS isn't alone in that. You'd need to remove the whole federal government, and a good chunk of the financial community. POTUS is just a figurehead. Shoot him down, another will take his place.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#45879939)

You'd need to remove the whole federal government...

Local governments are no less corrupt. And bringing that corruption closer to home won't help. All you will get is eternal warfare amongst all the little fiefdoms, just like old time Europe.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45880257)

Bring the corruption closer to home- and affecting fewer people- means that when the rebellion comes, there are fewer people to remove.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#45882495)

Bah.. What 'rebellion'? Thousands of years of rebellion and still nothing has changed. The new authorities are invariably as corrupt as the old, and the local authorities next door will be on the attack. The only thing you will be removing are a bunch of cadavers.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45882965)

And yet every once in a while, you get a Good King Wenceslaus.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45898847)

And then he dies, and takes all the 'goodness' with him. Does that make it worth all the fighting to you? I'm more interested in something a bit more permanent. Eternal war is not exactly my cup of tea.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45899067)

We're in an eternal war anyway of good vs evil. Might as well admit that it exists, that way people have a reason to fight for good instead of evil.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45900087)

"Good" and "Evil" do not exist outside the mind of man. We invented (made up) the whole concept. People who think they are good usually aren't.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45901887)

Good and evil can be seen in Evolution. Good things allow the species to survive, bad things cause extinction.

It is not "made up" or invented by man. It exists even for viruses.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45902399)

No, strength and adaptability allow a species to survive. Weakness and inflexibility causes extinction. Might makes right. It has nothing to do with good and evil. Those words only apply to man by man. It only affects man's brain. But even then, the old rules still apply. The strong decide what is "good".

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45903287)

The strong may have their way all the days of their vanity here under the sun. But they, too, meet the Judge. :-)

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45911709)

Pure speculation.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45903315)

Strength and adaptability come from actually being able to have a next generation- something your group has entirely failed at.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45903645)

"My group"? That's funny. Anyway, despite all the bigotry and repression, they're still around. How dooo they do it?? Pretty tough bunch it seems. Time to reopen the prison camps. That's the solution.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45906511)

They weren't around 50 years ago. And they only appear when they can be parasites on somebody else- in cultures rich enough to support people without children and without productivity.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45908125)

Huh... And here am I thinking you knew all about history.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45908369)

June 28, 1969- 44 years ago, was when the phenomenon of gays trying to take over society appeared, in response to a police raid on a gay bar in New York City.

The first pride parade happened very soon after that, in November.

Before that, wherever homosexuality existed, it was marginalized. For the very reason of preserving the human species. By 1969, the United States got rich enough to support homosexuality again.

It is very much a First World Problem. Countries that are more focused on survival, recognize the problem with homosexuality as being *against survival*.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45909033)

Ahhhh, I see! You're upset that they don't just take their beatings and accept being deemed as pariahs and scum by your society. This reminds me of what the British thought of the people of India. Well, at least I can appreciate your forthrightness and clarity. So many others are trying so hard to keep up their crumbling facade.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45909331)

More upset that you're forcing the bedroom into the public arena, instead of leaving it in the bedroom.

They *are* pariahs and the scum of society, but who would treat them as such if nobody ever knew?

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45909767)

More upset that you're forcing the bedroom into the public arena, instead of leaving it in the bedroom.

Np, that would be you people with your sodomy laws and bigotry against equal rights. The flamboyance is a result of that. You all just have to learn to live and let live.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45909967)

No other society has *ever* adopted "live and let live" and survived. "Live and let live" is against survival.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45910171)

Might makes right then. Your god is a fabrication. Accept it and embrace it, but don't try to hide it.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45910917)

My God is mightier than your nothing.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45911283)

I'm sure for you it is. The only danger for me are the followers.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45883469)

Local governments are no less corrupt.

Well, yes they are. Your local putzes cannot inflate the currency, and beggar the unborn.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45881159)

By their "logic", all that the republicans need to take over the federal government is to flip the white house. They have convinced their constituents furthermore that the senate should not be elected directly, so they could just as easily use that as justification to throw out anyone from there that they don't like. They may claim that they dislike

the whole federal government

But make no mistake, they have winners and losers in mind.

The real troubling part though is that we currently have - by actual presidential actions and decisions - the most conservative president in the history of our country. This means that either the GOP would appoint a president who is no more conservative than Obama, or they would find a total nutjob who is - neither scenario plays out well for the vast majority of the country.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45882959)

The Democrats and the GOP both look a lot alike to me,
I'll give you all Bacardi, if you join the All Night Party -- Jimmy Pheromone for President, running against Bush I and Clinton way back in 1992.

Without a new constitutional congress, it will just be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45883785)

The Democrats and the GOP both look a lot alike to me,

Believe it or not I don't disagree with you on that. The democrats have become highly conservative and the GOP is insanely conservative. This country no longer has a middle or a left, only right and further right.

Without a new constitutional congress, it will just be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I actually agree with you on that as well (shocked?). It is time that we re-write the whole thing from the bottom up. I would actually like to see two documents written; a "conservative" and a "liberal" version. Write them both up and then allow the country to break in to (at least) two new countries with each state going to the side whose constitution they want to be under. The conservatives can outlaw all forms of abortion, have zero taxes, mandate gun ownership, and restrict education to only those who they feel deserve it. The liberals can set their taxes where they want, provide health care and education, and restrict arms inside their borders. Take two years to write the new documents and give the states 5 years to decide where they want to go (and 10 year individual citizen amnesty for people to have time to move if they need / want to once the other two periods are up). Then we can have functioning federal governments again and get on with business.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45884241)

restrict education to only those who they feel deserve it

That is absolutely not a conservative viewpoint. I can grant you that there is a minority that wants to make abortion completely illegal; I'd settle for just not getting mugged to pay for murders. Also, only the most extreme libertarians would argue for zero (0) taxes. The common thought is that the enumerated powers of the Constitution make sense, and should be funded. Mandating gun ownership, while bandied about, is about as un-conservative as mandating health insurance.
In all, you proffer a mostly distorted view of conservativism. Come on down to http://www.cpac.org/ [cpac.org] and try some enlightenment for a change. It would help you a lot, I think. Can I sponsor a ticket for you?

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45884467)

restrict education to only those who they feel deserve it

That is absolutely not a conservative viewpoint

However it is the result of defunding and deregulating public education. Whether it is a stated goal or just a convenient side effect doesn't matter.

I can grant you that there is a minority that wants to make abortion completely illegal; I'd settle for just not getting mugged to pay for murders.

We already have laws on the books to prevent federal dollars from paying for abortions, yet you want more to prevent them from happening. I'll give you a hint here; if you want people to believe in your side of the cause you can start by stopping the silly alternate labels, and stopping with made up "statistics" about it. Start arguing honestly about it and people won't be so repulsed by the anti-abortion side.

Also, only the most extreme libertarians would argue for zero (0) taxes.

There are plenty of traditional conservatives who are arguing for setting the corporate and inheritance tax rates there. I see them the same as individual income taxes.

In all, you proffer a mostly distorted view of conservativism

You have a strange way of describing the views that conservatives like to label themselves with on TV.

Come on down to http://www.cpac.org/ [cpac.org] and try some enlightenment for a change. It would help you a lot, I think. Can I sponsor a ticket for you?

They would throw me out. The GOP is not nearly enough of a large tent party to welcome my type.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45885819)

However it is the result of defunding and deregulating public education. Whether it is a stated goal or just a convenient side effect doesn't matter.

I LOL that, in the face of the thousands getting their health insurance policies cancelled over ObamaCare, you suddenly get all empirical-results oriented and stuff. You might want to consider (a) homeschooling, where children are gaining education, without so much Commie indoctrination, or (b) the new Glenn Reynolds tome. You might "learn" something.

yet you want more to prevent them from happening

There are two kinds of people: those who want to grow the culture, and those that want to burn it down to the ground. I am unabashedly in the former category, and would that you'd join the project.

a strange way of describing the views

Only if reality is strange to you.

They would throw me out. The GOP is not nearly enough of a large tent

Ahem. We're not talking about Other Democrats here; we're talking about actual conservatives. I realize that you're content on your Progressive Plantation; please understand that, based upon what I've seen you write on Slashdot, you don't know much about conservativism. I can say I've lived on the edge of the DC Singularity for ~15 years, and even hung out in academia for a couple, at George Washington University. I have personal experience of the evil I decry.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45886387)

However it is the result of defunding and deregulating public education. Whether it is a stated goal or just a convenient side effect doesn't matter.

You might want to consider (a) homeschooling

There are two massive problems with that idea, and a large number of only-slightly-less-massive ones as well.

First is that homeschooling produces a massive array of different outcomes. Some kids come out well and others less well. This comes in part from the fact that they won't generally achieve any better a K-12 education than what their parents received, and due to the passage of time will often achieve far less as their parents are generally not trained as educators.

Second though is that many families literally cannot afford to homeschool their children. Doing this requires that one parent takes the full 9-5 day off to school the child(ren). Few families have one wage earner making enough money to support the household alone now. And in the case of single parent households how would the one parent be able to put food on the table while devoting all of his/her time to educating the children?

without so much Commie indoctrination

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you not play that card.

There are two kinds of people: those who want to grow the culture, and those that want to burn it down to the ground. I am unabashedly in the former category, and would that you'd join the project.

(emphasis mine)

I realized on second reading of your statement where the critical part of the phrase lies. You want the culture - singular absolute. You want everyone to be part of the correct culture. Screw the melting pot, right? The crematorium is a better tool for your aims.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45887311)

There is one humanity, one morality, one culture. All else is corruption.

The melting pot and the salad bowl models of plurality have been dismal failures. All they do is create strife.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45896073)

First is that homeschooling produces a massive array of different outcomes.

You could with equal reason complain that people don't die at the same age. What a massive conceit. As though the atrocious No Child Left Behind Act or the even worse Common Core could EVER homogenize our society. While you're blowing sunshine up a flag pole, why don't you consider enshrining heterosexuality and monogamous marriage by federal law? While you're on a roll, go ahead and write a law that says water must flow uphill, and the temperature outside must adhere to a certain standard deviation?
The notion of individuality and liberty offends some, I gather. Yet the least-worst you can do is give a baseline opportunity for all, and let them succeed OR FAIL at their leisure.
What if. . .what if, public school is a 20th century relic that we need to discard?

Second though is that many families literally cannot afford to homeschool their children.

Literally? Have you literally looked at the literal labor force participation rate? ObamaCare promises to decimate the economy such that there will literally be plenty of unemployed parents available to homeschool.
The real terror for teacher's unions is that kids who are not given sexual indoctrination in grade school might grow up to be sane heterosexuals, marry, and fail to abort the next generation, at a rate that can sustain our society.

I realized on second reading of your statement where the critical part of the phrase lies. You want the culture - singular absolute. You want everyone to be part of the correct culture. Screw the melting pot, right? The crematorium is a better tool for your aims.

Wow, from a definite article referring to the instantaneous state of the U.S. population, to what looks like it could be an oblique reference to genocides of a prior century. [golf clap] You sure know how to troll, sir.
As a dig, it might be funnier if you noticed the singular "culture" came within the same sentence as a binary binning of all the people in the same culture. Of course it's a wild oversimplification. It's served as an aphorism. Have I pointed out just how mind-bendingly cool you are in the last two or three posts? Yuda man. Also, get some rest.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45896803)

First is that homeschooling produces a massive array of different outcomes.

You could with equal reason complain that people don't die at the same age.

No, you couldn't. You are comparing individual decisions and individual genetics that influence life expectancy to the societal obligations that we have to our children to see that they grow up to best realize their potential. Under a completely deregulated education system the potential of a child is determined only by the resources available to their parents.

Second though is that many families literally cannot afford to homeschool their children.

ObamaCare

If you can't enter this discussion honestly they why are you entering it at all?

The real terror for teacher's unions is that kids who are not given sexual indoctrination in grade school might grow up to be sane heterosexuals, marry, and fail to abort the next generation, at a rate that can sustain our society.

Is this the "gay agenda" that the conservative ("mainstream") media tells us all we should be afraid of? It may be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week.

I realized on second reading of your statement where the critical part of the phrase lies. You want the culture - singular absolute. You want everyone to be part of the correct culture. Screw the melting pot, right? The crematorium is a better tool for your aims.

[golf clap]

Your political agenda clearly does not value diversity of thought or culture. The notion that you would support a forced monoculture is not surprising.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45903191)

societal obligations that we have to our children to see that they grow up to best realize their potential

It is one of my supreme pleasures in life to see someone wave their hands at these much-ballyhooed, yet never defined "societal obligations". What. Societal. Obligations. Please.
It's sleight of hand of the Bushean order, when he conjured the TSA in the name of "security". How deeply conservative of you, sir.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45903349)

I wouldn't expect you to understand the argument since you don't believe that people should have equal opportunity to realize their own potential. You have shown that children who aren't lucky enough to crawl out of th right vagina should not, in your view, be granted the same opportunities as those who did.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45905263)

Shorter d_r: "I got nothin'."
What's fascinating about your response is the shift in mood:

should have equal opportunity to realize their own potential

I have ALWAYS argued for equality of opportunity, and you do harm to my position to say otherwise.

be granted the same opportunities

So, "having equal opportunity" is like saying we all share the same sun. We do. It is the common state of being alive. But what's this "be granted. . .opportunities" business? You're broaching the whole "Who, whom?" [wikipedia.org] question there, comrade.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45906469)

should have equal opportunity to realize their own potential

I have ALWAYS argued for equality of opportunity, and you do harm to my position to say otherwise.

That is because the truth is that your argument does not create equality of opportunity. When higher education is not accessible - and accessibility is determined by ability to pay for it rather than ability to learn - then opportunity is not equally accessible. When quality primary and secondary education is only available to those who live on the right side of the tracks, opportunity is not equally accessibly. When health care is rationed on ability to pay and those who can't afford care get to die young, opportunity is not equally accessible.

So, "having equal opportunity" is like saying we all share the same sun. We do. It is the common state of being alive.

That is about as equal as you care to see it. Unfortunately being under the same sun does not grant the opportunity to do much other than breathe and die.

You're broaching the whole "Who, whom?" question there, comrade.

No, I am not. I actually want people to be able to realize their potential. Your platform however requires a large pool of people living near or below poverty, in order to pull in enough revenue for the government to support the wealthy at the top and their adventures.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45887275)

Maybe if we defunded and deregulated PUBLIC education, PRIVATE education would once again take over?

There was a time, not long ago, that between Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews, half the school children in America were in private schools.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45887993)

Maybe if we defunded and deregulated PUBLIC education, PRIVATE education would once again take over?

And then what happens for those who cannot afford private education? There are plenty of private education options available presently, and many people simply cannot afford them. Are the less wealthy not entitled to an education?

Furthermore, if you deregulate education, then nobody is held responsible if private education does not adequately prepare students for any kind of post-secondary future (whether that be a job, or more school, or something else).

There was a time, not long ago, that between Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews, half the school children in America were in private schools.

And nothing prevents that from happening right now. The religious institutions can make their schools as big and encompassing as they like.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45890561)

The poor go to Catholic School, where the nuns are once again paid only with room and board.

And as for being held responsible, isn't it the STUDENT'S responsibility to be educated?

As for what is preventing that from happening right now- the main thing are government intrusions into private schools, like common core.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#45896081)

And as for being held responsible, isn't it the STUDENT'S responsibility to be educated?

Oh, absolutely not: modern liberalism is the act of removing all responsibility from people, and placing it upon the government, so that the society can remain on an Orwell/Huxley plantation.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45896763)

Wow, smitty. Don't bother giving the person who wrote the comment that the question refers to a chance to respond. Obviously, the lines that the mainstream media sells you about the person are all 100% accurate and you should just spout them off as accurate descriptions of them, right? Don't bother listening to them or anything, you are certainly more qualified to describe what they mean than they are!

What happened to actual listening and discussion? I guess that was just too much to ask.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45899001)

And yet I notice you still didn't answer the question- isn't it ultimately the Student's responsibility to learn?

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45903175)

With d_r, he always answered the question elsewhere, for all his "answers" bollocks, e.g. when he tried to locate "phobia" anywhere in Phil Robertson's GQ remarks.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45896673)

And as for being held responsible, isn't it the STUDENT'S responsibility to be educated?

I may not have been adequately specific here. I was referring to when the curriculum is inadequate to prepare the students. Allow me to elaborate:

  • If the student is unprepared because they goof off all day and watch TV all night, the problem is the student (and the student's family)
  • If the student is unprepared because the school taught them mythology in place of math, science, and history, the problem is the educator and the curriculum

If we completely deregulate education so there are no common requirements for high school graduation, we will end up with more people who are unprepared (or underprepared) for the real world.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45899057)

Oh, here's the answer. And yet common core does teach them mythology in place of math, science, and history. It's just the mythology of secularism, designed to turn them into nice little units of consumerism and slave labor and never question their masters.

The problem IS the "common" requirements are far too common, and will always leave the students unprepared for the real world, because the real world isn't uniform. The real world is local and individual, not cookie cutter one-size-fits-all.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45902067)

The real world is local and individual, not cookie cutter one-size-fits-all.

However there are common themes that people need to be knowledgeable on regardless of where they live and what they do. People who cannot handle algebra (at the very least) will find themselves left behind in the modern world. People without a fundamental understanding of the natural world will find the real world to be unmanageably difficult. I don't care if people want to teach mythology to their children, but if we are allowing mythology to be taught in place of science, math, and history, we are doing them a disservice and only further impeding our country's social, economic, technological, and political future.

It's just the mythology of secularism, designed to turn them into nice little units of consumerism and slave labor and never question their masters.

Non secular mythology has been used to justify slavery innumerable times over history. How on earth you could take "mythology of secularism" to be something that leads to consumerism more so than religious mythology though is beyond me. I know far more people who have purchased things specifically to promote any given religion than those who have ever purchased things designed to promote the absence thereof.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45903305)

About 25% of the population can't handle algebra. It isn't just mythology that causes that- it is natural ability.

If you've created a modern world that is too complex to live in, how the hell is that the fault of the 25% of people who can't handle algebra?

Now that's the mythology of secularism- that everybody has to be the exact same type of genius that they are, in order to survive.

What about the other 25% that want to do calculus?

Basically, with the common core, you've just insured that 50% of the kids will drop out, because you've set the rules so narrow that they'll either be frustrated or bored.

And that isn't even beginning to touch subjects like learning to find water in the desert, or knowing how to survive in a snow cave- things that local traditions are *very good at*, because they have to be.

I suggest that your modern-one-size-fits-all world, is really one-size-fits-none.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#45903681)

About 25% of the population can't handle algebra. It isn't just mythology that causes that- it is natural ability.

First of all, I'm willing to wager that you pulled that number out of thin air at best. Second, it is not necessarily "natural ability" that determines whether or not one can handle algebra. There are plenty of people who give up quickly or are given poor instruction that tends to encourage them not to try. There are also plenty of people who come from math-phobic families who do manage to master algebra (and beyond), even if they need more time than most, because they want to. Giving people the "natural ability" label is bullshit, especially when you make it into a crutch for people to use to not learn.

Now that's the mythology of secularism- that everybody has to be the exact same type of genius that they are, in order to survive.

This isn't about genius. This is about learning the skills that are essential to survival in the modern era. There is a reason we don't teach many people how to shoe a horse any more; because it is not relevant to modern society. We need to ensure that we are teaching the skills that are.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#45906531)

If those are the skills "essential to survival in the modern era" then what we need is reservations for people who aren't cookie cutter brainwashed people who would be better replaced by a computer.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45887251)

We need at least 5 countries, based on language and money movement alone.

And I don't want to see either a "liberal" or a "conservative" constitution- both sides abuse freedom to do evil. I'd like to see a human constitution- one that includes respect for human life, AND enough noblese oblige to care for the poor.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45888065)

We need at least 5 countries, based on language and money movement alone.

The number is not critical. Maybe we need more than 2, but it seems time to do away with the notion that we can get by on just one.

And I don't want to see either a "liberal" or a "conservative" constitution- both sides abuse freedom to do evil. I'd like to see a human constitution- one that includes respect for human life, AND enough noblese oblige to care for the poor.

The problem is that along political and philosophical lines we have different ideas of what it means to do those things. Writing just one constitution is impossible now, at least if you want wording in it that is not so absurdly vague as to be meaningless. We literally cannot even come up with one uniform - and meaningful - definition for "respect for human life" between the sides in this country at the present time.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 months ago | (#45890577)

The five comes from the Where's George trading data, that proves that money moves in five distinct trading regions in the United States, with very little trade between those regions.

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45911609)

We need at least 5 countries...

Yes, more borders, on every street. *Papers please*

Re:But yet you won't commit to it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45911553)

1992?! We needed him back in 1964.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...