Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:26
Epignosis wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, Epignosis, I can only say I am a product of public education in the '70's and I found it to be good. I am quite sure that there is a lot of variation depending on where you went, or taught in your case. My experience was in an all white district though there was a mix of classes, as in wealth of the parents
To the issue of indoctrination, it all depends on what definition you use.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.
You are right. (we grew up in different times and contexts, and I am only entitled to speak about my own and what I've seen).
I felt like my public education was fair, but I've only become conscious of the way textbooks are edited and the way certain subjects are taught in the past few years as a professional. It's all pretty insidious if you read between the lines.
We're considering homeschooling our children.
And yes, that's so they will learn roughly what we want them to learn, rather than spend class time reading a book in first grade about two gay penguins who adopt a baby.
That makes me kind of glad I was born in 1990, I never had to read about gay penguins. I do think that my history classes were less than completely truthful in their depiction of the US though.
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:30
Epignosis wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, Epignosis, I can only say I am a product of public education in the '70's and I found it to be good. I am quite sure that there is a lot of variation depending on where you went, or taught in your case. My experience was in an all white district though there was a mix of classes, as in wealth of the parents
To the issue of indoctrination, it all depends on what definition you use.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.
You are right. (we grew up in different times and contexts, and I am only entitled to speak about my own and what I've seen).
I felt like my public education was fair, but I've only become conscious of the way textbooks are edited and the way certain subjects are taught in the past few years as a professional. It's all pretty insidious if you read between the lines.
We're considering homeschooling our children.
And yes, that's so they will learn roughly what we want them to learn, rather than spend class time reading a book in first grade about two gay penguins who adopt a baby.
Yeah I've got that book. I see no reason why penguins cant adopt?
(Can't comment on the rest as I have litle experience (well none) of the US ed system. Other than to say religion has no place in schools - the French have got this right me thinks) (Maybe a quick explanation of ALL religions might be acceptable?)
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:37
Epignosis wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, Epignosis, I can only say I am a product of public education in the '70's and I found it to be good. I am quite sure that there is a lot of variation depending on where you went, or taught in your case. My experience was in an all white district though there was a mix of classes, as in wealth of the parents
To the issue of indoctrination, it all depends on what definition you use.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.
You are right. (we grew up in different times and contexts, and I am only entitled to speak about my own and what I've seen).
I felt like my public education was fair, but I've only become conscious of the way textbooks are edited and the way certain subjects are taught in the past few years as a professional. It's all pretty insidious if you read between the lines.
We're considering homeschooling our children.
And yes, that's so they will learn roughly what we want them to learn, rather than spend class time reading a book in first grade about two gay penguins who adopt a baby.
By the way, if you do home school your children, best of luck, I'm pretty sure it wont be easy. But this isn't that option a luxury that most parents can't do? We need good quality public education that sticks to the facts and when it comes to religious issues that's best left up to the parents.
But it seems that a lot of the objections are about teaching tolerance and being open minded.
I recall social studies teaching me about other cultures I knew nothing about. A lesson in one of my textbooks teaching me to be skeptical about advertising, "jumping on the bandwagon". And of course algebra, geometry,. grammer . I was introduced to the book 1984, very influential....
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 16 2009 at 14:54
Actually, my indoctrination experience didn't come until college.
I had no mediocre professors- seriously. They were either brilliant and on topic, or damned awful.
One professor I had used his own book as one of our texts in a sophomore lit class. It was riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, and was one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
The purpose of reading that book though (which we spent more time on than any other piece of literature that semester) was so the instructor could easily produce a segue and use the classroom as a forum for his societal and political grievances.
All I really remember from that class is that the professor thought Bush and Co. were idiots, that global warming will doom us all and that we hate our children if we do not recycle, that Christians are hypocritical bigots, and that all lifeforms are mysteriously and spiritually connected (how wasn't really elucidated).
Regardless of a person's political or spiritual beliefs, that was not education. That was bullsh*t masquerading around as a college education and a waste of tax dollars.
That said, let me reiterate that I had several kick ass professors who helped me finally understand algebra and its applications, taught me to identify an author just based on the language and style alone, and discover things I never knew.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:51
I went to Southern Tech, where I was indoctrinated in architectural history, building codes, specification writing, structural analysis, calculus, architectural design, rendering, etc. I can't tell you how awful it was. Well, the calculus and structural analysis. I had fun with the rest.
As if I didn't do enough hand drafting classes in high school.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 16 2009 at 14:58
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:51
The T wrote:
We don't hate religious people. We just don't want them making choices for us or trying to make us see thattheir way is the only just one.
It's rare to see an atheist or agnostic trying to indoctrinate people. Religious people, on the other hand...
Funny how some people can't stand the idea of another group of people (the government in theory) make any decisions for them. But they're ready to let a rich guy in Rome or a "pastor" tell them exactly what's right and wrong. Or even more so, a delkusional voice from above.
Don't get me started on that, Teo... Micky (who agrees with me btw) and I have a lot of interesting discussions about how some people are so obsessed with the idea of the 'big, bad gov't' taking away their freedom, and being at the same time willing to surrender the same freedoms for any other group that just happens to have a different name.
Well, Epignosis, I can only say I am a product of public education in the '70's and I found it to be good. I am quite sure that there is a lot of variation depending on where you went, or taught in your case. My experience was in an all white district though there was a mix of classes, as in wealth of the parents
To the issue of indoctrination, it all depends on what definition you use.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.
You are right. (we grew up in different times and contexts, and I am only entitled to speak about my own and what I've seen).
I felt like my public education was fair, but I've only become conscious of the way textbooks are edited and the way certain subjects are taught in the past few years as a professional. It's all pretty insidious if you read between the lines.
We're considering homeschooling our children.
And yes, that's so they will learn roughly what we want them to learn, rather than spend class time reading a book in first grade about two gay penguins who adopt a baby.
By the way, if you do home school your children, best of luck, I'm pretty sure it wont be easy. But this isn't that option a luxury that most parents can't do? We need good quality public education that sticks to the facts and when it comes to religious issues that's best left up to the parents.
But it seems that a lot of the objections are about teaching tolerance and being open minded.
Not to go on a tangent, but there are alternatives to JUST public ed (vouchers is one).
But yes, the "T-word." I'll just say that for any society to exist, there must be some degree of intolerance. The question is where to draw the line. To use the obvious example, I believe the Bible teaches homosexuality to be wrong. I try to live by the Bible. It's what I go by. That does not mean I hate homosexuals, that I stand on the side of the road with signs saying God hates them, that I wish harm upon them, that I have ill will toward them, or that I have to turn them straight somehow (Christ never commanded me to do any of that nonsense).
People throw around "open-minded" to essentially say "You have to agree that what anybody does is okay so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else." I'm sorry- I don't.
That said, the subject of homosexuality doesn't belong in a first grade class. Why? Because the subject of sexuality doesn't belong in a first grade classroom in my opinion. That's not a matter of tolerance or being open-minded, it's a matter of not subjecting young children to things they aren't mature enough to handle.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:57
Yeah, sex ed is a difficult area, unfortunately a lot of parents aren't comfortable with the subject. It's one of those areas where kids do need to be informed appropriately though at various stages to their ability to understand. We are all born with genitals and are products of sexual reproduction after all.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 16 2009 at 15:08
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:58
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
We don't hate religious people. We just don't want them making choices for us or trying to make us see thattheir way is the only just one.
It's rare to see an atheist or agnostic trying to indoctrinate people. Religious people, on the other hand...
Funny how some people can't stand the idea of another group of people (the government in theory) make any decisions for them. But they're ready to let a rich guy in Rome or a "pastor" tell them exactly what's right and wrong. Or even more so, a delkusional voice from above.
It's called public school.
And I don't let a pope or pastor or disembodied voice from above tell me what to do. I go by the Bible.
Bible camp and Sunday school seem like indoctrination to me. I even encountered some in my first year at a Christian college. Atheists n such usually only "indoctrinate" when presenting an argument for their cause, almost always with a lot of evidence (at least from authorities on the subject, not a freshman philosophy major). Authorities in the church do not, usually, unless it's misinterpreted evidence (re: creationism).
Arguments from Church officials are just as sophisticated as those from leading atheists. Where does that claim come from?
If you're talking arguments for a deistic god, which I can imagine people make but not most church officials, then I agree the can be genuinely sophisticated. But when people take roundabout and more obscure than sophisticated arguments to justify the Bible and the problem of evil, for instance, I don't call it sophisticated. It seems to stem from dishonest intentions, clutching at straws to defend a pretty radical proposition when you think about it (invisible telepathic, sky god, etc.) Mainly this concerns creationism, but it depends on the topic. Atheists usually at least start from a neutral position, IMO. Or maybe they both do, in many cases, but the conclusions vary widely, and the atheist ones seem more logical and reasonable, which leads me to believe the apologists are deluding themselves a lot of the time.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:58
Raff wrote:
The T wrote:
We don't hate religious people. We just don't want them making choices for us or trying to make us see thattheir way is the only just one.
It's rare to see an atheist or agnostic trying to indoctrinate people. Religious people, on the other hand...
Funny how some people can't stand the idea of another group of people (the government in theory) make any decisions for them. But they're ready to let a rich guy in Rome or a "pastor" tell them exactly what's right and wrong. Or even more so, a delkusional voice from above.
Don't get me started on that, Teo... Micky (who agrees with me btw) and I have a lot of interesting discussions about how some people are so obsessed with the idea of the 'big, bad gov't' taking away their freedom, and being at the same time willing to surrender the same freedoms for any other group that just happens to have a different name.
And the reverse argument would apply to you.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Yeah, sex ed is a difficult area, unfortunately a lot of parents aren't comfortable with the subject. It's one of those areas where kids do need to be informed appropriately though at various stages to their ability to understand. We are all born with genitals and are products of sexual reproduction after all.
I agree there. I'm still wondering what mine's for.
My father-in-law's philosophy was, "If they're old enough to ask, they're old enough to know."
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: September 16 2009 at 15:03
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Also there would be issues of authority between that delusion voice and the government, and I'm not really aware of the Pope bossing people around in modern times.
Lol at the pope being rich.
Pat, have you ever been to Rome? I happen to have been born there, and lived there most of my life. The Pope might not be rich in the way your conventional billionaire is, but he's certainly better off than a great majority of the population of this world. As to what the Catholic Church owns just in the city of Rome (NOT in the Vatican, mind you).. Well, let's just say it is not exactly inconsiderable.
As regards the issue of the Pope not bossing people around, I could make a long list of the interference of the Catholic Church in the affairs of the Italian government (seen as the Vatican is hosted on Italian territory). Mind you, I am not anti-Catholic in principle, on the contrary. Even if, for my tastes, they are far too busy in prying in people's private lives (with all the hypocrisy that ensues), Catholicism can foster a sense of compassion for our fellow human beings that other Christian denominations can only dream of.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 16 2009 at 15:10
Epignosis wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Yeah, sex ed is a difficult area, unfortunately a lot of parents aren't comfortable with the subject. It's one of those areas where kids do need to be informed appropriately though at various stages to their ability to understand. We are all born with genitals and are products of sexual reproduction after all.
I agree there. I'm still wondering what mine's for.
My father-in-law's philosophy was, "If they're old enough to ask, they're old enough to know."
Oh your naughty bits are strictly for fun. If you're using yours to make children too you aren't doing something right.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 16 2009 at 15:15
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: September 16 2009 at 15:10
Raff wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Also there would be issues of authority between that delusion voice and the government, and I'm not really aware of the Pope bossing people around in modern times.
Lol at the pope being rich.
Pat, have you ever been to Rome? I happen to have been born there, and lived there most of my life. The Pope might not be rich in the way your conventional billionaire is, but he's certainly better off than a great majority of the population of this world. As to what the Catholic Church owns just in the city of Rome (NOT in the Vatican, mind you).. Well, let's just say it is not exactly inconsiderable.
As regards the issue of the Pope not bossing people around, I could make a long list of the interference of the Catholic Church in the affairs of the Italian government (seen as the Vatican is hosted on Italian territory). Mind you, I am not anti-Catholic in principle, on the contrary. Even if, for my tastes, they are far too busy in prying in people's private lives (with all the hypocrisy that ensues), Catholicism can foster a sense of compassion for our fellow human beings that other Christian denominations can only dream of.
Me being to Rome is not relevant.
If you measure his wealth in terms of assets I guess he is quite rich. However, the luxuries you associate with being rich are not available to him. Calling him rich is very misleading.
And with regards to bullying I was referring to matters of faith. I'm not aware of the Church's clashes with Italy.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Yeah, sex ed is a difficult area, unfortunately a lot of parents aren't comfortable with the subject. It's one of those areas where kids do need to be informed appropriately though at various stages to their ability to understand. We are all born with genitals and are products of sexual reproduction after all.
I agree there. I'm still wondering what mine's for.
My father-in-law's philosophy was, "If they're old enough to ask, they're old enough to know."
Oh strictly for fun. If you're using yours to make children too you aren't doing something right.
Children are the hangover after a killer six minutes of heavy partying.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: September 16 2009 at 21:14
Epignosis wrote:
That said, the subject of homosexuality doesn't belong in a first grade class. Why? Because the subject of sexuality doesn't belong in a first grade classroom in my opinion. That's not a matter of tolerance or being open-minded, it's a matter of not subjecting young children to things they aren't mature enough to handle.
Homosexuality is something I don't think needs to be brought up in 1st grade, but sexuality of some sort does. Mostly it has to do with fostering healthy opinions about sex and gender. There are a lot of harmful norms that kids latch onto around that age, such as all girls have long hair and a girl with short hair is wrong. It's somewhat innocent, but that these things need to be undone to make the person tolerant of different people isn't right to me.
The issue of homosexuality can wait for a few grades.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.461 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
. I was introduced to the book 1984, very influential....
