And I thought the libs here were nuts..... :rolleyes: Just a snippet but you should read the entire article. This guy is disturbed IMO What say you other "critical thinkers" out there?
QuoteFor Swift, there's one particular choice that fails the test.
'Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,' he says. 'It's just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.'
In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.
'The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't,' he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift's mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058
Quote from: me on May 08, 2015, 04:14:07 PM
And I thought the libs here were nuts..... :rolleyes: Just a snippet but you should read the entire article. This guy is disturbed IMO What say you other "criticle thinkers" out there?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058
If you cared enough to learn how to spell, I might just answer this. :rolleyes:
As it is, I'm only arguing with an idiot.
In the strictest sense of the word, this is actually a very old, conservative idea, not a liberal one. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just picking passages out of context you would have learned that ...
"'One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.'
It's not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.
Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state.
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2015, 04:25:35 PM
If you cared enough to learn how to spell, I might just answer this. :rolleyes:
As it is, I'm only arguing with an idiot.
:doh: It's the heat I tell ya it's the heat.....
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2015, 04:35:45 PM
In the strictest sense of the word, this is actually a very old, conservative idea, not a liberal one. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just picking passages out of context you would have learned that ...
"'One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.'
It's not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.
Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state.
I'm talking about the idea that you shouldn't read to your kids because it puts other kids whose parents don't read to them at a disadvantage. There were no political parties as such back in the time of Plato/Aristotle.
Sorry, but I read to our kids when they were younger and if that gives them an unfair advantage to those parents who don't read to their kids than tough. Studies have shown that kids who are read to learn to read better than those not read too.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on May 08, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
Sorry, but I read to our kids when they were younger and if that gives them an unfair advantage to those parents who don't read to their kids than tough. Studies have shown that kids who are read to learn to read better than those not read too.
I agree with you and hope they don't start talkin' that stupid crap over here.