Re: Public Schools
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, snow wrote:
I would agree that parents can do as good or better at _most_ subjects thru about the 3rd or 4th grade, and I do agree that most of todays schools are shit, however there is one area-- social skills--that homeschooling simply can't compete.
From John Holt's "Teach Your Own"
"If there were no other reason to homeschool your children, protecting them from the 'valuable social atmosphere' of the schools would be sufficient." John was a commie liberal BTW. He felt that the schools had a very nasty and artificial social environment with rigid age segregation that bore no resemblance to real life where there are people of wider age ranges. Certainly, most people suffer worse mistreatment from their "peers" at school than they do later in life. As a libertarian, I would add that the social atmosphere of a Stalinist "brain factory" is not exactly the socialization I would choose for my children. I would choose a more market oriented model. DCF "Even if they manage to teach nothing else, the very existence of government schools teaches State supremacy."
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> writes:
As a libertarian, I would add that the social atmosphere of a Stalinist "brain factory" is not exactly the socialization I would choose for my children. I would choose a more market oriented model.
Libertarians are fucking statists, as I keep pointing out. U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send their kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, mentally and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool. There are plenty of excellent private elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. Children who deserve better schooling (by virtue of having parents who have better genes and are therefore economically successful) get it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send their kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, mentally and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool.
But the cutoff is often whether the parents can afford to send their kids to private school, not whether or not they're genetically superior. And the reason it costs so much to send a kid to private school is that everyone's already paying for a more expensive public school thanks to all the taxes.
There are plenty of excellent private elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. Children who deserve better schooling (by virtue of having parents who have better genes and are therefore economically successful) get it.
So if I'm economically successful it'll change my genes? I guess this is the famous Russian belief in Lamarkianism in action. Phil
Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send their kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, mentally and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool.
But the cutoff is often whether the parents can afford to send their kids to private school, not whether or not they're genetically superior.
You must have attended a public school if you don't understand that geentic superiority leads to economic success. My older kid goes to a private school. The parents are obviously genetically superior to public school parents.
And the reason it costs so much to send a kid to private school is that everyone's already paying for a more expensive public school thanks to all the taxes.
Push vouchers. What's the cryptorelevance of your comments, anyway?
There are plenty of excellent private elementary and secondary schools in t U.S. Children who deserve better schooling (by virtue of having parents who have better genes and are therefore economically successful) get it.
So if I'm economically successful it'll change my genes?
I guess this is the famous Russian belief in Lamarkianism in action. No, on the contrary, sending poor kids to good schools on scholarships does not improve their genes. They tend to become drug dealers.
--- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
First off, what does this have to do with cryptography? or anything cypher for that matter? On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send their kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, mentally and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool.
So, basically your saying, since my parents cannot afford to pay for a private school for me, we are genetically inferior to those who can? Because hate tell ya, but I've ran into some major idiots that go to private schools. Also to consider that from the school I go to, last year we had two perfect sat scores (no problems missed).
But the cutoff is often whether the parents can afford to send their kids to private school, not whether or not they're genetically superior.
You must have attended a public school if you don't understand that geentic superiority leads to economic success. My older kid goes to a private school. The parents are obviously genetically superior to public school parents.
I am assuming from what you have said in that statement, that you believe since he may have gone to a public school, it has made him have the opinion he does? Also, in your statement that your older kid goes to a private school, and that the parents are obviously genetically superior to public school parents. You seem to be saying that YOU are genetically superior to my parents? Another thing to consider here is, from this line of statements, you are saying that children who have parents who made it well in, let us say the movie buisness (or even drug buisness), and then send there children to public schools, are genetically superior because they can act (lie) better than my parents. For if this is so, that must mean that my aunt is genetically superior to my mother (who is a teacher at a private school, but she did not go to a private school) and to her parents, for she is making more money, and if she ever has children they will be genetically superior to me, because they will have more money? Just wanting this cleared up please.. It kind of confuses poor little 'ol me who is jsut a lousy senior in a public school (and scored 1560 on my SAT, as if that means anything, just means I have a good memory), since from what you say I must be stupid, because my parents only make 50 to 60k$ per year between the two of them (My father being an AutoCad Design Consultant, and my Mother a LD (Learning disabled) Teacher at a public school)?
And the reason it costs so much to send a kid to private school is that everyone's already paying for a more expensive public school thanks to all the taxes.
True, but also depends on where you are at. Some states have cheaper taxes (Nevada for instance), compared to others.
Push vouchers. What's the cryptorelevance of your comments, anyway?
Umm, where you not the one that started this conversation?
There are plenty of excellent private elementary and secondary schools in t U.S. Children who deserve better schooling (by virtue of having parents who have better genes and are therefore economically successful) get it.
So if I'm economically successful it'll change my genes?
I guess this is the famous Russian belief in Lamarkianism in action.
From the sounds of what he said, Lamark was 100 Percent correct, and Darwin and (that other guy, name just slipped my mind, must be those genetically inferior genes of mine)?
No, on the contrary, sending poor kids to good schools on scholarships does not improve their genes. They tend to become drug dealers.
Hate to inform you on this but, it is more often than not the children sent by there rich mama and papa to school, that end up on drugs or as drug dealers, than the ones that start out with scholarships (For the ones with scholarships have more to loose, than the ones with the rich mama and papa, for the rich mama and papa can afford the big expensive lawyer.). Just look at the studies and such done on this type of area. Also you have to consider that generally the ones that end up as drug dealers, are the children who have parents that where drug dealers and such or had experience in such, or just had parents who didn't care what they did. Ok, now back to something crypto related ok? Though I am rather interested in this subject. Boy oh boy, someone has a opssibly inferiority complex here...
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
You must have attended a public school if you don't understand that geentic superiority leads to economic success. My older kid goes to a private school. The parents are obviously genetically superior to public school parents.
Stop wallowing around in determinism if you expect to get anywhere.
And the reason it costs so much to send a kid to private school is that everyone's already paying for a more expensive public school thanks to all the taxes.
Push vouchers. What's the cryptorelevance of your comments, anyway?
Without vouchers, you don't say anything about the intelligence of your test subjects; to a _very_ large degree, intelligence isn't genetic. Or it helps for the first five minutes, but after that you're on your own. "The world is full of unrewarded genius..."
So if I'm economically successful it'll change my genes?
I guess this is the famous Russian belief in Lamarkianism in action. No, on the contrary, sending poor kids to good schools on scholarships does not improve their genes. They tend to become drug dealers.
At the private school I went to this was not the case. Only the spoiled rich kids were that stupid, although by your definitions, they should have been smarter than that.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet pgf@acadian.net service provider nor my employer. 318/261-9649
Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
Without vouchers, you don't say anything about the intelligence of your test subjects; to a _very_ large degree, intelligence isn't genetic. Or
That's the political correct thing to say, but do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
Without vouchers, you don't say anything about the intelligence of your test subjects; to a _very_ large degree, intelligence isn't genetic. Or
That's the political correct thing to say, but do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
All the smart people I know with stupid kids?
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet pgf@acadian.net service provider nor my employer. 318/261-9649
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
Without vouchers, you don't say anything about the intelligence of your test subjects; to a _very_ large degree, intelligence isn't genetic. Or
That's the political correct thing to say, but do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
People have argued for genetic disposition to certain things, and I think they are sometimes (most times?) confused between genetics per se (genes et al) and the way environment creates much of the being indirectly. For example, you are born with a chemical factory inside of you. The amount and timing of hormonal secretions from myriad sources inside the body has a dramatic effect on the development of the being, and environment has a dramatic effect on the amount and timing of said hormonal secretions. You can bias the formula all you want, but it can go in unpredictable directions, due to the great variety of influences.
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> writes:
As a libertarian, I would add that the social atmosphere of a Stalinist "brain factory" is not exactly the socialization I would choose for my children. I would choose a more market oriented model.
Libertarians are fucking statists, as I keep pointing out.
U.S. public school system is darwinian evolution in action. Parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, do so. Parents who send their kids to public schools deserve to have their offsprings fucked up, mentally and phsyically, to improve the species' gene pool.
There are plenty of excellent private elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. Children who deserve better schooling (by virtue of having parents who have better genes and are therefore economically successful) get it.
You cant be as dumb as you sound, but I've been wrong before and possibly way off the mark this time. Nothing like small minded liberal throwback philosophy to chew on like cud. It's painfully clear to me you've not hung around in enough financially secure circles long enough to realize that the socially and mentally degenerate which inhabit those realms are just as bad if not worse than the "common man" to whom you dispise. Natural intellect is never discouraged nor prevented by economics. Book learning perpetuates existing dogma and in some cases stifles critical thinking when it is combined with depostic agendae. Never judge an idiot by the size of his wallet. ..Paul
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, snow wrote:
I would agree that parents can do as good or better at _most_ subjects thru about the 3rd or 4th grade, and I do agree that most of todays schools are shit, however there is one area-- social skills--that homeschooling simply can't compete.
From John Holt's "Teach Your Own"
"If there were no other reason to homeschool your children, protecting them from the 'valuable social atmosphere' of the schools would be sufficient." John was a commie liberal BTW. He felt that the schools had a very nasty and artificial social environment with rigid age segregation that bore no resemblance to real life where there are people of wider age ranges. Certainly, most people suffer worse mistreatment from their "peers" at school than they do later in life. As a libertarian, I would add that the social atmosphere of a Stalinist "brain factory" is not exactly the socialization I would choose for my children. I would choose a more market oriented model.
As I indicated (or at least tried to) I am not satisfied with the way that schools are run. I _don't_ think that this seperation into classes by age is a good idea, I don't believe that self esteem is more important than learning. However I DO believe that socialization is necessary. I do believe that the torture we all endured (and I as much or more than most) from our fellow students helps us later in life. If nothing else it teaches us that our fellow "humans" are not "humane". I think a more more market oriented model would be a good idea, assuming that you mean a model designed to produce a product--well educated young adults--and not simply "worker factories". Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
participants (7)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Duncan Frissell -
Jay Gairson -
Paul S. Penrod -
Phil Fraering -
snow