What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So the source of the value judgment, as opposed to value judgments themselves, is problematic. In other words, if I went to the school board and argued that we should ban book x because I think descriptions of premarital sex might lead to kids having premarital sex and that is against my religion then I am wrong. But if someone wants to ban book y because the character is a racist and I think it might lead to kids having racist beliefs which is against my non-religious moral code is a more valid objection?

I'm generally not a fan of censorship at all. I don't think either of these arguments, as presented, are good arguments.

 

[Beach Friends]

Really? A student old enough to be in shop class doesn't know what stealing is?

A think a good role model can change attitudes about stealing. For example, a student may rationalize stealing from the shop class because it's not individual property, but school property and there were, after all, nine other sets of pliers.

Just like a good shop teacher may take the time to teach kids what good fathers teach about borrowing tools, such as never put a man in a position to have to ask you to return the tool, and to always clean it up befoe giving it back.

 

[SystemShock]

I do not see a difference between "practical" and "moral" in this discussion. They are both value judgments and mean similar things. At best when you use "practical" you are simply shifting the "moral" to a higher level.

As in - "practical for what?"
- You should study shop.
- Why?
- because it is practical
- how so?
- you can get a job and make money

The latter is a moral take - getting a job and making money are "good"

Just to clarify, the tangent on morality originated from the injection of religion into the topic. So we are (well, at least I am )not talking about simply what's right or wrong, but what is right or wrong from a religious perspective.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I can agree with that. Although, in my point of view, that isn't necessarily "moral". I view it the same way I view not teaching 3rd graders advanced calculus: it is not practical, as 3rd grade students wouldn't have the math skills to tackle calculus.

I’d largely agree in a different way, but in my calculus(no pun intended) I would say it’s not really proper because brain development is not to a point where that sort of hard subject matter is appropriate.

I’m just conceding that you could argue in an ultra broad sense for that having a moral component. But that is not what the disagreement is really about, it’s between whether it’s proper or defensible to allow religiously derived moral judgement TD to supersede all other.

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not a binary choice. It's not either (morally) replace the tool or (immorally) steal the tool. Leaving the tool on a workbench is failing to replace it while also failing to steal it.



This is the same as the ridiculous "cartel" argument that was already shown to be invalid.

I dont remember anyone showing it be invalid.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I do not see a difference between "practical" and "moral" in this discussion. They are both value judgments and mean similar things. At best when you use "practical" you are simply shifting the "moral" to a higher level.

As in - "practical for what?"
- You should study shop.
- Why?
- because it is practical
- how so?
- you can get a job and make money

The latter is a moral take - getting a job and making money are "good"

As in - "practical for what?"
- You should study shop.
- Why?
- because it is practical
- how so?
- you begin to learn a skill that benefits yourself and others

That is a practical reason to take shop. The fact that it also conforms to your moral code is irrelevant to the conversation, because the practical benefit exists no matter how you view getting a job and making money through your own moral lens.

 

[JimEverett]

Just to clarify, the tangent on morality originated from the injection of religion into the topic. So we are (well, at least I am not) talking about simply what's right or wrong, but what is right or wrong from a religious perspective.

That is fine. But lets be honest about it - you are saying one or more sources of morality is/are superior to religion as a source.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I dont remember anyone showing it be invalid.

I'll rephrase. It was shown to be an argument made from a point of either not understanding the point of a public education or from a point of intentional dishonesty. The choice is still yours.

 

[JimEverett]

As in - "practical for what?"
- You should study shop.
- Why?
- because it is practical
- how so?
- you begin to learn a skill that benefits yourself and others

That is a practical reason to take shop. The fact that it also conforms to your moral code is irrelevant to the conversation, because the practical benefit exists no matter how you view getting a job and making money through your own moral lens.

It is only practical for a given objective - right? And that objective is sourced through morality. How is that source irrelevant?

To call it a "practical BENEFIT" gives away the moral source.

 

[SystemShock]

A think a good role model can change attitudes about stealing. For example, a student may rationalize stealing from the shop class because it's not individual property, but school property and there were, after all, nine other sets of pliers.

Just like a good shop teacher may take the time to teach kids what good fathers teach about borrowing tools, such as never put a man in a position to have to ask you to return the tool, and to always clean it up befoe giving it back.

So it does take a village after all...

... and here I thought that good fathers teach their kids not to borrow stuff from others.

 

[SystemShock]

That is fine. But lets be honest about it - you are saying one or more sources of morality is/are superior to religion as a source.

Absolutely.

 

[Intensesaint]

Really? A student old enough to be in shop class doesn't know what stealing is?

Do I have to explain to you the difference in knowing what stealing is, or teaching somebody how to be good at it?

 

[Beach Friends]

So it does take a village after all...

... and here I thought that good fathers teach their kids not to borrow stuff from others.

I never said one shouldn't borrow from others. I have a teenage neighbor whose father passed away.

I gladly loan him tools anytime he needs them, and I am more happy to teach him how to use them properly.

If he couldn't borrow them, he wouldn't learn basic skills.

But he also returns them as soon as he finishes with them. That may be the more valuable lesson. It's not only the right thing to do, but who knows maybe someday someone will observe that and give him a job/promotion/their daughter.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It is only practical for a given objective - right? And that objective is sourced through morality. How is that source irrelevant?

To call it a "practical BENEFIT" gives away the moral source.

It's irrelevant because the benefit exists whether or not it conforms to the moral code of the person that receives that benefit. It is worth including in the curriculum because it provides a benefit regardless of any one person's moral code.

 

[JimEverett]

It's irrelevant because the benefit exists whether or not it conforms to the moral code of the person that receives that benefit. It is worth including in the curriculum because it provides a benefit regardless of any one person's moral code.

Why are you characterizing it as a "benefit"? It seems to me you are claiming that the result is good. That is a moral judgment.

Suppose I thought the good life was one lived without any responsibility or commitment whatsoever. In that case what is "practical" would be very different from what you are saying is practical.
Your idea of what is practical comes from a moral source: a belief in what is good and what is bad.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So the source of the value judgment, as opposed to value judgments themselves, is problematic. In other words, if I went to the school board and argued that we should ban book x because I think descriptions of premarital sex might lead to kids having premarital sex and that is against my religion then I am wrong. But if someone wants to ban book y because the character is a racist and I think it might lead to kids having racist beliefs which is against my non-religious moral code is a more valid objection?

What does the evidence say? That’s where I jump in.

Because the root of that is whether promoting abstinence through censorship and advocacy reduces premarital sex, though it intrinsically avoids qualifying why avoiding premarital sex is a justifiable end to be pursued through education. Which as a prerequisite should be required to prove.

Meanwhile, I think it is pretty easy to articulate why promoting racism is not very tenable in a culturally diverse country and education system, though we would need more context to decide whether the solicitation to remove a piece of literature is justifiable.


Fake Edit: But I have to say, I’m not even sure what is being argued anymore???? We went from whether it is justifiable and defensible to design curriculum around certain specific religiously derived moral positions to arguing whatever this is.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Why are you characterizing it as a "benefit"? It seems to me you are claiming that the result is good. That is a moral judgment.

Suppose I thought the good life was one lived without any responsibility or commitment whatsoever. In that case what is "practical" would be very different from what you are saying is practical.
Your idea of what is practical comes from a moral source: a belief in what is good and what is bad.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if someone finds it to be moral or not.

1. Shop class is offered.
2. Shop class offers benefits that fit in a particular moral code.

Those two thing can both be true without actually being related.

I want to back this up for a bit to make sure we are all on the same page. It's been pointed out in this thread that when morality came into the discussion, it was done so from a perspective of religious belief. The objection raised was in relation to comprehensive sex ed.

1. Comprehensive sex ed is offered.
2. Comprehensive sex ed offers benefits that do not fit in a particular moral code.

Should comprehensive sex ed be taught or should it not be taught based on the fact that it does not fit into someone's moral code?

 

[JimEverett]

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if someone finds it to be moral or not.

1. Shop class is offered.
2. Shop class offers benefits that fit in a particular moral code.

Those two thing can both be true without actually being related.

I want to back this up for a bit to make sure we are all on the same page. It's been pointed out in this thread that when morality came into the discussion, it was done so from a perspective of religious belief. The objection raised was in relation to comprehensive sex ed.

1. Comprehensive sex ed is offered.
2. Comprehensive sex ed offers benefits that do not fit in a particular moral code.

Should comprehensive sex ed be taught or should it not be taught based on the fact that it does not fit into someone's moral code?

I am saying it is being taught because it fits into someone moral code - just like any other subjects that are being taught.

Now there may be some general agreement on morality - teen pregnancy is bad, for instance. But disagreement on how to reduce teen pregnancy: sex ed or not sex ed; types of sex ed; providing free prophylactics; etc. That is what I took Ayo's point to be. But the idea that one side comes from a morality free point of view while the other does not is wrong.