Yeah, Texas, good luck with that...

[ginnyfizz]

*Historic event alert....*

*Ginny agrees with Vagrant0 for once*

 

OK, most people are aware that I am a conservative (with both types of C) and a country yokel (that's the British equivalent of a redneck I suppose...)and (statement of fact, not intended to start religious debate) observantly religious. It may surprise those of you on the left prone to stereotyping, for example marharth with this beauty;-

 

"One of the huge sides of the right wing is following human emotion over logic. Just read over some of the older topics. The right is rather outspoken about a certain something that completely destroys critical thinking.

 

Also this just in, liberals brainwash kids to make them think certain terms have to do with video games. Obviously the fault of liberals."

 

That none of this precluded me from going to University and getting a very good degree and doing plenty of critical thinking in the course of getting it. My ability to think for myself is what has imbued me with a very healthy dose of cynicism about fanatics of any persuasion, politicians, religious leaders or just plain rabble rousers. Please explain your accusation, marharth, or withdraw it.

 

Now at the crux of this debate has been the assertion that it should be left to the educators in schools and colleges to teach critical thinking and that politicians should not prevent it. I can't disagree with that, but it would be a mistake to believe that this would necessarily achieve the desired result. If your teaching profession in the USA is anything like ours in the UK (and from comments made by Arthmoor it sounds like they may well be)then impressionable young minds will only see ideas from, have influence from, one side of the political spectrum. Indoctrination can just as easily occur that way.

[Aurielius]

Before I leave this so delightful thread, I thought for those that were having so much fun deriding Texas there is one thought that I want you to be left with. The Texas School system is the single largest buyer of text books in the country and so what they do or do not approve of buying generally does not get published or offered throughout the other 49 states.

 

"As a giant in the textbook market, Texas and its education officials have left fingerprints on the classroom readers used far beyond the Red River.

The long reach of the State Board of Education has attracted outsized national attention for years as board members engaged in pitched battles over textbook content from evolution to the Founding Fathers.

Bob Cassel, publisher of EMC Publishing Co., whose literature texts have been approved by the board, said publishers have tailored textbooks to Texas in the past because the state has been an enormous customer with a reliable source of textbook funding from the $22 billion Permanent School Fund."- American Statesman

 

This power does not extend to what Private and Parochial schools purchase but it does affect Public schools throughout the country. So while laughing at the rubes in Texas you might want to think who really has the last laugh them or you. For the record I went to private boarding school in the UK ( which they refer to as Public School) and by and large they thought that critical thinking in the US education system was DOA, if you ever read a history book studied in Europe vs the pablum in US the judgment isn't that far off..

Edited July 2, 2012 by Aurielius

[Tidus44]

Thread made me think of;

 

Examination Day by Henry Seslar - http://www.thebostonbachelor.com/2008/examination-day-by-henry-seslar/

 

and

 

The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury.

 

Is eugenics making a comeback?

[Ghogiel]

Is eugenics making a comeback?

We do it when breading dogs. I wonder about people sometimes...

[Vagrant0]

Is eugenics making a comeback?

Probably not eugenics since that involves sterilizations and confinement of those who do not meet "desired" criteria. That'll probably start making a comeback when we get around the 8 billion people on Earth mark, when governments start seeing a much larger strain on already inadequate public programs and start deciding who exactly should be allowed to have children or pass on their genetics as a means of thinning "bad" genes out of the population along with the typical ones related to disease, deformity, and violence which are already identified (much more accurately not) and which was much of the focus of eugenics back in the early 20th century. It'll happen eventually, but not for awhile at this rate. Too many special interests in the pot for it to get any momentum.

 

I could see these measures as being part of some way to lead up to a social acceptance for those programs, but it's unlikely since it would hint that there are some plans in the works for 10-15 years down the road, and politicians, political parties, even extremists are not the sort of people who plan that far ahead... ever. Meaning that if there is some plan to this effect in the works, it's tinfoil hat time, and God help us all because it'll probably happen exactly the way they want it to, and most of us will be convinced that it happening is a good thing, or be completely blindsided.

 

 

I would prefer to just think that this was a group of politicians who just weren't thinking when they drew up policy because the alternative really doesn't bode well for anyone and is quite possibly worse than fiction.

[Ghogiel]

Is eugenics making a comeback?

Probably not eugenics since that involves sterilizations and confinement of those who do not meet "desired" criteria.

Breading pools kind of naturally form, be they geological, religious, racial, class etc. I don't believe you need to force it so much, people just tend to gravitate in particular directions.

[HeyYou]

So, you can't teach evolution to anyone, is it might challenge their beliefs? Oh gee, should we not teach geography either, so we don't offend the flat-earthers?

 

BRILLIANT!!!!

 

What are you talking about? There are others who believe evolution is false, and they do not subscribe to the flat earth theory?

 

 

Acebopata, I think you may have missed HeyYou's point just a tad. I do not believe he was equating those who do not believe in evolution with those who believe in a flat earth. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe he was attempting to suggest that challenging beliefs "WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE" ought to be encouraged, not only by our school systems, but by parents, individual teachers, governments, even religious organizations. We should be encouraging the thought process in our young people. This is how they grow into mature "THINKING" adults.

 

Absolutely Correct Granny. :)

[SilverDNA]

It might be a good idea to have a good related read or film about where it leads to.

 

The Wave (Novel) by Todd Strasser Wikipedia

The Wave (2008 film) Wikipedia

 

Oh and I did read the book (translated version) in school ( In German class) which I had to buy on my own in 1983 /1984 school year. (I still have it)

It might give a hint on what the difference is of autocratic education and democratic education witch came here in this topic up and wasn't mentioned.

Edited July 2, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Tidus44]

Is eugenics making a comeback?

Probably not eugenics since that involves sterilizations and confinement of those who do not meet "desired" criteria. That'll probably start making a comeback when we get around the 8 billion people on Earth mark, when governments start seeing a much larger strain on already inadequate public programs and start deciding who exactly should be allowed to have children or pass on their genetics as a means of thinning "bad" genes out of the population along with the typical ones related to disease, deformity, and violence which are already identified (much more accurately not) and which was much of the focus of eugenics back in the early 20th century. It'll happen eventually, but not for awhile at this rate. Too many special interests in the pot for it to get any momentum.

 

I could see these measures as being part of some way to lead up to a social acceptance for those programs, but it's unlikely since it would hint that there are some plans in the works for 10-15 years down the road, and politicians, political parties, even extremists are not the sort of people who plan that far ahead... ever. Meaning that if there is some plan to this effect in the works, it's tinfoil hat time, and God help us all because it'll probably happen exactly the way they want it to, and most of us will be convinced that it happening is a good thing, or be completely blindsided.

 

 

I would prefer to just think that this was a group of politicians who just weren't thinking when they drew up policy because the alternative really doesn't bode well for anyone and is quite possibly worse than fiction.

 

While the definition of eugenics does suggest the "culling" of undesirables as you point out, I think that the definition could be rewritten by modern technology. You may want to give this article a read;

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153748/Cameron-backs-controversial-IVF-plan-create-children-parents.html

[marharth]

*Historic event alert....*

*Ginny agrees with Vagrant0 for once*

 

OK, most people are aware that I am a conservative (with both types of C) and a country yokel (that's the British equivalent of a redneck I suppose...)and (statement of fact, not intended to start religious debate) observantly religious. It may surprise those of you on the left prone to stereotyping, for example marharth with this beauty;-

 

"One of the huge sides of the right wing is following human emotion over logic. Just read over some of the older topics. The right is rather outspoken about a certain something that completely destroys critical thinking.

 

Also this just in, liberals brainwash kids to make them think certain terms have to do with video games. Obviously the fault of liberals."

 

That none of this precluded me from going to University and getting a very good degree and doing plenty of critical thinking in the course of getting it. My ability to think for myself is what has imbued me with a very healthy dose of cynicism about fanatics of any persuasion, politicians, religious leaders or just plain rabble rousers. Please explain your accusation, marharth, or withdraw it.

 

Now at the crux of this debate has been the assertion that it should be left to the educators in schools and colleges to teach critical thinking and that politicians should not prevent it. I can't disagree with that, but it would be a mistake to believe that this would necessarily achieve the desired result. If your teaching profession in the USA is anything like ours in the UK (and from comments made by Arthmoor it sounds like they may well be)then impressionable young minds will only see ideas from, have influence from, one side of the political spectrum. Indoctrination can just as easily occur that way.

Clearly there are people on the right who aren't like I said. My point was that if you look at the things the right wing stand for, at least in America at any rate, it is extremely hard to say they stand for critical thinking. I am talking as a whole group, not individuals.

 

One of the topics I was referring to was the death penalty one. A lot of the people on the right were saying that revenge was the thing to do there, and putting the logical side of things second. Also not sure how it is in UK politics, but the right wing commonly appeals to emotion instead of logic. Most of the examples I can give have caused topics to be locked in the past.