Thread: How free are we?

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Your argument is completely illogical. You are giving the premise that "Intelligent Design" would over-take education all across the U.S.. Due to our system of government, if that were the case, then "Evolution" would already be banned from the education system.

"Giving the premise that ID would overtake education across the US"? Indeed, that's so illogical that I didn't say anything remotely resembling it, and if you think I did, then kindly point out where. That straw claim has nothing to do with any argument that I was making. It should be pretty clear that I was referring to individual districts or regions such as Dover County and explicitly not the entire nation.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

If education were handled at the state level, some states would pick "Intelligent Design" over "Evolution", but not the majority.

Sure, that is social engineering. The difference is that it wouldn't be organized.

In what conceivable sense is this not "organized"? It's the deliberate and carefully considered choice by a public school board to impose their malformed anti-scientific views on a county's youth! That's about as organized as it gets.

Originally Posted by DuB

"Giving the premise that ID would overtake education across the US"? Indeed, that's so illogical that I didn't say anything remotely resembling it, and if you think I did, then kindly point out where. That straw claim has nothing to do with any argument that I was making. It should be pretty clear that I was referring to individual districts or regions such as Dover County and explicitly not the entire nation.

In what conceivable sense is this not "organized"? It's the deliberate and carefully considered choice by a public school board to impose their malformed anti-scientific views on a county's youth! That's about as organized as it gets.

Not a straw claim, but a merely a misunderstanding.

Okay, what is your point though? I'm talking about states actually using their sovereignty and the benefits associated with them doing so.

How does what you've implied or said apply to what I've suggested through my opinion? Also, that isn't organized because it is isolated.

Then again, if you are using "county level", thinking in terms that there is little to no social engineering on a national scale, I might get where you are coming from and how I may not make sense. "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" is the least of people's concern when it comes to social engineering.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Okay, what is your point though? I'm talking about states actually using their sovereignty and the benefits associated with them doing so.

How does what you've implied or said apply to what I've suggested through my opinion?

I'm only referring to this idea of "social engineering." I'm not presently concerned with the much broader question of how much sovereignty individual states ought to have.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Then again, if you are using "county level", thinking in terms that there is little to no social engineering on a national scale, I might get where you are coming from and how I may not make sense. "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" is the least of people's concern when it comes to social engineering.

The ID issue is just an example. Anyway, my point isn't that so-called social engineering doesn't happen on a national level--clearly it does, although I would argue that this term is a misnomer since we're apparently just referring to the natural process of cultural transmission at various scopes--it's that switching to a state-based system isn't going to solve this "problem." Even if we go so far as to make education the responsibility of individual families, we're going to get "social engineering" in the sense that parents will teach their kids what they personally believe to be right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. I mean hey, if there are other good reasons for turning power over to the states, then great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that doing so gets us any closer to fostering truly free and independent thought. Even if such a thing is truly desirable, it's certainly not possible.

Originally Posted by DuB

I'm only referring to this idea of "social engineering." I'm not presently concerned with the much broader question of how much sovereignty individual states ought to have.

The ID issue is just an example. Anyway, my point isn't that so-called social engineering doesn't happen on a national level--clearly it does, although I would argue that this term is a misnomer since we're apparently just referring to the natural process of cultural transmission at various scopes--it's that switching to a state-based system isn't going to solve this "problem." Even if we go so far as to make education the responsibility of individual families, we're going to get "social engineering" in the sense that parents will teach their kids what they personally believe to be right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. I mean hey, if there are other good reasons for turning power over to the states, then great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that doing so gets us any closer to fostering truly free and independent thought. Even if such a thing is truly desirable, it's certainly not possible.

I totally agree to an extent, which the worst that could result from states handling education is a neutral effect as a whole. The point though, is that it definitely wouldn't be bad or harmful, and on the current path things aren't peachy.