Teachers telling kids private ownership is wrong..

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

I suspect that most of the parents pay for their kids to attend this school because they think and teach this way. It is probably nothing more than an extension of what they are learning at home.

Probably .. it is Seattle, after all. Bunch of tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing, hippie marxists out there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

uh? do you even know what a Liberitarian is?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

uh? do you even know what a Liberitarian is?

Uh yeah... I usually tell people that I am one (although more correctly I am a classical liberal).

A libertarian believes in individual rights, inherent, complete voluntary associations, and that the government exists solely to preserve said rights.

I think you missed the fact that I was speaking to Amused about razor.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

I'll repeat my previous statement that this government is the best system in the world precisely because it helps protect against what he discussed in sentence one. The socialistic tendencies that everyone think will mandate a good community just serve to strip away these protections.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

uh? do you even know what a Liberitarian is?

He makes perfect sense. You either have a collectivist government take your property, or a mob.

We say neither. Have a libertarian government (the intention of the founding fathers) protect me from the mob and allow me to keep my freedoms, rights and property.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

Yeah, because ad hominem is soooo much better than actually answering my post intelligently. I've already posted reply to your post.

Just to make it clear, I support individual rights. I do not condone when those who exercise their rights affect other's rights, i.e. selfish actions that negatively affects others. You can continue the bickering if you would like.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: skace
Your houses should all be standard sizes? That sounds like communism.

Thats because this is precisely what it is.

Teachers are there to teach fact, or in the case of science, fact and theory. They are not there to give their political opinions. Especially when its pro communism, the teachers should be written up. Not fired mind you, but reprimanded.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

uh? do you even know what a Liberitarian is?

Uh yeah... I usually tell people that I am one (although more correctly I am a classical liberal).

A libertarian believes in individual rights, inherent, complete voluntary associations, and that the government exists solely to preserve said rights.

I think you missed the fact that I was speaking to Amused about razor.

yip, i sure did. i thought you were flaming Amused. sorry.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. No one here has advocated no laws or government. Quite the contrary, a government is needed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms from mobs, criminals and socialists who seek to take away your property and freedoms for their own selfish, or altruistic ends.

There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

uh? do you even know what a Liberitarian is?

He makes perfect sense. You either have a collectivist government take your property, or a mob.

We say neither. Have a libertarian government (the intention of the founding fathers) protect me from the mob and allow me to keep my freedoms, rights and property.

Too bad they no longer teach and emphasize that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant rights to the people but instead define the role and limits of government and grant certain rights to it from the people. One of the main arguments against a "Bill of Rights" was precisely the situation we have today where people assume that only the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are retained by the people and granted to them by the Constitution.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Amused

He makes perfect sense. You either have a collectivist government take your property, or a mob.

We say neither. Have a libertarian government (the intention of the founding fathers) protect me from the mob and allow me to keep my freedoms, rights and property.

Wait.. but that's an oxymoron. Government IS collective by nature. Unless you have massive resource(firepower in case of mob) by yourself that can equally or surpass the resources of the mob, you will need to form/use the power of collective to protect yourself.

In fact... you JUST asked a collective to protect your rights. Tsk Tsk.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: skace
Your houses should all be standard sizes? That sounds like communism.

Thats because this is precisely what it is.

Teachers are there to teach fact, or in the case of science, fact and theory. They are not there to give their political opinions. Especially when its pro communism, the teachers should be written up. Not fired mind you, but reprimanded.

Yet.. in US, we have building codes and zoning laws and neighborhood ass. (intentional shortening of name).

Yeah... simply having rules = communism now.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing "altruistic" about wanting to force your personal vision of a perfect world onto everyone else by force. That's like saying the Inquisition was altruistic because it was trying to save "sinner's" souls.

This guy is clueless, Amused. He cannot understand the distinction between a collective and an individual. To him, individual rights do not exist. Notice how the only times he has mentioned individual rights has been in the context of fearmongering, i.e. if we don't join his particular gang of thugs then we will end up losing our property by the force of another gang of thugs. Therefore we must join his gang for protection. Blah blah blah asshole.

Yeah, because ad hominem is soooo much better than actually answering my post intelligently. I've already posted reply to your post.

Just to make it clear, I support individual rights. I do not condone when those who exercise their rights affect other's rights, i.e. selfish actions that negatively affects others. I'm pretty much done here. You can continue the bickering if you would like.

How do you interpret selfishness, does it relate to unfairness? Some having more than others? An imbalance of wealth? I say that the socialist system breads selfishness.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Too bad they no longer teach and emphasize that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant rights to the people but instead define the role and limits of government and grant certain rights to it from the people. One of the main arguments against a "Bill of Rights" was precisely the situation we have today where people assume that only the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are retained by the people and granted to them by the Constitution.

Quite true indeed. There's a severe lack of solid foundations in social science in schools. Then again, this will only derail into "Quality of education is BAD" posts.

Founding fathers emphasized education of the people to counter balance government's inherent power over people. When the population recognizes and understand the role of citizens and government, they become much more effective in shaping government that serves them, instead of a government that serve itself and those in power within.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: skace
Your houses should all be standard sizes? That sounds like communism.

Thats because this is precisely what it is.

Teachers are there to teach fact, or in the case of science, fact and theory. They are not there to give their political opinions. Especially when its pro communism, the teachers should be written up. Not fired mind you, but reprimanded.

Yet.. in US, we have building codes and zoning laws and neighborhood ass. (intentional shortening of name).

Yeah... simply having rules = communism now.

How in the world would it not be communism if every house in the entire US was the same size? WTF do you think communism is? WTF does zoning laws have anything to do with that? Nevermind, I'm not even going to try.

 

[Miramonti]

I guess I'm supposed to say that's wrong and these kids are ruined for life, and immediate execution of the teachers should be done without possibility of appeal.

Not that hearing the teachers side of the story would make any difference...

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: spherrod
quite scary actually - whatever happened to letting students make up their own minds?

State education standards happened.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: d3n
How do you interpret selfishness, does it relate to unfairness? Some having more than others? An imbalance of wealth? I say that the socialist system breads selfishness.

Read my posts more carefully. I draw distinctive lines between forms of government and personal morals.

To answer the governemtn part:

Selfishness and fairness are all personal morals. They differ individually, though most have similarities to each other. Government is collective of people who wishes to create a social "enforcer" based upon their common qualities in their morals. Thus, regardless of form of government, whether that government can be judged "good" or "bad", greatly depends upon the morals of individuals who compose such collective (of course, I have to add the spice of power imbalance that's always inherent in such collective). We can have laissez faire capitalism like 1900's that can be viewed as "bad" with our current moral perspective. We can also view benevolent dictatorship with respect and admiration of its accomplishments. Again, government is the collective "enforcer" for those who are within said society. If you don't like it, then you can move away, though you'll lose great amount of benefits.

To answer the "selfishness" and "fairness" moral:

It's completely up to personal interpretation. To me, they have some similar qualities, such as "trying to take account other's benefits and consequences". They differ for me in that, "selfishness", deals more with individual thirst for gain overtaking any moral inhibition. For example, I knowingly eat the whole cake in the fridge, despite the fact that I can eat 1/2 of the cake and have a good (not complete) satisfaction. That's selfish, because I can leave 1/2 of that cake in the fridge for others in my family or friend to also enjoy. Personally, I have added benefit of seeing others being satisfied, so thus, with any morals, morality is personal interpretation.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
How in the world would it not be communism if every house in the entire US was the same size? WTF do you think communism is? WTF does zoning laws have anything to do with that? Nevermind, I'm not even going to try.

Not even try? Because you figured out that your argument was completely flawed? How about I build my house next to yours using materials that stink to high heavens? Or, I can build a 15 story mansion next your 2 story house and completely block out the sun from you everyday? Or I can open up a whorehouse (if prostitution was legal) next to your house? Building codes and zoning laws exist, so you don't get affected when some crazies move into your neighborhood. Not because your local government decided to become communists.

I think you misunderstood what "standard sizes" really mean. I really don't think they mean, "your house must be 1 story tall with 1 front-side covered in bricks, and ONLY in that style".

Geez.. way to over-react.

 

[JEDIYoda]

repost...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: AMDZen
How in the world would it not be communism if every house in the entire US was the same size? WTF do you think communism is? WTF does zoning laws have anything to do with that? Nevermind, I'm not even going to try.

Not even try? Because you figured out that your argument was completely flawed? How about I build my house next to yours using materials that stink to high heavens? Or, I can build a 15 story mansion next your 2 story house and completely block out the sun from you everyday? Or I can open up a whorehouse (if prostitution was legal) next to your house? Building codes and zoning laws exist, so you don't get affected when some crazies move into your neighborhood. Not because your local government decided to become communists.

I think you misunderstood what "standard sizes" really mean. I really don't think they mean, "your house must be 1 story tall with 1 front-side covered in bricks, and ONLY in that style".

Geez.. way to over-react.

actually tha tis what "standard size" means.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Private ownership is wrong? Anyone got the addresses of these teachers? They have some community property I need to liberate.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: AMDZen
How in the world would it not be communism if every house in the entire US was the same size? WTF do you think communism is? WTF does zoning laws have anything to do with that? Nevermind, I'm not even going to try.

Not even try? Because you figured out that your argument was completely flawed? How about I build my house next to yours using materials that stink to high heavens? Or, I can build a 15 story mansion next your 2 story house and completely block out the sun from you everyday? Or I can open up a whorehouse (if prostitution was legal) next to your house? Building codes and zoning laws exist, so you don't get affected when some crazies move into your neighborhood. Not because your local government decided to become communists.

I think you misunderstood what "standard sizes" really mean. I really don't think they mean, "your house must be 1 story tall with 1 front-side covered in bricks, and ONLY in that style".

Geez.. way to over-react.

I'm the one with the flawed argument? Your the one who is bringing up completely irrelevant arguments.

 

[irishScott]

:music: ???? ????????? ????????? ?????????
???????? ?????? ??????? ????!
?? ??????????? ????????? ????? ???????
??????, ??????? ????????? ????!

??????:

???????, ????????? ???? ?????????,
?????? ??????? ???????? ?????!
?????? ?????? ? ???? ????????
??? ? ????????? ?????????? ?????!

2.

?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????,
? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????:
?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????,
?? ???? ? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????!

??????

3.

? ?????? ??????????? ???? ??????????
?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????,
? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????
?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????!

?????? :music:

:music:1.

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,
Great Russia has welded forever to stand.
Created in struggle by will of the people,
United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.
O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

2.

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,
Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.
To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,
Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

CHORUS

3.

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,
We see the future of our dear land.
And to her fluttering scarlet banner,
Selflessly true we always shall stand!

CHORUS

:music:

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

I'm the one with the flawed argument? Your the one who is bringing up completely irrelevant arguments.

Then by all means, state how my argument is flawed. Standard can have variations. I can have a "standard sedan" and be given the choice of Accord, Passat, Camry.. and the like. They follow certain spec, 4-5 seating capacity, I4-V6 engine, 4 doors + trunk, yet they differ in slightly in size, differ somewhat in shape, and have many color options. From what I understood of your "standard size", you mean that all the houses are completely indentical to each other, which may not be the case. Maybe those kids were allowed to choose different color legos to build? Simply stating that something were build to "standard" does not equate to "completely identical".

If you were arguing against having building regulations, then your argument is even more flawed. Because even the most capitalistic society have rules and regulations that affects its citizens. Building codes and zoning laws are one of them.