The View From 1776

Education for Sexual Promiscuity

Liberal-progressive educators want your children to become sexually active as early as possible.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/23 at 01:32 AM
  1. First of all, it is indoctrination - not education. Education equips the individual to use his brain to think. Glands, especially the gonads, direct the person by appetite and desire without reference to tools of the mind, principles, which anticipate and indicate potential consequences of options.

    Collectivist socialistic liberals seek control of fellow-humans by way of forsaking the thought process. Their leadership is marked by an over-driving need to bury their own guilty conscience in a mass opinion of right and wrong, truth and lie, up and down, left and left.

    After all these years, I have yet to encounter a collectivist who doesn't have an over-bearing sense of earned guilt and accurate inferiority. Such an individual cannot stand alone. Cannot.

    We should see that he does...

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  12/23  at  10:38 AM
  2. Jim said:
    First of all, it is indoctrination - not education.

    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/23  at  06:07 PM
  3. Individuals incapapable of governing their most base inclinations need to be controlled and governed from without. A helpless people will need a tyrannical government.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/25  at  10:48 AM
  4. I have to disagree, though not from any admiration for Dewey.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/27  at  09:20 PM
  5. Thanks for some interesting comments on Dewey, Bob.

    Often, when anything, good or not, is not based on sound principles, the end result gets distorted by those who use anything they can to further their own unprincipled or misguided agenda.

    As you point out, we were changing and technology was advancing and our nation was growing. We needed to keep up but, we had the system to do it. States that did see the need first, acted first and although there was some "lag," by others, the states that were doing well set the needed examples. At the same time, states that weren't doing what was best couldn't drag the whole nation down. Now, by doing things at the most inefficient level of government, we drag the whole nation down when we are wrong in the policies we force on all states.

    The intention of having a national department of education may have been for good purposes but, it has been a disaster.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/27  at  09:31 PM
  6. Bob and Jan,
    "He (Dewey) began by defining a solution."

    Thus, he was wrong on every count since. His definitive core should have begun by defining the human-creature - accurately. He did not.

    Dewey was not "smarter than a fifth-grader." They agreed with Mr. Jefferson and his endowed 'creature,' before the elaboration in kind: Declaration & Constitution. Dewey did not.

    Not just any 'change' is worthy. [Tell Obama!]

    My 5th Graders knew that if your 'creature-pet' was a canary, you cared for it much differently, than if it was a goldfish.

    Dewey defined 'human' with the same nonvalue-system and characteristics as for bees and ants. Same-o same-o? Pul-leeze!!!

    I do not accept 'good' intentions as justification for such blatant, extensive, and on-going error.

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  12/28  at  11:03 AM
  7. I don't accept "good" intentions as justification but, I understand that mindset. It is common in people who look for "inherent good" in man, instead of recognizing we have an "inherent bad" that we must seek to control all our lives. That bad is probably described in its simplest form as "selfishness." If we focus on self too much, we often become willing to harm other's trust or wellbeing in us to achieve self-satisfaction.

    The problem I see with psychology is that they try to simplify a super-complex issue. They look for and find patterns but, when you try to fit those patterns to all people find they don't fit.

    It is like the child raised in the ghetto that unlike 98% of the other children rises to wealth. He see and views things as opportunities that others don't even see even those in his own family. Or, the child raised in a family that is very law abiding and the entire family seems to have the same environment and yet, one child becomes a criminal with no regard for even his own family. (One event at a crucial time in life that isn't dealt with properly, can change the rest of that life).

    Thus, in education, we find that we can never make education "fair." We can't have a high standard education system that allows all students to advance equally at the same time to the same level even when they may be of equal intelligence.

    Now, where we do fail the child that can't keep up is to shame them for that inability to keep up. I have seen too many very intelligent people who didn't fit the structure of society become very productive and even well educated (later) citizens. Being held back for a grade or having to have to spend more time with a tutor or even be placed in special education should not be a stigma. But, to try and force all children to perform at the same level means the standards have to be lowered.

    When I was in police work, I used psychology to understand what criminals would do and used it to get criminals to talk to me by speaking with them, not just to them. For example, with young people I arrested, from good homes, instead of asking them about a crime first, after their rights were read (parent and juvenile office present), I would ask them if their mother loved them (mother is present). Then I asked if they loved their mother. Then I would tell them how much their mother felt a pain in her heart when somebody they loved got hurt or in trouble. When a tear would come, I would simply say, "why don't you tell mom what happened," and never even mention the charge. I had over a 95% confession ratio from children, even often from homes where I questioned the love of the parents but, the love of the parent by the child was still often there.

    But, that only worked because it was a small community and I knew the kids and I knew the parents and knew what the relationship was between them. For kids from homes without love, I often became the parent in a way, even though I arrested them. I treated them with respect and even a some love even though I required obedience to the law. I talked to them every chance I got even when they weren't in trouble. Our crime rate dropped 75% in 3 and 1/2 years as we reduced the number of young people that became adult criminals.

    So psychology is very useful but, is a study of such a complex problem (human nature) that there are no pat answers and what works in one set of conditions doesn't work in another. For example, my interrogation method was virtually useless for adults in most cases even though the relationship of love might exist between criminal and parent.

    I found that a good foundation for psychology is the Bible. It provides all kinds of examples regarding human nature of individuals as well as societies. It has some core principles and "commandments" that help see what the standards have to be and that those standards are so high that we never fully reach them all the time due to our selfish nature. It also stresses "love" for all people, even kids that can't keep up in school but, not a love that lowers the standards. Instead it is a love that goes the extra mile to either help the child keep up or find a place in society for whatever skills and talents that child does have. It doesn't hold others back from their full potential.

    Jim said:
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/28  at  12:25 PM
  8. Jim,

    You said "I do not accept
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  02:05 PM
  9. Jan,

    Where you say "... when anything, good or not, is not based on sound principles, the end result gets distorted by those who use anything they can to further their own unprincipled or misguided agenda.", my experience has been the unprincipalled can distort even sound principals to their ends. Some are quite convincing, and may be an ally with whom we're apt to agree as often as adversaries or opportunists. Indeed, the greater danger may be from those friends who cave to expedience. So, don't count on principal as a surety. Only principle in the hands of the unerringly honest is capable of that. But, also, don't be overly hard as that is a standard too high for any mortal.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  02:30 PM
  10. Bob said:
    my experience has been the unprincipalled can distort even sound principals to their ends. Some are quite convincing, and may be an ally with whom we
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/28  at  02:40 PM
  11. To qualify as a Standard it should be greater than our inventive skill or our reach. That means we have an ongoing criteria for measuring and action. If it is easily attainable, it affords very little in defining our future behavior at little more than mediocrity.

    A true standard is independent of us. No ego-trip is available by virtue of virtue. If anything, it is a tribute to reason, perception, and recognition - not self.

    It is misleading, to equate mediocrity and evil with virtue, for the sake of "being liked." Our priorities require that we choose momentary rejection over popularity. Oft times, the incubation that results will deliver far greater influence for the good, than compromise for seemingly good-fellow reasons.

    Psychology is not science. It is merely the latest categorical human opinion affording few, if any, very real needful human solutions & needs. (Consider the recent effort of 'Psycholgy' to force-feed Character into a non-judgemental subset of Personality. Sheesh...

    HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008 AD ! ! ! jfb
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  12/28  at  04:58 PM
  12. Happy New Year Jim and all.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/28  at  05:16 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.