From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Rats, I guess I'm a Nazi
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.053310.12448@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
    >Mr. Ronzone writes:
    >>So I see. YOU have * * * T R U T H * * *.
    >>
    >Absolutely not. I would hope that my kids get educated enough
    >(whether by their school, their church, or wherever) that
    >they will jettison what prejudices, ignorance, and
    >hypocricies *I* am inevitably passing on to them.
    >
    >>The whole Truth, and only the Truth, and You Do Truly Know
    >>What Shall Be Taught To Us Lesser Beings!
    >>
    >Ah, the subtleties of looking at a complex issue and seeing
    >it in something other than black and white...
    >
    >>Well look, I don't like what a lot of people would (or do)
    >>teach their kids right now. But gawd damn, I'm nowhere near
    >>the arrogance to assume that I KNOW BETTER THAN THOSE PARENTS
    >>WHAT SHOULD BE taugh their kids!
    >>
    >When the wisest men and women in a society discover bits of
    >Truth along the way of our history (e.g. the earth is not
    >flat, humanity is evolved, etc.) it should be taught to
    >humanity's children over the potential protests of parents.
    >Yes, *sigh*, you have me pegged.

Yes I do. Since you don't believe in truth (aka black and white), then
how do you dare assume any absolute position.

In any case, as you admit, I have you pegged.

I don't know whether to laugh at such arrogance or not.

But I will commend you for honesty and self-condemnation.


I'm a lot more tolerant, both by choice as well as moral
position.

I don't play god and believe that I have the truth AND the mandate from
God to educate other peoples children BY COERCION ("over the
potential protests of parents").

Der State uber alles and all that shit ...


    >This appears to be the stance you advocate: "I believe anyone
    >that imagines they know any 'Truth' well enough to want to
    >teach it to others against their upbringing is just an
    >arrogant autocrat; the best approach is to back off any such
    >attempt and let everyone teach what 'feels good' to them."
    >
    >This is moral relativism at its worst. How interesting,
    >coming from you.

How? The first directive I live by is to not coerce others.

You belive that you can educate other peoples children over the protests
of the parents -- you use coercion, proudly even.

I can't and don't.

THAT's moral absolutism. THOU SHALT NOT INITIATE COERCION.

    >>And I have yet to find a perfect person that decide all these
    >>truth issues for him/her self and still be able to make those
    >>decisions for other people.
    >>
    >And until we find that perfect person we won't even make the
    >slightest attempt, either. Sorry, I'll pass on that theory.

Eaxctly. Until you are demonstrably perfect, don't attempt to run other peoples
lives by coercion.

WHAT A FUCKING BEAUTIFUL CONCEPT.


    >>The NAZIs had zero tolerance forschool choices -- the
    >>children got the State approved choice. Period. Is this not
    >>what you seek?
    >>
    >Oh, I suddenly see the light:
    >
    >1) I am not in favor of a good deal of the "school choice"
    >idea, when it involves a migration towards merely reinforcing
    >only whatever the parents think Johny should know.
    >
    >2) Under Naziism students only had the state approved schools
    >
    >THEREFORE...
    >
    >This kind of "reasoning" merely reflects, for the billionth
    >time, on your inability to deal with this issue on anything
    >other than a black and white, one extreme or the other,
    >level.

Exactly wacked -- you yourself have taken several absolute positions
in this very post.

Or, do YOU AGREE that is is sometimes O.K. to teach children that
the world is flat? You said it is immoral. Period.

That's pretty absolute and black and white.


Well?



    >>>True. But just because something *might* go wrong with a
    >>>method does not invalidate the method. Of course the easy way
    >>>out is to throw up our hands and say "Gosh, there's a chance
    >>>this scheme of teaching kids somewhat independent of the
    >>>day-to-day whims of the parents could go wrong, so we give
    >>>up. It's all a bad idea."
    >>>
    >>>Some of us do not choose the easy way out.
    >>>
    >>No, you choose the inherent fascist way. Even your wording is
    >>loaded with automatic assumptions that YOU know better than
    >>"day-to-day whims" of parents.
    >>
    >Not me, personally. The best minds that humanity has to
    >offer, and the *demonstrable*, scientific discoveries they
    >have made.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

So, would you take advice on brain surgery from the winner of the
1949 Nobel prize for medicine (he got it for his brain surgery
techniques)?

Or perhaps take advice on a subject area in science held by another
Nobel prize winner (for his work on the transistor)?

You would?

I wouldn't.

Lobotomy is now considered barbaric. And Schockley has some, ah,
at times *unusual* concepts on race and intelligence.

And good lord, how many scientists from the 1930s-1940s were
communists, believers in the most viscious and brutal regime
we've yet to see on this planet?

Or perhaps all the scientists that go along with PC(tm) campuses?


Rule by the intellectuals, eh?


    >>Yes, the NAZIs too thought that that THEY could do better
    >>than the parents.
    >>
    >So I am at once in the same league as Nazis.
    >
    >Don't get me wrong - I understand exactly your accusations
    >re: coercion and its ill effects as evidenced by, in the
    >extreme case, Nazis. But I think you have the wrong target -
    >that any "coercion" is by definition wrong because it may be
    >abused. That is like saying a parent would not be wise to
    >forcibly discipline their child because a family down the
    >street beat their kid to death. Forcible discipline was used
    >for evil ends, therefore forcible discipline in any form is
    >wrong (says this line of thinking...)

Children are not adults. You are the second poster to attempt to
justify the initiation of coercion by use of children as an example.
Parents may rightfully use coercion to punish their children. I do.


So your example is invalid.

Tell me, do these people have a right to forcibly discipline the
othr parents down the street?

They don't? Why not?


    >>Now, who is REALLY the more tolerant here? I think it tis me
    >>and not thee...
    >>
    >We wouldn't be bandying about the word "tolerance" carelessly
    >here, would we? From another recent posting of yours (on
    >another topic):
    >
    >>Naw -- I'm intolerant about a lot of things... I am
    >>intolerant of coercion, fascists, murder, child molestation,
    >>and a lot of other such shit. How about you?
    >>
    >And now that you agree being "tolerant" is not always the
    >goal, I am happy to add that I too am intolerant of lots of
    >things, including willful ignorance foisted upon children by
    >their parents in the name of "choice".

I am intolerant of the initiation of coercion.

I am tolerant of people leading their own lives, no matter how disgusting
I may consider their lifestyles.


    >I do not actually believe that all (or even most) private or
    >church-run schools do a horrendous job or that they cannot
    >teach a good deal of the curriculum as well or better than
    >some of our public schools. (I do know, however, from
    >personal experiences, that some subjects in the curriculum
    >are heavily skewed towards a particular religious viewpoint,
    >whether any objective evidence exists for that viewpoint or
    >not. This bothers me a great deal - call me silly...) But
    >when I hear such nonsense that it is inherently evil to even
    >consider having public schools in a society, and that the
    >Only Solution is to have the education of our young treated
    >just as though you were taking a suit to the cleaners (i.e.
    >any other business transaction) I draw the line. -----

Again, you must be scared shitless that you rely on businesses to
feed you kid.

    >I don't really believe I can shed much more light on my
    >position, Phil - I understand yours, I *think* you understand
    >mine (if you don't by now I give up), and we profoundly
    >disagree. (I, however, vote... :-} )
    >
    >Therefore I am inclined to not bore the net with any more of
    >my ramblings on the subject, lest I wear out my welcome.

Good enough position.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics