• ZhouBoTong
    507
    Most are there in order to get a job. Learning is not a high priorityFooloso4

    My thoughts exactly...unfortunately.
  • creativesoul
    6.2k
    I read somewhere that American public education is municipally funded-which means obviously, that poorer/under privileged communities will have less resources, organization, and whole mass of issues. I presume that European countries like Finland have a better and less discriminatory funding system.Grre

    Ding ding ding ding ding...

    We have a winner!!!
  • Grre
    137


    Again I appreciate your thorough correspondence.

    Its weird because I never considered myself one to like small or younger children, for one, I don't like running those games that seem all the rage in elementary school programs, the ones where "everyone wins" blah blah. And I don't like the constant stress that one might dissipear ect. But this summer at the camp I work at I was placed with the young young children (3-5), the first time I have ever really interacted with children at that age, and I found them I did like them better than the school age/older children. You can be just as realistic with younger children as older children, just as blunt, you just have to be more patient because it takes some brain power to explain more complicated concepts and eventually you have to settle with "well something like that I think" and just hope that ten years from now they'll miraculously remember the conversation and be able to do something about it. Older children also lose their ability (at least in some cases) to entertain themselves, while younger children, exempting shyness, are a marvel, you give them items and set them lose, watching their creativity and imaginations and curiosity, it absolutely fills me with vigor. PHILOSOPHY vigor. Is that not what philosophy is all about? Where would Socrates be in the modern age? Either homeless yes, or uneducated working in McDonalds playing on this forum in his spare time, OR in a kindergarten classroom, making slime (we made slime today) or out in the rain digging for worms, or playing with balloons ect. I have come to love and respect kindergarten aged children because of this curiosity and desire to learn...I had always thought that if I do become a teacher (which isn't on the horizon at the moment) I will teach highchool seniors, but I'm starting to think that would just frustrate and distress me. I was never very well understood or liked by children in middle school or early high school (again, until puberty hit) so I have this horrendous image of my head of me still sitting alone at lunch at age 45 reading all my silly philosophy with all of my students in the cafeteria making fun of me-no sexiness this time to make them like me (I kid). Also, young children really don't know-they're learning, they're learning social cues as much as they're learning how to interact with the physical word, while older children KNOW, when they're talking over me, or doing something dumb/inconsiderate, they KNOW and I got 0 patience for that.

    they NEED emotion/facial expressions to understand the words
    They DO haha, it makes me hyper-aware of my face and helps me become more animated/it feels good. Kind of like adulthood bitterness and the need to appear perfectly passive, polite, and calm all the time has botox-ed my face, and then getting to play and laugh and air-guitar breaks all the hardened clay.

    the book - and movie - called 'Wonder' definitely spent some time ensuring the reader understood that the bully had a tough life too).
    Might have to look into this. I'm always for breaking down individual moral culpability.

    Kind of like trying to predict economics without acknowledging that most people are bat sh*t crazy.
    Education is complicated and multifaceted, by no means am I attempting to narrate an absolute solution. Also no one cares. Unless you are a child, you have kids, or you directly work in education, no one wants to foot the bill. Canada must have dropped a good couple million $$ just on the manhunt currently going on (two teens wanted for murdering someone up in some shit hole town in some shit hole part of Manitoba or something) I'm talking tanks, SWAT, air force (common for the US very rare for Canada) they haven't found them, probably won't, probably they died in the woods, TOO BAD THAT MONEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN SPENT ON hm education? Sorry, but I'm a big believer in preventative action...my answer to every social problem, IMO is education education education, we're all just products of our environments. And this is Canada, where, while provincial loans for post-secondary school were recently cut quite a bit, at least we have a reliable government loan program...America, well, just google military budget vs. education budget...and then people wonder "why is America so screwed up" "how did they elect Trump?" blah blah, well quite easily it turns out, look at what that culture values. Certainly not the individual welfare and growth of its citizens.

    *I am biased because I am a university student*

    Side note-best of luck teaching middle school. Much cringe. While I respect middle school age boys for their hyper-athleticism (gotta love a super competitive deadly game of dodgeball) I could never face that age group, too awkward, too uncomfortable, all I think about is how terrible their lives are at that point in their life. Middle school is the most sucky of all sucky. For one you're so SEXUALLY frustrated all the time jesus CHRIST.
    I digress.
  • Grre
    137


    And the winner is clearly not the US.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/education-military-spending-comparison-2016-9
    This was before the Republicans (sorry, I mean the NRA) came into power.

    Actually I lied. They were always in power. One just has to look at Obama's face when he talked about all this massacres, including the kindergarten one...the NRA was in the shadows, gun to his head, NRA hands deep in the pockets of the Pentagon.
    Haha gun pun unintended!
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    They were always in powerGrre

    The NRA hasn't always been powerful. At some point, less than 70 years ago, they decided to pursue a strong political program to insure that "gun rights" (something that had previously been a minor issue, if an issue at all) would be promoted/protected as a constitutional right. They collected allies, donations, and sympathetic congressmen (suckers all) to do their bidding. Their propaganda was effective. Here we are with gun rights being more important than massacres.

    May God damn the NRA to the depths of hell.
  • creativesoul
    6.2k


    By my lights it's quite a bit more complicated than that. The NRA is doing exactly what they are allowed to do, and what they are doing is - in and of itself - just one facet of many on the set of problematic jewels within the US.

    It makes no sense to me when people start talking about unrelated events. The NRA is a group of people who do not seem to be making their voices heard except in light of gun violence. When that violence happens within an educational setting such as a public school system, the NRA is not focusing upon the funding thereof.

    Rather, they all read from the same script. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Restricting all public access to guns by virtue of creating more involved complex access regulations will simple create more red tape for the citizens who obtain their firearms legally to begin with. That thought will lead one to further talk in terms of "punishing" legal gun owners for the crimes of others. This often continues on and will eventually arrive at the 'conclusion' that more regulation will not stop those who acquire firearms by illegal methods from acquiring a gun. With that in the forefront of one's mind, it is then argued that the overwhelming majority of gun violence in America is perpetuated by people who've purchased/acquired the firearms illegally to begin with. So the story/narrative then often further morphs... if the goal is stopping the crimes from happening and the means to that end is having less guns, then we need to stop those who acquire the guns illegally from acquiring them, and passing more regulations that only the law-abiding gun owners follow anyway will not satisfy that end.

    You see...

    The NRA doesn't talk about the insufficiently funded American public education system.
  • Grre
    137


    I disagree. I think the NRA is too powerful of a propaganda group to not hold accountable for the cultural mindset that props up the bullshit gun ownership argument-an argument that is inherent to the whole topsy-turvy. An argument that is undermined by factual statistics. The guns used in the majority of massacres, especially perpetuated by teens in high schools, are legally owned-family guns, or legally bought at gun shows. Owning a gun in your home exponentially raises the risk of dying from said gun, whether by accident, suicide, or spousal/domestic homicide. Children kill themselves everyday by accidentally discharging a gun at themselves, siblings, or parents. Guns are for killing people. Knives aren't. Guns are.

    I never claimed that NRA "talks" about the insufficiently funded American public system. My point was actually-that no one does. My point was that America cares more about guns than people. That the people are so culturally indoctrinated that "gun rights" are more important than public safety.

    These events are in no way isolated. No political events really are? I mean, I'm aware i am making brief generalizations and summarizations here, but it doesn't take much common sense and internet research to build a pretty clear case of this. The insufficient public education funding is a problem of its own, but it is a problem that is overshadowed by these hungry lobbyists-and it is a problem that is resultant from a culture that doesn't value individual human life.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    2.1k


    I’m afraid rational arguments are not going to work here in rural Wisconsin (actually this is a satellite community of Madison with a mix of different kinds of people, but it’s far enough away from Madison that it is also kinda rural). If popular support tips overwhelmingly in your favor, then the government will take the guns away; but that would result in civil upheaval in many places in this country, I’m afraid. Still, I sympathize with your view.
  • Grre
    137


    My apologies, you're right-an exaggeration on my part (my boyfriend often accuse me of being an exaggerator). Interesting that the rise of the NRA coincided with post-ww2 cultural tribulations at the time, ie. rising black rights movement, second "wave" feminism" ect. ect. Smells like the elite white rich (and the ignorant, rural, poor white who were exploited and manipulated into believing all this propaganda by the elite rich) had some qualms about the changing tides.

    May God damn the NRA to the depths of hell.
    I agree. Remember, I am only two decades old. For as long as I have been alive there has been guns and severe gun violence and massacres on the news. For me, it really has been forever. I grew up with all the stranger danger, not being able to walk anywhere by myself until I was about 12, monthly armed lock down drills in my school, hiding under desks ect. ect. And this is in Canada, where I feel relatively safe. When I steal someones parking spot at the mall and they roll down their window to give me the finger, not for one moment do I think my life is in danger-but I do know that if I lived in the US, I would be risking my life.
  • Grre
    137


    I've never been to rural Wisconsin but I've been to rural Canada so I can imagine. These gun supporters correlate directly with poor, ignorant (read: LACK OF EDUCATION FUNDING), rural, isolated, and otherwise easily fear-mongered communities-fearful of change and "others"-fearful of control ect. ect.
    Again, all these issues are so deeply and closely related.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    2.1k
    Yes, they are correlated, but you didn’t hear my agreement. Mum’s the word.
  • Grre
    137


    I hear your argument. Your people will uprise.

    That is what the NRA propaganda has done.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    Hold, on there. I grew up in a rural community (and got the hell out asap) and am related to a number of people who also grew up in that sort of place, and might be, as you say, "ignorant, rural, poor white who were exploited and manipulated into believing all this propaganda by the elite rich".

    That's what's called a "glittering generalization". Sounds good; probably not all that true. Rural, poor whites may be more ignorant than they need to be, but a lot of rural whites are not poor (not rich, either), and not ignorant. Some of them are reasonably well educated.

    I do agree that millions of Americans have been manipulated into believing all sorts of propaganda, just as most people everywhere have, excepting Canadians, whose minds are 100% free of any propaganda, whatsoever. I mean, they see propaganda on the CBC and it just doesn't make sense to them. It's like the announcer was suddenly speaking Swahili or something. They, of course, never watch American TV or film, listen to American Radio, or read American publications, so they stay pure and uncontaminated.

    NRA gun owners and non-NRA gun owners are somewhat different.

    Here are a couple of graphs from PEW RESEARCH which clarifies some of the differences between NRA gun owners and non-NRA gun owners.

    tumblr_pvl2qwTDsO1y3q9d8o1_400.png

    tumblr_pvl2qwTDsO1y3q9d8o2_500.png
  • creativesoul
    6.2k


    I'm left wondering...

    Do you disagree with the report I offered regarding the go-to talking points of pro gun people(including but not limited to NRA members)? I mean, was it in some way inaccurate? Did I misrepresent something that those folks think/believe and/or otherwise argue for? Do they talk about the insufficient funding of American education? Do they actively lobby for laws and/or legal actions that have a negative effect/affect upon the public funding situation at hand?

    The NRA is not the problem. It is a symptom.

    What statement of mine are you disagreeing with?
  • creativesoul
    6.2k
    There will be no systematic mandatory retrieval of guns that are publicly owned by legal means.

    Public spaces ought have rules that keep the space usable by all. If the best technology is good enough for screening public passengers as a means for keeping the public airways safe, then what on God's green earth are we doing not providing those same safeguards to our children?

    Well regulated.
  • creativesoul
    6.2k
    If we teach our children to appreciate and respect diversity; if we teach our children that everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect; if we teach our children the keys to learning new things is most often other people; if we teach our children how to get along best with others even though those people may not have our best interest in mind, they would know better than to kill others. They would know better than to harass others. They would know better than to make broad brushed statements about groups of people.

    We would avert many a scenario.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    2.1k


    I live in a small town of 16,000. I know any community is diverse in its views. It’s less heterogeneous than NYC, though, and there are ignorant, hot-headed people in my community who wave confederate flags. There are also a lot of people who have “Hate Has No Home Here” signs in their yards. I’m not concerned about the latter. I’m concerned that if there was ever a gun buy-back (essentially a confiscation), then the former would get violent. I had no intention to paint rural America with a broad brush. My hometown has a population of 5,000; mostly good people. There is a lunatic fringe element, though, and the people who would get most upset by a gun confiscation tend to reside in smaller towns. But, I’m sure they’re in the Twin Cities, too, just not as many.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    Well, I don't think you have to worry about gun confiscation or a massive gun buy-back. Too expensive, too much effort, takes too long, etc. You know, some problems are just insoluble. The number of guns in the possession of American citizens is one of those insolubles. More than 99% of those guns are never going to be used improperly, but .0005% of 100,000,000 guns is still 50,000 possible fatalities.

    The lunatic fringe is everywhere. The difference between New York City and Oconomowoc, Wisconsin is that New York can absorb and dilute far more lunatics than a small Wisconsin town. That's why I moved to Minneapolis -- it's a safer place to be a rural lunatic than rural Podunk. In a small town, a few lunatics are very noticeable. It's easy for the whole cloth community (to which the fringe is attached) to make life difficult for the small group of deluded, mistaken, misinformed, deviantly opinionated, bigoted, faggoted, torqued out, commie, rebel yelling people. Or at least make them uncomfortable.

    ignorant, hot-headed people in my community who wave confederate flagsNoah Te Stroete

    Ah, like one of my in-laws...

    What people lunatic fringe about changes over time. When I was a kid, the lunatic fringers were worried about communists. Later they were worried about women libbers, hippies, and fags. Then drugs and motorcycle gangs, or welfare queens. Or Islamic Terrorists, or immigrants, or martians.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    2.1k
    In a small town, a few lunatics are very noticeable. It's easy for the whole cloth community (to which the fringe is attached) to make life difficult for the small group of deluded, mistaken, misinformed, deviantly opinionated, bigoted, faggoted, torqued out, commie, rebel yelling people. Or at least make them uncomfortable.Bitter Crank

    Not really. We’re all mostly polite here. The lunatic fringe here is just passive-aggressive. Confederate flags and bumper stickers mostly. I hope you’re right about the gun-confiscation thing because they would go from passive-aggressive to aggressive-aggressive I fear. But what’s the solution to the mass shootings then?
  • Grre
    137

    You are over simplyifing my original points. And as nice as your charts look, they're not comforting? Gun safety solves one of two gun issues, prevents accidental discharge. Doesn't prevent purposeful discharge. You're not going to convince me that guns is better than no guns; because no guns is better. Human emotionality for one; you can force someone to safely store and take gun safety courses until their ears turn blue, but it won't change their anger when they go for their gun in some dispute...everyone at some point in their life could have shot someone, myself included, if I had a gun. Hence why I will never own a gun. Or support gun ownership. Guns are for killing people. A population that feels the need to "arm" itself to "protect" itself is one that is already brutalized by fear, paranoia, and violence.

    Even better, how about I carry a gun around my kindergartens? Like all those NRA people in the graphs you showed clearly want. Then we can start real early on indoctrinating them into a culture that thinks that it is okay to carry, "proudly" something used only to hurt other people. I mean, or we could teach them not to hurt people at all? A complete non-violent culture? A complete lockdown and amnesty on guns the military and so forth? A complete reconstruction of our economic and political relations?

    Okay, I know I'm being silly here. But I prefer dreaming up complex upheavals than settling for, "well we just gotta make sure people don't kill too many people!"

    then what on God's green earth are we doing not providing those same safeguards to our children?

    Okay. They do have metal detectors at some schools, including here in Canada. Have to point this out, but don't you think there is something WRONG when we have to screen children going to school? Are we that desperate to hold onto the freedom to have a gun? When gun = killing people? A good stop gap attempt. But also bad. It says, "it's okay that people have guns, and people sometimes get killed by inevitably occurring human mental instability, so we're just going to work on minimizing the damage rather than address the real problem".


    There won't be a solution anytime soon. America won't give up their guns (as per evidenced in these posts).

    They would know better than to harass others. They would know better than to make broad brushed statements about groups of people.
    I don't think my statements are that "out there" but appears they are according to you people. I'm not trying to posit Canada as a country devoid of issues, we have plenty, including our historical mistreatment of Indigenous peoples; and of course we are influenced by American culture, we practically drown in American products for one...that is why I am worried. Canada is following the same trends as the United States. The extreme fringes you speak of, if they do reach a boiling point, will spill over to us.

    @Bitter Crank
    Did not mean offence. I too know educated rural people, including one heading to law school with me But there are statistics showing that anti-gun people are more likely to hold at least a bachelors degree, and that the less education someone has the more likely they are to have pro-gun views and die a violent death.
  • Grre
    137
    Please read this.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-owns-guns-3026230

    The whole "gun = safety" narrative is caused by racism, an us against them mentality, white against black, American vs. immigrant, $$ vs. capitalism, Christianity vs. Islam ect. ect. (hi George Orwell, yes you are right! A nation at war, facing an external "other" or enemy, is a unified nation, except in the case when the literal nation is divided by this (perceived) diversity...)
    and while you are right @creativesoul the NRA is not THE problem, the NRA is the propaganda of the problem, and it is posing many problems of its own, including funding and organizing this deep felt divide and feeling of threat (on one side that is, and we all know what side that is) that otherwise would have no teeth...
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    Did not mean offence. I too know educated rural people, including one heading to law school with me But there are statistics showing that anti-gun people are more likely to hold at least a bachelors degree, and that the less education someone has the more likely they are to have pro-gun views and die a violent death.Grre

    Oh, I wasn't offended. And. I agree that more education tends to equal less likelihood of pro-gun right views. I think that one of the background processes affecting this is that older, white people in general tend to be more conservative. Older people in general tend to be more conservative in various ways, but because older white people also tend to be voters, they are targeted by conservative interests.

    Another background process is that opportunities for educated people tend to be fewer and farther between in rural areas, so people with educated skills tend to move to urban centers. This leaves a less educated population in rural areas. The opportunities for advancement aren't great for them, either, but may be better than in urban areas.

    Older white folks also tend to stay in rural areas. So, one has less educated, older people, people with fewer opportunities forming the bulk of the population. This fits the hilly agricultural county I grew up in, and 55 years later, it is still like that. It's something like 92% white. There are only very small towns (less than 2500, with maybe one exception of 3000 people. It's average income is not impoverished, but it is poorer than the average Minnesota county, quite a bit poorer than metropolitan MN counties.

    Agriculture is always a dicey proposition, and that is true now. The difference is that the small dairy farm with some cash crops on the side, and a small herd of pigs and a flock of chickens or geese is totally obsolete. Milk, corn, beans, hay, poultry, and hogs just aren't produced that way any more (unfortunately). It's been obsolete for a good 40 years.

    So, if this county is at all representative, I think a lot of people there feel trapped by economic forces they can do nothing about. (Of course, the rest of us are also trapped by economic forces beyond our control, but we haven't been totally shafted yet.)
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    I don't like the way this article was constructed.

    I don't own a gun but I don't object to other people owning guns, but if 1/3 of the population owns guns, then that has to be accepted (like it or not) as a mainstream, normal, practice.

    The amount of gun violence resulting in death and injury is a public health issue of enormous importance. But let's be clear about this: All but a small fraction of gun deaths and injuries are caused by civilians, and in any community--black, white, or hispanic, the gun deaths will be caused by black on black, white on white, or hispanic on hispanic killers. Some deaths are caused by interracial killers, but most are intrararacial. White and black cops alike are involved in shooting a greater number of whites, but a smaller percent of the white population.

    Black on black violence is concentrated in black neighborhoods, and generally the victims and perpetrators know each other.
  • creativesoul
    6.2k


    :brow: :zip: :brow:
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.