Simply describe any leftist position without using charged words and I guarantee most republicans would be on board.
My mom is "pro-life." I interviewed her on what exactly she believed should be legislated. Turns out she's 100% pro choice but just doesn't like abortion.
Most people are like that. It's really normal to have views from all over the spectrum, not all from one side. Many libertarians maturely face the conundrum that they will always fight for the liberties of others, even if they personally or morally disagree with them. And I'm talking about actual libertarians, not the US "libertarians" their media has.mislabelled and confused.the nation by basically redefining that term to somethung entirely different.
Kentucky fucking hates Obamacare but if you try taking Kentuckycare (Obamacare+the optional stuff every state was offered+a convenient portal) they’ll fucking riot.
Socialism/communism = “someone got something that I don’t think they deserved.”
They’re just bad words to people. I think a lot of the “normal people” on the right are just people who are too stupid to understand politics, so it works like their football team. You don’t need to know anything about the Dallas Cowboys or Patriots to hate them. Democrats are bad because they are the other team. We don’t need to know what “woke” means - it’s just a word that describes people on the bad team.
If you manage to avoid the trigger words, and they haven’t been propagandized on whatever specific topic, it’s really easy to convince them to agree with a lot of left leaning ideas.
DDT? That's that shit that I use on my side of the watershed to keep mosquitoes at bay.i make sure to dump what ever is left from my spay bottles down stream to kill the neighbors mosquitos too
We already do, I implore you to learn how the omnibus agriculture bill that goes through congress each year actually works. Most food production is entirely government funded, but for some reason a bunch of “profits” also get skimmed off by big corporations. Rural America only exists because of farm subsidies (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just dumb to pretend like it’s not collectivized and allow leeches to profiteer).
Really? Why did they allow those private farms at all then? My understanding was that the farms that were collectivized only produced enough for themselves to eat, so they went back a little and said "okay, you can have SOME capitalism until we get it figured out". How they figured it out was quotas, and hey, on paper it looks good. You just have to tell Stalin a good number. Somehow the store room's still empty.
It's not just them. Everyone wants to be angry. But just sitting around feeding it without channeling it to a productive* end isn't improving anything.
Mutual aid most days, , got my town a Little Free Library (research to installation), keep it stocked, planning a community garden, volunteer with my town distributing free, fresh produce.
When watching the TV Series The Handmaid Tales I kept thinking that things like their very heavy security appartus, military for the continuing seccession war and heavy use of dedicated manpower doing manual work in house chores (at least for the upper classes) would use too much manpower, taking it away from actual productive activities and thus making a modern nation level of life (in the material sense, not other senses) unsustainable, though Gilead could sorta keep going for a while drawing down on the wealth of the part of the US from were it was formed, before falling down to mid-XX century South American levels of wealth or worse.
However temporary slavery like this "national duty field work" might actually "solve" some of the agricultural production manpower shortage problems in such a society.
So it actually makes sense (in a sick way) that it's appealing to the most extreme Fascist amongst the Republicans.
Also, in terms of understanding how things happen, this is definitely not a bad thing.
So many people take everything for granted. I worked a couple of years in agriculture. Long days, tough work. I will never look down on a farmer, and it thought me some neat lessons in life too.
You get paid for jury duty. Making a living off of that? When i read national duty i heard conscription in my head. Maybe because i just assume the idea is as good as the compensation.
I worked on a farm from 23-30 and my body is kinda destroyed now. Had surgery on my wrist, my back hurts all the time. I'm getting arthritis in my fingers and knees. All at the ripe age of 36.
It's definitely valuable work, but there's a reason old farmers tend to walk like Arthur Morgan.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that if everyone was pitching in for a season of farm work, less people overall would be doing 8/15/etc consecutive years and getting their bodies destroyed.
It depends on the farm. It's not completely unskilled labor, especially if you're dealing with livestock or large machinery like what's used for harvesting/spreading manure/tilling.
Implementing something like what's being suggested would require some sort if funding from the government to train people to get ready to do it, and honestly a lot of farmers aren't going to want a bunch of green farmhands all at the same time. In a lot of cases it'd be more trouble than it's worth.
Asking someone who has never been on a farm to just jump in on an operation and be helpful is kinda setting everyone up to fail. There's more to a farm than picking crops and cleaning up animal poop.
I mean, something simple like fixing a fence can be a pain in the ass if you dont know what youre doing. Plus, theres a lot of ways to get hurt or killed if you're not familiar with the environment.
Is it better to force poor people to work in farms to survive? In a world where a large number of 'modern' westernized countries have active military conscription for young people, I don't see this as being worse than that, either. The thing with slavery, is that it is lifetime, unpaid, terrible conditions, based on a feeling of superiority, only for the targeted groups, etc.
Of course, the better solution is just to treat farm workers fairly and pay them well, and work on automation at the same time. But rich people were forced to work in farms too, the conditions would probably get a whole lot nicer for everyone involved, and it would probably create a pretty big incentive to start automation as well.
edit: to actually be fine, it would have to be run by the govt. on nationally owned farms, like schools are, for workers to be paid and well treated, and for rich people to not be exempt
Problems arose immediately for the A-TEAM nationwide. In California's Salinas Valley, 200 teenagers from New Mexico, Kansas and Wyoming quit after just two weeks on the job. "We worked three days and all of us are broke," the Associated Press quoted one teen as saying. Students elsewhere staged strikes. At the end, the A-TEAM was considered a giant failure and was never tried again.
"These [high school students] had the words and whiteness to say what they were feeling and could act out in a way that Mexican-Americans who had been living this way for decades simply didn't have the power or space for the American public to listen to them," [Stony Brook University history professor Lori A. Flores] says. "The students dropped out because the conditions were so atrocious, and the growers weren't able to mask that up."
She says the A-TEAM "reveals a very important reality: It's not about work ethic [for undocumented workers]. It's about [the fact] that this labor is not meant to be done under such bad conditions and bad wages."
And what one dude who went through the program as a 17 year old has to say about it now:
But he says the experience also taught them empathy toward immigrant workers that Carter says the rest of the country should learn, especially during these times.
"There's nothing you can say to us that [migrant laborers] are rapists or they're lazy," he says. "We know the work they do. And they do it all their lives, not just one summer for a couple of months. And they raise their families on it. Anyone ever talks bad on them, I always think, 'Keep talking, buddy, because I know what the real deal is.' "
My reading is that it failed because there was no political will to actually provide for local-born farmers any more than immigrants. And as such, it was doomed to fail from the start.
People in University or with University Education will "of course" be exempted from this duty which, by an amazing coincidence will exempt the scions of the rich and upper middle class.
It's a similar technique as what's used in not just the US but also countries like the UK to make sure the children of "upper" classes don't have to endure certain hardships and have enhanced future opportunities even in accessing Upper Education: it's not at all *cough* *cough* because they're the children of wealthy parents, it's purelly because they frequent (expensive) private schools and the children of the poor and working class too when they frequent such schools have access to those things (the "small" detail that the poor and working class cannot actually afford it, remains unsaid).
Whenever a Neoliberal talks about how meritocratic their system is, remember that they defend privatised education, something which as I explained above just means a two tier system were those who can afford it purchase for their children easy access past certain gatekeepers of future opportunities such as access to certain Universities whilst the rest are in a different track - the state school system - with far lower chances, all of which is the very opposite of a merit-based system.
Yes, usa is a hyper-capitalistic country. Not all (actually none other) countries behave like this. But they all use the dollar as currency. The difference is that usa is the economic superpower but that does not make them control way the world world any longer. It disappeared when the culture war was lost. The war on drug was lost too and now there is a class war. Wonder how that will go
As someone who farmed for the first couple of decades of my life - no. We need to utilize drones for farming and ban the use of tires and fossil fuels (which deposit heavy metals) on fields.
Also pretty sure glyphosate/Roundup caused health issues for everyone I know and myself (all farmers/in farm communities). It's a neurotoxin and is in the entire Ogallala acquifer and most ground water around farms and their watershed. I spoke with a lead state toxicologist in the PNW about this. It verifiably has effects on fish and insects in the watershed here (which Monsanto claims is too diluted to have effects).
My father was a farmer in the 90s and wrote to Bill Clinton to ask for more regulation and study of the effects of pesticides and more protections for farmers in relation to pesticides and Bills response back was basically “No”. It did come on a really nice piece of paper though and had the “from the desk of the president” letter head and everything.
I emailed Trump and Biden both about implementing a free national online school prek-college, using adaptive learning and with no time restrictions. Kids can use this online school as a supplement to regular schooling or in lieu of. This way, parents who are concerned about school shootings or illness can still feel like their kid is getting an okay education.
Adults who have already graduated can take these classes to refresh knowledge (helping to combat misinformation online). If Christians want to teach and learn Christian theory, fine, that can be in a Christian theory area (Christian science should not be considered actual science but instead a theology).
Teachers can compete for best online class and schools and teachers could get bonuses for the most popular material. The grading should be done by either a computer or paras who are employed at the national level.
Students then can also have access to various language accomodations and disability accomodations for all their lessons. This is also why there should be no time restrictions - kids with learning disabilities might take a year to learn a half semester of algebra, or young adults with jobs might also need extra time too. The time limits we place on learning are arbitrary and only help out people with advantages already.
Last there should be no general studies requirement with the adaptive online learning. If a kid LOVES trains, let the adaptive learning teach them all about trains. Maybe that means the kid will learn about calculating the impact speed of two trains colliding, so they incidentally learn math and physics. But we shouldn't require they learn math and physics if they don't choose to.
Anyway, I wrote this out to them and got really lame letters back too. It's crazy because this school idea is a legacy program that could cement a president's name forever in education, like how Teddy Roosevelt is associated with National Parks. Yet Trump didn't want the idea. Biden neither. Maybe Harris will like it. It's quite elegant imo and win/win. I've spoken with numerous educators about it and they have no criticisms. It's like our government doesn't want progress
I mean a national labor corps with incentivized participation isn't the worst idea. Gives people the opportunity to get work experience without necessarily having to understand their career direction in life.
Shouldn't be a draft in any circumstances but absolute crisis situation, like essential infrastructure is on the brink of total collapse and regular pay incentives aren't getting bodies on it fast enough.
Who knows, might get some people into work they didn't realize they'd gel with, plenty of inspector positions are behind work load and I've got s feeling a part of that is just people not knowing the work is out there.
I'd be super on board for this. Treat it similarly to the military, where room and board are provided, and they ship you to an underserved part of the country to help.
Especially if we extended the GI Bill to cover participating. Like, do 4 yrs and you get full tuition covered at any public university.
I think it would really promote national unity and help to lift people out of poverty. You'd have people from all over the country working together, bridging a lot of our internal divisions. You'd get people out of their bubbles and echo chambers and have them actually seeing the country.
If we could normalize it, where it's just what people did after highschool, it would give people time to figure their lives out. Remove the pressure of having to choose a career right away. I know so many people who "had to go to college" because that was the next step, but didn't have a clue what they wanted in life, so got useless majors and have dead ended. This would be perfect for people like that.
Plus infrastructure in the US is a joke. And even as the OP implies, farming is a broken business in the US for a number of reasons. There are never enough people working soup kitchens and food pantries, or cleaning up our national forests to prevent forest fires. If we could mobilize our young people en masse, we could make a huge difference in this country.
Yeah that's all fine but it's blocked by one of two major political parties in the US doesn't believe government should exist. At best they'd support a privatized version of the that siphoned money out and didn't help people that need help.
We're going to struggle to get anything done as long as conservatives are treated as if they have any merit.
No, I think that's actually the beauty of this.
The OP meme is a right wing meme. A national civil service is a right wing position.
I think there's a way to craft this program in a hugely bipartisan way. You get all the "patriotism, one nation, farms and country" stuff the right wants, and all the "infrastructure improvements, social safety nets, free college" stuff the left wants.
I think there's a real potential to get some solid bipartisanism here.
I heard in Finland it’s kinda like this. You have to do something like a year in the military or a year in civil service and I like it. Don’t want to do the military? Fine, do the postal service or some shit just do something. It’s like a great equalizer since rich and poor have to do it and they all have the same options.
Nah, fuck conscription, people only have a limited time in this world and you shouldn't be forced to waste it on the military/civil service. The options should be there if you want to take them, make it appealing if you want, but no one should be forced into any service.
The United States has had the luxury of an all-volunteer military for slightly longer than I've been alive. My name went on the Selective Service roster. They keep that list. They're having recruitment and retention problems. And the United States has a much bigger population than the likes of Finland.
We had recruiting problems because we had unrealistic medical standards. For decades people just lied about what they could. Then we decided to use a system that could actually check the records of recruits.
Once waivers were made easily available, instead of months of admin work, recruiting goals were magically met again.
I already think some kind of required (paid) community service year should be required for every citizen, so I guess part of that could be agriculture.
Required I think doesn't cut mustard, like I said, it should be required only when all other possibilities to address a labor shortage crisis have been exhausted.
Required service is something you do when you're in a weakened or threatened position with what you're invoking it for, so doing it unnecessarily just doesn't help quite as much as one might think.
There's better ways to address a perceived national attitude problem than forced labor.
There's great arguments here about how a service corps could bridge divides and give all youth a better pathway from highschool into the (often predatory) worlds of job markets and higher ed, and also great arguments about why mandatory service infringes on freedom pretty significantly.
Is there a way to structure a national year of service idea that gives people the freedom to opt out yet would still get chosen by many kids from diverse backgrounds? Like how do we get kids who have had a college fund ready to go since they were born to see the benefits of spending a year building bridges? It would be a neat cultural shift.
Probably from social isolation by everyone who did do that.
Like if the rich asshole kids wanna mark themselves out by skipping out on a national service that's their prerogative, just the same it's everyone else's to make judgements about them based on that.
That "some of y'all never worked a service job and it shows" tweet hits a lot harder when there's a federal budget for the messaging about the good of lending a working hand to your fellow countryfolks.
I'm pretty sure many of those farmers, especially the young ones would not return to the farm. Farmers are stuck in the fantasy that they don't need the cities. They don't need any products beyond what they need to ride in the their GPS controlled air conditioned tractor as it plows perfectly straight rows. None of which is built on the farm.
In talking with some of my RL R neighbors, we all have the same beef, but assign different causes. When we actually got to talking, rather than griping and throwing projections, both sides began seeing commonalities, in causes, and are beginning to see commonalities in addressing the cure.
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you're educated in the field of fallacies, you're basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you're doing, it's sort of cyclic in nature like that. It's interesting in theoretical thought though, i'll give you that one.
Interestingly enough, I had fallacies as part of my base native language class. Can't remember if it was middle school or high school, but we definitely learned about the most common ones like ad hominem, false dilemma, slippery slope, etc.
Kinda imagined it would be similar elsewhere, but unfortunately not I guess
i think these are probably relatively common somewhere in the lines of writing, but i'm guessing that nobody remembers them because they're all boring.
The thing is, fallacies do matter because they are meant to describe what is not "good faith" argumentation. They are sophistry. It's like, the basis of our modern western philosophy, and our current legal system. How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don't even know if it's logically consistent or argued in good faith? They don't even know what good faith is. Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It's like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world, and then expecting those kids to actually be math literate. You can't do it. You're neglecting fundamental (and I mean that word emphatically) knowledge.
It's like mental gardening. The ability to recognize and respond to fallacies in our own internal thinking helps us stay organized within our own minds and not fall victim to traps or scams.
No, fallacies are not something that you just accuse another person of. An ad hominem attack is a specific thing. A strawman is a specific thing. Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that's okay. It's okay to learn a complicated subject.
Sometimes though, when people don't want to do that hard mental load of learning fallacies (because they'd have to change their own mind regarding many of their own fallacies and heuristics), they dismiss fallacies and say "meh, but I don't wanna!" That doesn't invalidate learning about them.
How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?
this is part of what you would learn in philosophy. There are only so many ways to conceptualize things in a productive manner. There are hundreds if not thousands of thought experiments that prove this. Nihilism being a good one. Anti-natalism is another. There may be lines of reasoning that make sense theoretically, or check out in a logical manner, but which do not make sense in a practical applied manner. The age old question of "what is our purpose" is a classic example of this. There is no clear defined answer, and any clear defined answer given is not going to be a very good one. This is also why there are multiple schools of thought, and different frameworks with which to view the world differently, having a comprehensive understanding of these things allows one to conceptualize beyond the normal plane of interactions with other people.
Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It’s like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world
this is actually an interesting point, and i think i broadly agree here. The difference is that we aren't teaching someone math, we're teaching someone how to properly experience the world, and how to carry themselves through that world such that they don't make a fool of themselves for making elementary mistakes such as, fallacy. Obviously teaching people fallacy is the most direct answer to the problem here, but i don't think it's reasonable to teach everyone all of fallacy in order to mitigate this. Just like in math, how we stop after a certain amount of numbers, because otherwise it would literally never end. The math is generally the same beyond this point anyway, so it's redundant trying to cover it.
Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that’s okay. It’s okay to learn a complicated subject.
and this is why i think it's important to start at a place a little more fundamentally relevant to the problem here. In the same way we can't just pick someone up off the street and teach the calculus, the same can be said for fallacy. There is a certain level of relevant information that needs to be known before we can move to fallacy.
for example, i think it would be productive to educate people about the general types of fallacy, and the rough mechanisms they follow, so that they can work to stick outside of the scope of these fallacies, and stay within the range of good faith argumentation. I think similarly to this, you don't need to know fallacy, to call out fallacy. Fallacy is a fundamental failure of reasoning, and if you can point out that failure in reasoning, you can point out the fallacy, it's just not a formal "diagnosis" of fallacy in this sense.
How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?
Define "validity" in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn't understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That's entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it's a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren't right. The fallacies aren't the same either or else we wouldn't define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don't understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren't the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn't so important, what's important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book "Where Mathematics Comes From"
Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn't an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It's a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it's a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They're mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?
i didn't say we should limit it, i just said it's probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren't the same field, and they don't work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn't pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
to be clear, we're not teaching them that you shouldn't name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We're telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that's a pre req to this whole thing.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it's a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
Yes, and that structured, "valid" manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree "philosophy is just a means to an end."
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it's a fallacy. If your parents explained it as "it's not polite," rather than "it's nonsense," that's on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I've been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By 'previous information,' what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It's not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don't make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can't communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you're neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully
like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You've spent days arguing against this.
Here's my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌
Your response:
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn't have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.
you would definitely need to push this as a required junior/senior class, the unfortunate thing is that you need a legitimately insane teacher to actually learn something valuable from it. Generic course material doesn't work as well for something like this i think.
There are definitely some interesting ways to integrate it into english though, that's an idea.
mm, idk i'd have to see the class materials to be able to tell you whether or not this was true philosophy. The best phil classes are the ones by the insane teacher. That's how you know you're going to learn something.
Well he's still pretty young, its like an intro class but theres more as they go. Some schools have kept up pretty well, I'm obviously not in a republican state.
yeah, it's pretty hard to teach philosophy to someone younger than like 18. Just do to how abstract it is. Below that age it's more just general life advice i think.
Yeah in first year middle school its framed in ways that makes sense to the kids. Its all practical stuff, how to interact with each other, how to handle disagreements, what is an appropriate thing to say about someone else, how motivation and reward work, etc.
They've been talking about diversity and inclusion and such since they've been in school so they are eerily polite children. Very weird to me coming from school in the 90s.
yeah, idk i think that's generally productive stuff, especially with younger children, but i think when it comes to philosophy specifically, you should really just wait until senior year or so, and then just dive deep, and don't stop at any point. Once you've reached that age your brain has developed a relatively significant amount to the point where it can start to conceptualize these things properly.
It's probably even better in college, but even just doing a psych/phil 101 in senior year of highschool would i think be vastly productive to the average person as they get older.
So there was a reduction of family-operators farming between 1950 and 1990; by 74%. Of course, the number of hired workers has risen. On the surface that makes sense. I would imagine that farms hire illegal immigrants so that they can pay them less than the minimum visa-required pay (which is slightly more than minimum wage); probably also do not provide much in the way of benefits or vacation either. That’s my hunch.
But if i were a young man, and i went through college, and was struggling finding a career in my field and facing the student debt i no-doubt accrued during college, i sure as shit wouldn’t want to spend any amount of time doing indentured servitude. If i did, I’d voluntarily join the Peace Corps or something.
I have no issue with people choosing to do anything, regardless of the incentives. What i do have a problem with is the idea of mandatory service that people have no good choice over.
Fair. I get that. I do think it could be something great, but agree it would be better structured as voluntary with heavy incentives for participating.
That said, to your original point, I doubt the intent was to have mandatory service for recent college graduates. Most systems like this require service immediately after high school. So you wouldn't have a bunch of debt or anything at that point.
I don't see well-paid civil service as a bad idea. Farming is a way of life, done right, and some of us like it and are willing. When a friend in Germany was about finished with Gymnasium (secondary school) was being faced with mandatory military or civil service. They chose civil, I forget what they did, probably something in IT field. It depends on need and ability what choices are available, but there were several options available and they didn't hate the idea of a few. It prepared them for university, today they are living quite decently abroad, in the final stages of writing their dissertation. If the USA had this and did it correctly, (proper cool off breaks, hydration, well-paid with comprehensive medical), I see it as a boon with real life skills gained, money to start a life, and a more self-sufficient, yet interdependent society.
The person that wrote that is like 31 years old last week
and
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
My personal lived experience is the only valid one 😠
-Conservatives
(See also: the only moral abortion is my abortion, government spending is handouts unless it’s for my farm and business or subsidizing my unnecessary gigantic vehicle. Queers are bad but my daughter came out to me and I really wish everyone would stop bullying her, etc.)
Sure, but only if all Americans have to work for, and live on, one year of service industry work - like waiting tables, checking out customers, or serving fast food. Especially the rich ones.
Yeah no, I would die. I can't operate a lawnmower without crippling myself for a good couple of days with allergies, insects will go out of their way to sting/bite me instead of anyone else, and I am too pale to be outside for long periods of time without blistering. Stick me in a factory instead.
You know, it might not be a bad idea, because once regular people realize agriculture is exempt from minimum pay laws and OSHA, they might demand change
Or just make it a function of the military. A crop corps, if you will. We already have the Army Corps of Engineers. This would be just another civil function.
After all, food independence from other states, and ensuring the security of logistics supply like food, are an important part of any military strategy.
While I get the frustration with current systems, forcing people to do anything—whether it’s military service, farm labor, or any other work—goes against individual freedom. In a free market, people choose the jobs that fit their skills and interests, which leads to more innovation and productivity. Forcing everyone into the same mold is just another form of government overreach. Anarcho-capitalism believes in voluntary interactions and the power of markets to self-regulate. Let people work where they’re best suited, not where the state dictates.
There's always a question of where do we draw the line?
The justice system is a form of government overreach. To be truly free, everyone should be allowed to do absolutely anything, including murder and theft.
Hmm, doesn't seem like a good idea. People might infringe on other people's right to live, or more importantly, their private property. Maybe we should do something about it... Idk, adopt some laws, have police that can arrest you for committing a crime?
Okay, now we already have a government, but they don't do a whole lot. Yet to some, this would still be called overreach.
Ding ding ding, it's a fire! In your neighborhood! Who's going to put it out? Well the private firefighters are - IF the owner first sells the house to them for cheap. Otherwise, what's the point even?
Wait, shit... Maybe firefighters shouldn't be private either?
Anyway, this is all too much for my tiny mind right now. You see, I grew up somewhat poor so I should've gone and worked the farms at the age of 7 instead of going to school, which my family shouldn't have been able to afford under a completely fair, anarcho-capitalist system. Unfortunately, it was free for me - other people suffered and paid taxes so that I could receive free education I didn't deserve, and the social mobility that comes with it. I now have those peoples' blood on my hands, for they paid a little bit of income and social taxes.
I actually think this is brilliant. Most Americans have no knowledge or personal connection as to where their food comes from and what goes into producing it. The ag sector is also, sadly, rife with worker abuse, farmers commit suicide at way higher rates than the general population, and our food system is getting increasingly industrialized and specialized, with small farms getting gobbled up by megacorps. But because agriculture usually happens away from population centers (sometimes far away) there's not a lot of public awareness (or sympathy) of issues. Meanwhile soil depletion and unsustainable practices are setting the US up for all kinds of potential future disasters (second dust bowl, anyone?), and that's before you factor in climate change.
So yes, let's have all Americans get even a few months of experience with our food system!
I remember hearing that there was a similar concept in Soviet Union at some point, when normal citizens worked collecting fruits or something like that.
Wait, I've seen this one before. Didn't they already try forced farm labor? I think there may have been a war with this issue as a driving force in the conflict.
Healthcare: ❎ "No, that's communism!"
Mandatory Labor: ✅ "Yes, that's patriotism!"
🙄
Spin universal healthcare as "Those damn overpayed doctors should be forced to support their nation!" and BOOM, patriotism.
I legit believe it can be a matter of choice of words. I mean, for some issues.
Simply describe any leftist position without using charged words and I guarantee most republicans would be on board.
My mom is "pro-life." I interviewed her on what exactly she believed should be legislated. Turns out she's 100% pro choice but just doesn't like abortion.
Most people are like that. It's really normal to have views from all over the spectrum, not all from one side. Many libertarians maturely face the conundrum that they will always fight for the liberties of others, even if they personally or morally disagree with them. And I'm talking about actual libertarians, not the US "libertarians" their media has.mislabelled and confused.the nation by basically redefining that term to somethung entirely different.
That’s right!
Keep Texas Beautiful- Don’t Mess With TexasKentucky fucking hates Obamacare but if you try taking Kentuckycare (Obamacare+the optional stuff every state was offered+a convenient portal) they’ll fucking riot.
I really am disappointed by the amount of highway litter in the otherwise gorgeous state of California.
Careful, that cuts both ways. They decide what they want the words to mean...
We can do both. It will take time and strong, sustained effort. But we can do it.
Socialism/communism = “someone got something that I don’t think they deserved.”
They’re just bad words to people. I think a lot of the “normal people” on the right are just people who are too stupid to understand politics, so it works like their football team. You don’t need to know anything about the Dallas Cowboys or Patriots to hate them. Democrats are bad because they are the other team. We don’t need to know what “woke” means - it’s just a word that describes people on the bad team.
If you manage to avoid the trigger words, and they haven’t been propagandized on whatever specific topic, it’s really easy to convince them to agree with a lot of left leaning ideas.
We could call it "The Large Jump Ahead" or something.
We're taking all the glasses and killing the birds too right?
No, we're just going to start using that pesticide that kills bird eggs again.
DDT? That's that shit that I use on my side of the watershed to keep mosquitoes at bay.i make sure to dump what ever is left from my spay bottles down stream to kill the neighbors mosquitos too
Hell yeah brother! aborted baby eagle screeches
Heaven forbid we improve on the ideas using mistakes as maps and stepping stones!
Save it for your blog. We're shit posting over here.
I forget, is that before or after we contact the Trisolarians?
Before. This will create the necessary climate for someone to decide 'fuck it' and contact them.
For anyone else who didn't get the joke, I already googled it and figured it out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
If anyone is curious, I found it using, "Asian jump ahead" 😅
Nice, good job!
kinda abstract, how about "Down to the Good Ol' Countryside"?
Yeah, not doing volunteer farm work to give private people and corporations free work and profit.
If there were some state-owned ones that the food was used to feed public school kids or others on government programs, maybe.
But no way for someone else’s profit.
We already do, I implore you to learn how the omnibus agriculture bill that goes through congress each year actually works. Most food production is entirely government funded, but for some reason a bunch of “profits” also get skimmed off by big corporations. Rural America only exists because of farm subsidies (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s just dumb to pretend like it’s not collectivized and allow leeches to profiteer).
yaaay finally the US can experience famine and starvation as well! 🎉
Finally? Did we forget the great depression and the dust bowl?
Not classified as a famine
Of course it wasn't. The land of plenty could never suffer from a famine.
Listening to experts because they probably have good reasons for their classification 🙅♂️
Rejecting expert opinions because of my political "America bad" attitude ✅✅✅
Really? Why did they allow those private farms at all then? My understanding was that the farms that were collectivized only produced enough for themselves to eat, so they went back a little and said "okay, you can have SOME capitalism until we get it figured out". How they figured it out was quotas, and hey, on paper it looks good. You just have to tell Stalin a good number. Somehow the store room's still empty.
Who said it's volunteer work? They'd better be paying me
Your pay has arrived:
You work all day and what do you get?
They certainly didn't say it was paid work.
Oh, sweetie, that is precious. You are and have been your entire life.
Here is a complete list of farm subsidies you are paying for. The totals are mind bogglingly huge.
https://farm.ewg.org/
They want to be angry.
It's not just them. Everyone wants to be angry. But just sitting around feeding it without channeling it to a productive* end isn't improving anything.
I don't want to be angry. I want healthcare, world peace, and then to lie down.
Have you written letters, talked to neighbors, helped any out? Mutual aid, direct action?
What are you doing about it?
I don't need to be a pilot to know a plane crash is bad.
What are you doing about it?
See how easy this is?
Mutual aid most days, , got my town a Little Free Library (research to installation), keep it stocked, planning a community garden, volunteer with my town distributing free, fresh produce.
The billionaires are in shambles due to your actions. Thank you for your service.
They want to live like how they imagined their grandfathers lived.
But its mostly media lies and misremembered nostalgia
Will they get to keep the produce? Otherwise, this is just slavery and very much in line with conservative ideology again.
When watching the TV Series The Handmaid Tales I kept thinking that things like their very heavy security appartus, military for the continuing seccession war and heavy use of dedicated manpower doing manual work in house chores (at least for the upper classes) would use too much manpower, taking it away from actual productive activities and thus making a modern nation level of life (in the material sense, not other senses) unsustainable, though Gilead could sorta keep going for a while drawing down on the wealth of the part of the US from were it was formed, before falling down to mid-XX century South American levels of wealth or worse.
However temporary slavery like this "national duty field work" might actually "solve" some of the agricultural production manpower shortage problems in such a society.
So it actually makes sense (in a sick way) that it's appealing to the most extreme Fascist amongst the Republicans.
Where does it say you don't get paid?
Also, in terms of understanding how things happen, this is definitely not a bad thing.
So many people take everything for granted. I worked a couple of years in agriculture. Long days, tough work. I will never look down on a farmer, and it thought me some neat lessons in life too.
You get paid for jury duty. Making a living off of that? When i read national duty i heard conscription in my head. Maybe because i just assume the idea is as good as the compensation.
Oh maybe I don't worry about this because I'm not American...
Sorry
I worked on a farm from 23-30 and my body is kinda destroyed now. Had surgery on my wrist, my back hurts all the time. I'm getting arthritis in my fingers and knees. All at the ripe age of 36.
It's definitely valuable work, but there's a reason old farmers tend to walk like Arthur Morgan.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that if everyone was pitching in for a season of farm work, less people overall would be doing 8/15/etc consecutive years and getting their bodies destroyed.
It depends on the farm. It's not completely unskilled labor, especially if you're dealing with livestock or large machinery like what's used for harvesting/spreading manure/tilling.
Implementing something like what's being suggested would require some sort if funding from the government to train people to get ready to do it, and honestly a lot of farmers aren't going to want a bunch of green farmhands all at the same time. In a lot of cases it'd be more trouble than it's worth.
Asking someone who has never been on a farm to just jump in on an operation and be helpful is kinda setting everyone up to fail. There's more to a farm than picking crops and cleaning up animal poop.
I mean, something simple like fixing a fence can be a pain in the ass if you dont know what youre doing. Plus, theres a lot of ways to get hurt or killed if you're not familiar with the environment.
Where does it say you do get paid?
Maybe in that one aspect, but I'd imagine the mandatory labor at likely very low wages will make most people resent it more than anything.
Is it better to force poor people to work in farms to survive? In a world where a large number of 'modern' westernized countries have active military conscription for young people, I don't see this as being worse than that, either. The thing with slavery, is that it is lifetime, unpaid, terrible conditions, based on a feeling of superiority, only for the targeted groups, etc.
Of course, the better solution is just to treat farm workers fairly and pay them well, and work on automation at the same time. But rich people were forced to work in farms too, the conditions would probably get a whole lot nicer for everyone involved, and it would probably create a pretty big incentive to start automation as well.
edit: to actually be fine, it would have to be run by the govt. on nationally owned farms, like schools are, for workers to be paid and well treated, and for rich people to not be exempt
It was tried back in the 60's. It failed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/when-the-u-s-government-tried-to-replace-migrant-farmworkers-with-high-schoolers
Wow, never heard of this, thank you
Great source, thanks for sharing!
Some choice excerpts:
And what one dude who went through the program as a 17 year old has to say about it now:
My reading is that it failed because there was no political will to actually provide for local-born farmers any more than immigrants. And as such, it was doomed to fail from the start.
Caesar Chavez was a goddamn American hero until he sold out.
Rich people will be exempt, of course.
People in University or with University Education will "of course" be exempted from this duty which, by an amazing coincidence will exempt the scions of the rich and upper middle class.
It's a similar technique as what's used in not just the US but also countries like the UK to make sure the children of "upper" classes don't have to endure certain hardships and have enhanced future opportunities even in accessing Upper Education: it's not at all *cough* *cough* because they're the children of wealthy parents, it's purelly because they frequent (expensive) private schools and the children of the poor and working class too when they frequent such schools have access to those things (the "small" detail that the poor and working class cannot actually afford it, remains unsaid).
Whenever a Neoliberal talks about how meritocratic their system is, remember that they defend privatised education, something which as I explained above just means a two tier system were those who can afford it purchase for their children easy access past certain gatekeepers of future opportunities such as access to certain Universities whilst the rest are in a different track - the state school system - with far lower chances, all of which is the very opposite of a merit-based system.
Yes, usa is a hyper-capitalistic country. Not all (actually none other) countries behave like this. But they all use the dollar as currency. The difference is that usa is the economic superpower but that does not make them control way the world world any longer. It disappeared when the culture war was lost. The war on drug was lost too and now there is a class war. Wonder how that will go
I can almost hear the bone spurs growing...
Poor "volunteers" will do the backbreaking manual labor. Rich volunteers will drive the heavy machinery in air conditioned cabins.
You'll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Til you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
Saw Jello do a spoken word performance during the 2nd Gulf War.and he asked "Who would trust a country run by a Bush, a Dick and a Colon?
slayer song?
Good guess, and I can Imagine it's a lyric they would use.
Dead Kennedys - Holiday in Cambodia
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA
Thanks! ill check it out!
First time with surf punk? Try DK's police truck, soup is good food and Agent Orange's bloodstains or miserlou.
it is, thanks, i am learning the guiatr. is surf punk dick dale? i remember an album of his
Cases of bone spurs are skyrocketing
Repeat after me class.
FUCK
YOU
PAY
ME
As someone who farmed for the first couple of decades of my life - no. We need to utilize drones for farming and ban the use of tires and fossil fuels (which deposit heavy metals) on fields.
Also pretty sure glyphosate/Roundup caused health issues for everyone I know and myself (all farmers/in farm communities). It's a neurotoxin and is in the entire Ogallala acquifer and most ground water around farms and their watershed. I spoke with a lead state toxicologist in the PNW about this. It verifiably has effects on fish and insects in the watershed here (which Monsanto claims is too diluted to have effects).
My father was a farmer in the 90s and wrote to Bill Clinton to ask for more regulation and study of the effects of pesticides and more protections for farmers in relation to pesticides and Bills response back was basically “No”. It did come on a really nice piece of paper though and had the “from the desk of the president” letter head and everything.
I emailed Trump and Biden both about implementing a free national online school prek-college, using adaptive learning and with no time restrictions. Kids can use this online school as a supplement to regular schooling or in lieu of. This way, parents who are concerned about school shootings or illness can still feel like their kid is getting an okay education.
Adults who have already graduated can take these classes to refresh knowledge (helping to combat misinformation online). If Christians want to teach and learn Christian theory, fine, that can be in a Christian theory area (Christian science should not be considered actual science but instead a theology).
Teachers can compete for best online class and schools and teachers could get bonuses for the most popular material. The grading should be done by either a computer or paras who are employed at the national level.
Students then can also have access to various language accomodations and disability accomodations for all their lessons. This is also why there should be no time restrictions - kids with learning disabilities might take a year to learn a half semester of algebra, or young adults with jobs might also need extra time too. The time limits we place on learning are arbitrary and only help out people with advantages already.
Last there should be no general studies requirement with the adaptive online learning. If a kid LOVES trains, let the adaptive learning teach them all about trains. Maybe that means the kid will learn about calculating the impact speed of two trains colliding, so they incidentally learn math and physics. But we shouldn't require they learn math and physics if they don't choose to.
Anyway, I wrote this out to them and got really lame letters back too. It's crazy because this school idea is a legacy program that could cement a president's name forever in education, like how Teddy Roosevelt is associated with National Parks. Yet Trump didn't want the idea. Biden neither. Maybe Harris will like it. It's quite elegant imo and win/win. I've spoken with numerous educators about it and they have no criticisms. It's like our government doesn't want progress
I think there's just too much money in the status quo. I like your idea.
And just for the record, Monsanto is now part of Bayer.
Every* American Citizen
That's the beauty of it.
Conservatives will push for laws that affect urban public schools and have their kids in private schools or live outside city limits.
I mean a national labor corps with incentivized participation isn't the worst idea. Gives people the opportunity to get work experience without necessarily having to understand their career direction in life.
Shouldn't be a draft in any circumstances but absolute crisis situation, like essential infrastructure is on the brink of total collapse and regular pay incentives aren't getting bodies on it fast enough.
Who knows, might get some people into work they didn't realize they'd gel with, plenty of inspector positions are behind work load and I've got s feeling a part of that is just people not knowing the work is out there.
I'd be super on board for this. Treat it similarly to the military, where room and board are provided, and they ship you to an underserved part of the country to help.
Especially if we extended the GI Bill to cover participating. Like, do 4 yrs and you get full tuition covered at any public university.
I think it would really promote national unity and help to lift people out of poverty. You'd have people from all over the country working together, bridging a lot of our internal divisions. You'd get people out of their bubbles and echo chambers and have them actually seeing the country.
If we could normalize it, where it's just what people did after highschool, it would give people time to figure their lives out. Remove the pressure of having to choose a career right away. I know so many people who "had to go to college" because that was the next step, but didn't have a clue what they wanted in life, so got useless majors and have dead ended. This would be perfect for people like that.
Plus infrastructure in the US is a joke. And even as the OP implies, farming is a broken business in the US for a number of reasons. There are never enough people working soup kitchens and food pantries, or cleaning up our national forests to prevent forest fires. If we could mobilize our young people en masse, we could make a huge difference in this country.
I'm 1000% on board.
Yeah that's all fine but it's blocked by one of two major political parties in the US doesn't believe government should exist. At best they'd support a privatized version of the that siphoned money out and didn't help people that need help.
We're going to struggle to get anything done as long as conservatives are treated as if they have any merit.
No, I think that's actually the beauty of this. The OP meme is a right wing meme. A national civil service is a right wing position.
I think there's a way to craft this program in a hugely bipartisan way. You get all the "patriotism, one nation, farms and country" stuff the right wants, and all the "infrastructure improvements, social safety nets, free college" stuff the left wants.
I think there's a real potential to get some solid bipartisanism here.
Isn't it basically similar to the public work projects of the "New Deal"?
Without a draft it's just a Keynsian jobs program like CCC or Teach for America. Not the worst idea in the world.
I heard in Finland it’s kinda like this. You have to do something like a year in the military or a year in civil service and I like it. Don’t want to do the military? Fine, do the postal service or some shit just do something. It’s like a great equalizer since rich and poor have to do it and they all have the same options.
Nah, fuck conscription, people only have a limited time in this world and you shouldn't be forced to waste it on the military/civil service. The options should be there if you want to take them, make it appealing if you want, but no one should be forced into any service.
With Finland it's seen as a social necessity because they're neighbors with Russia.
Perhaps they will reconsider the 'need' for it with their new NATO membership. Will be hard to remove something so ingrained in their culture though.
I doubt it, but maybe. They're still what amounts to a front line territory.
The United States has had the luxury of an all-volunteer military for slightly longer than I've been alive. My name went on the Selective Service roster. They keep that list. They're having recruitment and retention problems. And the United States has a much bigger population than the likes of Finland.
We had recruiting problems because we had unrealistic medical standards. For decades people just lied about what they could. Then we decided to use a system that could actually check the records of recruits.
Once waivers were made easily available, instead of months of admin work, recruiting goals were magically met again.
I already think some kind of required (paid) community service year should be required for every citizen, so I guess part of that could be agriculture.
Required I think doesn't cut mustard, like I said, it should be required only when all other possibilities to address a labor shortage crisis have been exhausted.
Required service is something you do when you're in a weakened or threatened position with what you're invoking it for, so doing it unnecessarily just doesn't help quite as much as one might think.
There's better ways to address a perceived national attitude problem than forced labor.
We are in a weakened, threatened position. 🤪
There's great arguments here about how a service corps could bridge divides and give all youth a better pathway from highschool into the (often predatory) worlds of job markets and higher ed, and also great arguments about why mandatory service infringes on freedom pretty significantly.
Is there a way to structure a national year of service idea that gives people the freedom to opt out yet would still get chosen by many kids from diverse backgrounds? Like how do we get kids who have had a college fund ready to go since they were born to see the benefits of spending a year building bridges? It would be a neat cultural shift.
Probably from social isolation by everyone who did do that.
Like if the rich asshole kids wanna mark themselves out by skipping out on a national service that's their prerogative, just the same it's everyone else's to make judgements about them based on that.
That "some of y'all never worked a service job and it shows" tweet hits a lot harder when there's a federal budget for the messaging about the good of lending a working hand to your fellow countryfolks.
Nobody with a college fund from day one is going to see the service job tweet and care. They already have a rich kids club of other wealthy friends.
Why should we be subsidizing labor costs for large agribusiness?
I can think of a lot more virtuous forms of national service.
The next post explains that agriculture is so important, it should be controlled by the government, with quotas, and rations...
/s
Because then we can seize the means of production.
What’s “our farms” do we own the means of production? Do I get food or resources from this farm? Wtf
they'll take you to the town square and the agricorps will bid on you
You can eat all the apples you like just make sure you pick 4000 per day.
As long as every farmer has to work in the city for a year.
No, the farmers design bridges and dams.
The engineers work in hospitals.
The doctors we shoot for being nerds.
Perfect society.
Edit: we also kill all the sparrows for some reason.
I'm pretty sure many of those farmers, especially the young ones would not return to the farm. Farmers are stuck in the fantasy that they don't need the cities. They don't need any products beyond what they need to ride in the their GPS controlled air conditioned tractor as it plows perfectly straight rows. None of which is built on the farm.
That does sound really comfy
Please don’t make me work in a hospital they get mad when you take patients apart
I so want to make a farmer, who likes to complain that comfy office jobs aren't real work, work a phone support hotline for a year.
Probability that this person is over 30?
Every American has to do one season of farm work but all food is now free. Monkey's paw curls and all that.
Farmers can't just have free labor and still get all the profits.
There are other jobs for them. Not politics.
In talking with some of my RL R neighbors, we all have the same beef, but assign different causes. When we actually got to talking, rather than griping and throwing projections, both sides began seeing commonalities, in causes, and are beginning to see commonalities in addressing the cure.
Wait till they scapegoat sparrows
That’s how you get a famine.
They kind of are already taking the same tactic with refugees and immigrants.
Here's a reference for those who don't recognize this.
i think we should force everyone to do at least 2 years of philosophical education and study.
It would unironically be good for the average persons intelligence.
we can throw that one into the philosophy lessons somewhere.
Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌
i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you're educated in the field of fallacies, you're basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)
another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you're doing, it's sort of cyclic in nature like that. It's interesting in theoretical thought though, i'll give you that one.
Interestingly enough, I had fallacies as part of my base native language class. Can't remember if it was middle school or high school, but we definitely learned about the most common ones like ad hominem, false dilemma, slippery slope, etc.
Kinda imagined it would be similar elsewhere, but unfortunately not I guess
i think these are probably relatively common somewhere in the lines of writing, but i'm guessing that nobody remembers them because they're all boring.
The thing is, fallacies do matter because they are meant to describe what is not "good faith" argumentation. They are sophistry. It's like, the basis of our modern western philosophy, and our current legal system. How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don't even know if it's logically consistent or argued in good faith? They don't even know what good faith is. Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It's like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world, and then expecting those kids to actually be math literate. You can't do it. You're neglecting fundamental (and I mean that word emphatically) knowledge.
It's like mental gardening. The ability to recognize and respond to fallacies in our own internal thinking helps us stay organized within our own minds and not fall victim to traps or scams.
No, fallacies are not something that you just accuse another person of. An ad hominem attack is a specific thing. A strawman is a specific thing. Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that's okay. It's okay to learn a complicated subject.
Sometimes though, when people don't want to do that hard mental load of learning fallacies (because they'd have to change their own mind regarding many of their own fallacies and heuristics), they dismiss fallacies and say "meh, but I don't wanna!" That doesn't invalidate learning about them.
this is part of what you would learn in philosophy. There are only so many ways to conceptualize things in a productive manner. There are hundreds if not thousands of thought experiments that prove this. Nihilism being a good one. Anti-natalism is another. There may be lines of reasoning that make sense theoretically, or check out in a logical manner, but which do not make sense in a practical applied manner. The age old question of "what is our purpose" is a classic example of this. There is no clear defined answer, and any clear defined answer given is not going to be a very good one. This is also why there are multiple schools of thought, and different frameworks with which to view the world differently, having a comprehensive understanding of these things allows one to conceptualize beyond the normal plane of interactions with other people.
this is actually an interesting point, and i think i broadly agree here. The difference is that we aren't teaching someone math, we're teaching someone how to properly experience the world, and how to carry themselves through that world such that they don't make a fool of themselves for making elementary mistakes such as, fallacy. Obviously teaching people fallacy is the most direct answer to the problem here, but i don't think it's reasonable to teach everyone all of fallacy in order to mitigate this. Just like in math, how we stop after a certain amount of numbers, because otherwise it would literally never end. The math is generally the same beyond this point anyway, so it's redundant trying to cover it.
and this is why i think it's important to start at a place a little more fundamentally relevant to the problem here. In the same way we can't just pick someone up off the street and teach the calculus, the same can be said for fallacy. There is a certain level of relevant information that needs to be known before we can move to fallacy.
for example, i think it would be productive to educate people about the general types of fallacy, and the rough mechanisms they follow, so that they can work to stick outside of the scope of these fallacies, and stay within the range of good faith argumentation. I think similarly to this, you don't need to know fallacy, to call out fallacy. Fallacy is a fundamental failure of reasoning, and if you can point out that failure in reasoning, you can point out the fallacy, it's just not a formal "diagnosis" of fallacy in this sense.
No, I chose my words precisely here:
Define "validity" in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn't understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?
Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That's entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.
Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.
Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it's a lot to learn?
The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren't right. The fallacies aren't the same either or else we wouldn't define them differently.
Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don't understand all the nuances of Kant.
Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren't the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.
I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn't so important, what's important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.
With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book "Where Mathematics Comes From"
from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.
validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn't an innate philosophical concept.
philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It's a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.
likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it's a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They're mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.
i didn't say we should limit it, i just said it's probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.
obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren't the same field, and they don't work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn't pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.
so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.
to be clear, we're not teaching them that you shouldn't name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We're telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that's a pre req to this whole thing.
yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.
mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it's a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.
Well, agree to disagree then.
I never stated there was ultimate truth.
Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.
Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.
Yes, and that structured, "valid" manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree "philosophy is just a means to an end."
On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.
Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.
No, kids are taught that it's a fallacy. If your parents explained it as "it's not polite," rather than "it's nonsense," that's on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I've been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).
By 'previous information,' what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It's not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don't make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can't communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you're neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.
This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You've spent days arguing against this.
Here's my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:
Your response:
But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼♀️ Wouldn't have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.
Trump's new nickname should be the Orange Red Herring
you would definitely need to push this as a required junior/senior class, the unfortunate thing is that you need a legitimately insane teacher to actually learn something valuable from it. Generic course material doesn't work as well for something like this i think.
There are definitely some interesting ways to integrate it into english though, that's an idea.
A lot of schools have this already but are very good about naming them non-obvious things.
My sons is called success 101.
mm, idk i'd have to see the class materials to be able to tell you whether or not this was true philosophy. The best phil classes are the ones by the insane teacher. That's how you know you're going to learn something.
Well he's still pretty young, its like an intro class but theres more as they go. Some schools have kept up pretty well, I'm obviously not in a republican state.
yeah, it's pretty hard to teach philosophy to someone younger than like 18. Just do to how abstract it is. Below that age it's more just general life advice i think.
Yeah in first year middle school its framed in ways that makes sense to the kids. Its all practical stuff, how to interact with each other, how to handle disagreements, what is an appropriate thing to say about someone else, how motivation and reward work, etc.
They've been talking about diversity and inclusion and such since they've been in school so they are eerily polite children. Very weird to me coming from school in the 90s.
yeah, idk i think that's generally productive stuff, especially with younger children, but i think when it comes to philosophy specifically, you should really just wait until senior year or so, and then just dive deep, and don't stop at any point. Once you've reached that age your brain has developed a relatively significant amount to the point where it can start to conceptualize these things properly.
It's probably even better in college, but even just doing a psych/phil 101 in senior year of highschool would i think be vastly productive to the average person as they get older.
So there was a reduction of family-operators farming between 1950 and 1990; by 74%. Of course, the number of hired workers has risen. On the surface that makes sense. I would imagine that farms hire illegal immigrants so that they can pay them less than the minimum visa-required pay (which is slightly more than minimum wage); probably also do not provide much in the way of benefits or vacation either. That’s my hunch.
But if i were a young man, and i went through college, and was struggling finding a career in my field and facing the student debt i no-doubt accrued during college, i sure as shit wouldn’t want to spend any amount of time doing indentured servitude. If i did, I’d voluntarily join the Peace Corps or something.
This is insane.
Would you feel differently if people who choose to serve have student debt forgiveness? Like, if the GI Bill covered participants?
I have no issue with people choosing to do anything, regardless of the incentives. What i do have a problem with is the idea of mandatory service that people have no good choice over.
Fair. I get that. I do think it could be something great, but agree it would be better structured as voluntary with heavy incentives for participating.
That said, to your original point, I doubt the intent was to have mandatory service for recent college graduates. Most systems like this require service immediately after high school. So you wouldn't have a bunch of debt or anything at that point.
I don't see well-paid civil service as a bad idea. Farming is a way of life, done right, and some of us like it and are willing. When a friend in Germany was about finished with Gymnasium (secondary school) was being faced with mandatory military or civil service. They chose civil, I forget what they did, probably something in IT field. It depends on need and ability what choices are available, but there were several options available and they didn't hate the idea of a few. It prepared them for university, today they are living quite decently abroad, in the final stages of writing their dissertation. If the USA had this and did it correctly, (proper cool off breaks, hydration, well-paid with comprehensive medical), I see it as a boon with real life skills gained, money to start a life, and a more self-sufficient, yet interdependent society.
The person that wrote that is like 31 years old last week
and
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
old habits et cetera
What if we just make being black, like, illegal, and then we can arrest all black people and force them to work in farm fields...
Wait. This seems familiar.
If you run out of blacks to arrest, you can just go get more from Africa.
Why aren't drafts unconstitutional then? A draft for farming would be infinitely more valuable than a draft for murder.
I'm 47.
Get back on the farm, slaves. Danny needs his guava juice.
Get bent loser I have a job and house and life, if I go farm for you I'll lose it. Steal a kid like the army does.
My personal lived experience is the only valid one 😠
-Conservatives
(See also: the only moral abortion is my abortion, government spending is handouts unless it’s for my farm and business or subsidizing my unnecessary gigantic vehicle. Queers are bad but my daughter came out to me and I really wish everyone would stop bullying her, etc.)
Sure, but only if all Americans have to work for, and live on, one year of service industry work - like waiting tables, checking out customers, or serving fast food. Especially the rich ones.
We unironically do this with people looking to get temporary working visas in Australia. It's wild.
Extend the working holiday visa for a second year. But close enough.
Yeah no, I would die. I can't operate a lawnmower without crippling myself for a good couple of days with allergies, insects will go out of their way to sting/bite me instead of anyone else, and I am too pale to be outside for long periods of time without blistering. Stick me in a factory instead.
Tobacco specifically?
Mostly cotton.
weed farm
You know, it might not be a bad idea, because once regular people realize agriculture is exempt from minimum pay laws and OSHA, they might demand change
Fun fact: You'll get like 10 $ per day and free housing (a bed in a shack) and food during that time.
It could start a.... Cultural revolution... One could say
Lets give the Peace Corps guns and deploy them domestically!
Or just make it a function of the military. A crop corps, if you will. We already have the Army Corps of Engineers. This would be just another civil function.
After all, food independence from other states, and ensuring the security of logistics supply like food, are an important part of any military strategy.
Will they have tome between the mopping and the pushups?
When your xenophobia and racism reached levels that inhibit your red scare, turning you into a bootlicker: united authoritarianism
I hate it, but it's preferable to Anarcho-Capitalism.
While I get the frustration with current systems, forcing people to do anything—whether it’s military service, farm labor, or any other work—goes against individual freedom. In a free market, people choose the jobs that fit their skills and interests, which leads to more innovation and productivity. Forcing everyone into the same mold is just another form of government overreach. Anarcho-capitalism believes in voluntary interactions and the power of markets to self-regulate. Let people work where they’re best suited, not where the state dictates.
There's always a question of where do we draw the line?
The justice system is a form of government overreach. To be truly free, everyone should be allowed to do absolutely anything, including murder and theft.
Hmm, doesn't seem like a good idea. People might infringe on other people's right to live, or more importantly, their private property. Maybe we should do something about it... Idk, adopt some laws, have police that can arrest you for committing a crime?
Okay, now we already have a government, but they don't do a whole lot. Yet to some, this would still be called overreach.
Ding ding ding, it's a fire! In your neighborhood! Who's going to put it out? Well the private firefighters are - IF the owner first sells the house to them for cheap. Otherwise, what's the point even?
Wait, shit... Maybe firefighters shouldn't be private either?
Anyway, this is all too much for my tiny mind right now. You see, I grew up somewhat poor so I should've gone and worked the farms at the age of 7 instead of going to school, which my family shouldn't have been able to afford under a completely fair, anarcho-capitalist system. Unfortunately, it was free for me - other people suffered and paid taxes so that I could receive free education I didn't deserve, and the social mobility that comes with it. I now have those peoples' blood on my hands, for they paid a little bit of income and social taxes.
I actually think this is brilliant. Most Americans have no knowledge or personal connection as to where their food comes from and what goes into producing it. The ag sector is also, sadly, rife with worker abuse, farmers commit suicide at way higher rates than the general population, and our food system is getting increasingly industrialized and specialized, with small farms getting gobbled up by megacorps. But because agriculture usually happens away from population centers (sometimes far away) there's not a lot of public awareness (or sympathy) of issues. Meanwhile soil depletion and unsustainable practices are setting the US up for all kinds of potential future disasters (second dust bowl, anyone?), and that's before you factor in climate change.
So yes, let's have all Americans get even a few months of experience with our food system!
Without pay i assume.
It's not just a Maoist idea though.
I remember hearing that there was a similar concept in Soviet Union at some point, when normal citizens worked collecting fruits or something like that.
Wait, I've seen this one before. Didn't they already try forced farm labor? I think there may have been a war with this issue as a driving force in the conflict.
Then free food suplimentation for life? Maybe... ask me when I'm not high and hungry.
But then they should consequently call it
ReichUS Labor Service.country roads, take me home up to the mountains, down to the farms~
I really love when people get radicalised because of maga cunts and proceed to think that everything opposite is heaven on earth