- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
A person should use those type of lower wage jobs as a temporary stepping stone. Live with a roommate or 2 for a couple years, go to community college, learn a trade, and you (and your roomates, presumably) are 'good to go' from that point onward--having earned a higher wage through (generally speaking) being a greater asset to society.
Ming is suggesting that the entire community has as much claim to one's child as their parent--as he is concerned about neglect & abuse. I am suggesting that is a horrible idea, as many people in the community are themselves neglectful and abusive in a variety of ways--and that the issue of neglect & abuse behind closed doors needs to be handled in a different way.
Well, also, I am sure you may have significant disagreements with how other people view life, the world, and thus how they want to "raise" your children. Now, to some extent, that is to be expected, as everyone is different and diversity in that regard can be a strength, however, there are most certainly quaky people with dangerously quaky or immoral ideas that I would not want anywhere near my kids, in that sense (if I were a father)--as they are simply a bad influencing, possibly abusive, and generally corrupting.
Thanks for clarification.
Now, I think we have discussed before, you (and I) see issues with this encroaching into normal human behavior (particularly male behavior) which is important to be allowed to be expressed--and, in many ways, maintains a (relatively) civil order and self-empowerment with the ability to rise & fall in a more natural hierarchy rather than the artificial. Do you generally agree with this? Or, if not, can you explain your general position here?
A lot of the #metoo cases demonstrate that women are not built for these kinds of bullsh*t, shallow, hook-up relationships with virtual strangers--contrary to what feminism (and 21st century modernity) has argued. Rather, they long for trust, safety, & security that is only found in deeper, more meaningful relationships with people (men) they know well. The reason they often feel abused afterword is because the "quickie with a stranger" relationship goes completely against nature. That is, in nature, if that happened to a female mammal, they were in fact given a raw deal. This is not going to change as long as we still have human bodies (i.e. are grounded in the human condition). Likewise, for men/young men, there is a powerful lesson to be had--not to "run around with" girls you do not know well.
There is my two cents.
The problem is, once one begins to get more fluent in "Chinese" (consider, as a substitute for 'the language of science' or Math), now one is able to actually understand what is going on in the culture, only to (fully) realize the people who taught you "Chinese" and many others (majority others) in the community are arguably legitimately nuts, just as is seen everywhere else in human society.
I used to think that the Physicists and others I saw crack a joke about that were in fact joking, not knowing they were downplaying a serious issue in the field because, amongst other things, science (and math) already have big enough problems on their hands trying to get the general public on board, so best to keep it "inside the family".
I guess Einstein, Nicola Tesla, Isaac Newton and Galileo must be idiots then because most of their ideas went against what was widely accepted. Every smart person is considered a crack pot because the majority of people are mentally ill.
That is actually the fundamental problem of the formal academic system, when coupled with the fact that those people tend to have unbelievably fragile egos and therefore demand thought control over their students, as they are insecure about their own ideas (for very good reasons). Resources as such can be very useful for a beginning and perhaps intermediate phase, when basic/general knowledge is still being acquired and guidance, direction, etc. can be helpful, although one must keep their own conflicting thoughts to themselves as not to "set off" the authority figure. However, after which point, it is absolutely imperative to cut off from the "master" and seek full independence in thought, as well as reflect on where the "master" was going wrong, filling in the holes, and letting one's independent creativity thrive.
I am not sure if you may have seen a recent post of mine, but as I have become more fluent in Mathematics and some of the closely tied sciences, you realize that Math & the Sciences have exactly all the same issues (and successes) that the Humanities & "Social Sciences" have. I used to think the enterprise of science was "air tight", however it is anything but--not due to the methodology, but to the people participating, with the "less than adequate" being the majority.
It is no surprise at all that much of the great work in the history of the Sciences/Mathematics has come from people outside the formal constraints who had full freedom of thought.