- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.
Again, I have to apologise for my gross statement, which did not reflect what I was meaning to say. I do not think that education should only be treated as an economic good, which is all you have portrayed your position to be.
This is a good argument.
I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed.
Thank you for the compliment. I am assuming that you would tend to agree with the argument.
I also agree with your statement that the parent wants the child to succeed. However, I think that this is not enough reason to say that a child should not be allowed the choice to learn about creationism in school.
The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?
parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).
anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.
But look, with regards to choice of subjects/topics being taught in schools, this would be greatly irrelevant. The child may not have the legal right of consent in cases that relate to contracts, but with regards to choosing what they study in school, I would think that they very much have a legal right to do so. For example, should one ban children or anyone under the legal age of consent from choosing to study Chemistry over Biology? This is where I think you'll go down a very slippery slope.
If they were culpable, yes.
Of course they are! Children can still be legally charged for committing crimes. But how do you think the question of culpability has any bearing on whether they should be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want to learn about creationism?
Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.
Again, I do not see that such a person would necessarily make the best choice for the child. This is simply a false appeal to authority.
Yes, I am.
What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)
Well, are you saying that we should entirely disregard the child's choices? As I have said, to make informed choices, one must have choices in the first place. And I think that students should at least have the choice to study creationism as a topic, which is what this entire debate is about.
I would not limit myself to suggesting a specific list. But, I would think that theology (which the topic of creationism should be taught under, in my opinion) should be on that list.
aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.
Haha. Thanks for the compliment. I still find my writings very convoluted at times, which is why I have had to rephrase my arguments when I am debating with you and I sincerely apologise for that.
It mothered modern culure but it is not actually modern culture.
I didn't say it was modern culture. Don't misconstrue my words.
Works of art, music, and sculptures. These things are luxuries. not at all important to the many problems that plague our world today.
And inventions of science and technology are not luxuries? Tell that to those living in absolute poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Furthermore, instruments do not solve our problems, people do. And for people to have the impetus to solve problems, we need to constantly self-reflect and think about how our actions impact others. This was what the Chinese philosopher Confucius argued for. Confucius recommended that people reflected on their actions three times each day. If I were to use this example, a majority of people might not be able to understand what the Confucius's Analects says in the original text, but that does not mean that it is not important.
Reguardless of what it says. It only helps if people can understand it. Which, the majority cant. And im pretty sure modern writers have written the same things in language that is easy for everyone to understand. Shakespeare just wrote it first.
My first literature teacher told me that those who say exactly what you are saying that it is difficult to understand Shakespeare, haven't actually read Shakespeare at all. You obviously show yourself to be extremely uncultured, specifically when it comes to Shakespearean literature.
And, you'd find that most modern writers draw huge references to Shakespeare's work. One example is the two-time Booker Prize winner and 2003 Nobel Laureate in Literature, essayist, novelist linguist and translator J.M. Coetzee. For example, in his book Disgrace, he quotes Shakespeare's Sonnet 1, "From fairest creature we desire increase, / that thereby beauty's rose might never die." Beautiful words written by Shakespeare. Coetzee quoted this to depict the irrational rationalisation of a sex addict who's a, fictional, communications professor. The novel, Disgrace, sets itself to highlight the life of those who have experienced the gruesome Apartheid in South Africa. And anyone who knows any history about the Apartheid and racial discrimination and conflict would know that this book is not only a great contribution to our English and, more importantly, South African cultures, but also a great reminder of the irrationality of racial discrimination. I would think that that is an important problem in the world today.
The point is it's irrelevant in modern day. Past culture is not important at all.
How so? Past culture is the mother of modern culture. All of modern culture is rooted in the past culture.
Science is. Logic is. Skills are needed in economics, foreign affairs, science and technology, engineering, ext.
And very little of those skills are needed in creating works of art, such as music and sculptures, where an understanding of literature would be important.
In a world with war, global warming, terrorism, and increasing demand for technological advancement, Shakespeare is out or place.
Really? The last I checked, works of Shakespeare have provided mirrors of human nature. They show how the best and worst of humans can act when in various environments. Such depictions would give us opportunities to reflect upon our own actions and perhaps help us make better decisions in the future.
And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?
Whether or not which party has the best interests of the child should have little influence whether or not the child should be given the choice of being taught creationism or not. Just because one has the child's best interests at heart does not necessarily imply that one always will make the best decisions for the child or even tend to make the best decisions for the child.
A market good that has a higher marginal utility (is more useful) is a better available means to achieve the ends desired than some other means. That is an economic definition of superior quality.
I should have re-phrased and first ask you the question, "More useful, to who?" Yes, I do not doubt that your economic definition is true when we are speaking about economic goods. However, just as you argue that education is not necessarily a right, I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good. That is because education has such a large disparity in terms of variety and it's impact on people that it cannot be analysed as a whole. What is important is not completely cutting out the possibility of giving the widest and most sensible range of education options to students to choose from, which is what this debate is about.
It is the parents' responsibility to see to the education of the child. Doing that in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child is not bad. The government doing that in a manner that is in the best interest of the state, and not the child, is a bad thing. I stand by my statement.
Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.
The parents are acting as a proxy for the child, in the absence of the legal right to choose their own education and the child's inability to make a rational decision as to what sort of education is in his own self interest.
Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?
Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.
No, it is a criteria for choosing the child's proxy.
And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?
(1) Bearing in mind that the government will always make decisions based upon what is good for the government and (2) no third party would be any more likely to protect the interests of the child
On what basis do make these claims?
what criteria would you use to choose the child's proxy for deciding what is best for that child?
Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?
The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.
But what you are doing is using the children's education merely as a means to an end (i.e. your personal feeling of achievement in having a successful child). You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.
A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.
How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?
You quoting Murphey does not answer my question. If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?
The parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child.
Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.
Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion. Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.
Really? What about being stage and/or screen actors? Or scriptwriters? How about journalists, news anchors and TV program hosts? Those who work in the advertising and marketing industries? These are just some jobs which could very possibly require a higher level of proficiency in the English language. And just because it is not a job requirement does not make it invaluable as a form of knowledge. For example, being able to press and fold clothes might not be a major job requirement other than perhaps a domestic helper, but that does not mean that it is not an important, fundamental lifeskill. In the context of literature, the study of literature at such levels helps to preserve and perhaps enrich the culture of English speaking societies. Just as infrastructure and sculpture preserve the architectural heritage of a society, works of literature, such as those by Shakespeare, preserve the language heritage of our society.
So, there would be a free market of ideas, right?
You support a free market of ideas, right? Okay, let's look at what you say.
I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most
Wait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.
than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.
Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement.
There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.
And I agree with you, so I have no idea why you are trying to dispute my argument.
And the rest of your statement is thoroughly convoluted, so I have no idea what I am supposed to rebut and/or clarify.
I did a brief search of quotes by Norman L. Geisler, the author of the book that you've raised.
One of the quotes I found is this. Norman said, “A skeptic once said to me, 'I don't believe the Bible because it has miracles.' I said, 'Name one.' He said, 'Turning water into wine. Do you believe that?' I said, 'Yeah, it happens all the time.' He said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well, rain goes through the grapevine up into the grape, and the grape turns into wine. All Jesus did was speed it up a little bit.”
Well, all I can say that there is absolutely no credible evidence that supports the ability of Jesus, or anyone, to "speed it (turning water from rain into wine) a little bit", to the rate that Jesus did (i.e. immediate transformation).