Right-Wing Discussion Thread Part Two

[Dinake]

Are you one of those people that thinks everyone to the right of your own particular brand of radical leftism is a rightist? Because President Obama controls the US Military, and he certainly is not on the right.

...where else would he be, though...?

He's strongly and entirely capitalist. Quite pro-military/imperialism. Doesn't advocate drug legalization, and only relatively recently came around on gay marriage. No support for a decent minimum wage, either, much less strong unions or socialization.

Like, I'm aware of my far-left stance, but I thought it was pretty much consensus that Obama is easily pegged as center-right...

Obama's pretty much a hawkish centrist. He doesn't want enough changes to be left wing, but he's too socially liberal to be on the right.

[Dinake]

Last time I asked this I think we were still in the old thread and I only got one response, so I'll bring up this question again.

What is your stance on education? Should schools be mostly (or entirely) privatized or do you favor public education with possibly some reforms? What do you think should be the focus of education and what should be taught?

Parents should have ultimate authority over their children's education. Thus, I support homeschooling and private schools.
The classical curriculum is fine for what should be taught.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Parents should have ultimate authority over their children's education.

And why is this? So parents can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs and insulate their children from facts that may challenge those beliefs? I mean, if your afraid of your kid being taught factual information and using that information to critically think his/her way out of whatever ideological tenets your feeding them, then you should really question why your feeding them that ideology.

[Germanic Templars]

Parents should have ultimate authority over their children's education.

And why is this? So parents can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs and insulate their children from facts that may challenge those beliefs? I mean, if your afraid of your kid being taught factual information and using that information to critically think his/her way out of whatever ideological tenets your feeding them, then you should really question why your feeding them that ideology.

Biased opinion =/= factual information

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

[Nordengrund]

And why is this? So parents can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs and insulate their children from facts that may challenge those beliefs? I mean, if your afraid of your kid being taught factual information and using that information to critically think his/her way out of whatever ideological tenets your feeding them, then you should really question why your feeding them that ideology.

Biased opinion =/= factual information

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

Agreed. Homeschooling is actually more beneficial to children as such children are more likely to develop a stronger work ethic and actually learn things than sitting at a desk all day absorbing information, but not being taught how to apply it.

However, some parents are not responsible and would you homeschooling as an excuse for not feeling like taking their kids to school, which is a situation where I feel public education is better.

[United Marxist Nations]

Parents should have ultimate authority over their children's education.

And why is this? So parents can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs and insulate their children from facts that may challenge those beliefs? I mean, if your afraid of your kid being taught factual information and using that information to critically think his/her way out of whatever ideological tenets your feeding them, then you should really question why your feeding them that ideology.

Everything, including whatever public schooling there is, is dripping with ideological content.

[Germanic Templars]

Biased opinion =/= factual information

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

Agreed. Homeschooling is actually more beneficial to children as such children are more likely to develop a stronger work ethic and actually learn things than sitting at a desk all day absorbing information, but not being taught how to apply it.

However, some parents are not responsible and would you homeschooling as an excuse for not feeling like taking their kids to school, which is a situation where I feel public education is better.

Eh but even then public education has it's flaws though. Went 1 year to public, easiest school year of my life only because I went to private education prior. In the end though it kinds falls on the parent because even if the kids were sent to public, their lack of discipline and their behavior reflects the parents.. Again back to the public education, it was full of idiots who didn't want to learn.. Not saying everyone but you had a large group who didn't want to learn.

EDIT: didn't want to leave an incomplete sentence.

[Conscentia]

Agreed. Homeschooling is actually more beneficial to children as such children are more likely to develop a stronger work ethic and actually learn things than sitting at a desk all day absorbing information, but not being taught how to apply it. [...]

According to what? Speculation? Or do you have actual data to back that up?

[Nordengrund]

Agreed. Homeschooling is actually more beneficial to children as such children are more likely to develop a stronger work ethic and actually learn things than sitting at a desk all day absorbing information, but not being taught how to apply it.

However, some parents are not responsible and would you homeschooling as an excuse for not feeling like taking their kids to school, which is a situation where I feel public education is better.

Eh but even then public education has it's flaws though. Went 1 year to public, easiest school year of my life only because I went to private education prior. In the end though it kinds falls on the parent because even if the kids were sent to public, their lack of discipline and their behavior reflects the parents.. Again back to the public education, it was full of idiots who didn't want to learn.. Not saying everyone but you had a large group who didn't want to learn.

EDIT: didn't want to leave an incomplete sentence.

I personally don't like public education either, but it seems unfair that a child cannot get a proper education because his parents don't have the money. We should work on fixing public schools.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Biased opinion =/= factual information

What biased information? Please tell me you aren't one of those people that think that public schools should teach pseudoscience like creationism.

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

No child should be indoctrinated, especially with moral values. Such indoctrination can be very harmful to children. The so-called "moral values" I had rammed down my throat made me literally hate myself for a while before I came to the realization that they were, in fact, bullshit. Let children develop on their own.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

Who said I don't question the news? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

[Old Tyrannia]

Last time I asked this I think we were still in the old thread and I only got one response, so I'll bring up this question again.

What is your stance on education? Should schools be mostly (or entirely) privatized or do you favor public education with possibly some reforms? What do you think should be the focus of education and what should be taught?

Everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their family's ability to pay for it, so of course I support what Americans call public schools (in the UK, those would be called "state schools" and "public schools" are what you call "private schools," confusingly). I do think that the British education system requires some reform, including a renewed emphasis on reading, writing and basic mental arithmetic. Too many school graduates these days have substandard reading and writing skills. On the other hand, I think it is good for schools to teach a broad variety of disciplines in order to give children a well-rounded worldview and to expose them to various areas in which they may decide to pursue a career.

Schools obviously need to prepare students to enter the labour market, but there should also be some attention given to equipping them to be contributing members of society. Students should be educated in the political system and taught civic values.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Last time I asked this I think we were still in the old thread and I only got one response, so I'll bring up this question again.

What is your stance on education? Should schools be mostly (or entirely) privatized or do you favor public education with possibly some reforms? What do you think should be the focus of education and what should be taught?

Everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their family's ability to pay for it, so of course I support what Americans call public schools (in the UK, those would be called "state schools" and "public schools" are what you call "private schools," confusingly). I do think that the British education system requires some reform, including a renewed emphasis on reading, writing and basic mental arithmetic. Too many school graduates these days have substandard reading and writing skills. On the other hand, I think it is good for schools to teach a broad variety of disciplines in order to give children a well-rounded worldview and to expose them to various areas in which they may decide to pursue a career.

Schools obviously need to prepare students to enter the labour market, but there should also be some attention given to equipping them to be contributing members of society. Students should be educated in the political system and taught civic values.

I think I more-or-less agree with this, although I'd like to understand better what you mean by 'civic values.'

[United Marxist Nations]

Biased opinion =/= factual information

What biased information? Please tell me you aren't one of those people that think that public schools should teach pseudoscience like creationism.

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

No child should be indoctrinated, especially with moral values. Such indoctrination can be very harmful to children. The so-called "moral values" I had rammed down my throat made me literally hate myself for a while before I came to the realization that they were, in fact, bullshit. Let children develop on their own.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

Who said I don't question the news? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Children will be indoctrinated with some form of moral values through education regardless of attempts to not do so.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

What biased information? Please tell me you aren't one of those people that think that public schools should teach pseudoscience like creationism.



No child should be indoctrinated, especially with moral values. Such indoctrination can be very harmful to children. The so-called "moral values" I had rammed down my throat made me literally hate myself for a while before I came to the realization that they were, in fact, bullshit. Let children develop on their own.



Who said I don't question the news? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Children will be indoctrinated with some form of moral values through education regardless of attempts to not do so.

Public Schools don't have morality classes based in any "One True Faith."

[United Marxist Nations]

Children will be indoctrinated with some form of moral values through education regardless of attempts to not do so.

Public Schools don't have morality classes based in any "One True Faith."

They still strongly imply a moral value system simply by taking sides in certain debates in classes. Like I said, everything is ideological. We are all already eating from the trashcan of ideology.

[Germanic Templars]

Eh but even then public education has it's flaws though. Went 1 year to public, easiest school year of my life only because I went to private education prior. In the end though it kinds falls on the parent because even if the kids were sent to public, their lack of discipline and their behavior reflects the parents.. Again back to the public education, it was full of idiots who didn't want to learn.. Not saying everyone but you had a large group who didn't want to learn.

EDIT: didn't want to leave an incomplete sentence.

I personally don't like public education either, but it seems unfair that a child cannot get a proper education because his parents don't have the money. We should work on fixing public schools.

I say we model off China's education system.

Biased opinion =/= factual information

What biased information? Please tell me you aren't one of those people that think that public schools should teach pseudoscience like creationism.

second, personal beliefs like moral values, and work ethics are not bad things to indoctrinate kids with.

No child should be indoctrinated, especially with moral values. Such indoctrination can be very harmful to children. The so-called "moral values" I had rammed down my throat made me literally hate myself for a while before I came to the realization that they were, in fact, bullshit. Let children develop on their own.

Third if you are scared of parents indoctrinating their kids to go against your idea but not question the news, then.. wth?

Who said I don't question the news? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

1: RIG, you know what they say about assuming, right?

2: As far as "indoctrination" goes, your issues are yours, my issues are mine. As far as kids go, when they become a legal adult they should be able to make their own. I mean I have seen tens make decisions and they are not quite the smartest of people. They are too naïve for the most part.

3: Everything.

I'll leave you with a quote: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear 100 battles."

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

What biased information? Please tell me you aren't one of those people that think that public schools should teach pseudoscience like creationism.



No child should be indoctrinated, especially with moral values. Such indoctrination can be very harmful to children. The so-called "moral values" I had rammed down my throat made me literally hate myself for a while before I came to the realization that they were, in fact, bullshit. Let children develop on their own.



Who said I don't question the news? What the hell does this have to do with anything?

1: RIG, you know what they say about assuming, right?

2: As far as "indoctrination" goes, your issues are yours, my issues are mine. As far as kids go, when they become a legal adult they should be able to make their own. I mean I have seen tens make decisions and they are not quite the smartest of people. They are too naïve for the most part.

3: Everything.

I'll leave you with a quote: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear 100 battles."

1. I'm still trying to figure out what things public schools teach that you would call 'biased opinion.' Care to enlighten me?

2. No, parents don't get carte blanche when it comes to their children, nor should they. In my case, indoctrination was actually psychologically harmful. Parents don't have a right to do harmful things to their children.

3. Considering I never once said anything about the news, I'd say it has nothing to do with this. Unless you care to explain otherwise.

Your not the only one who can quote Sun Tzu

[Freakoland]

1: RIG, you know what they say about assuming, right?

2: As far as "indoctrination" goes, your issues are yours, my issues are mine. As far as kids go, when they become a legal adult they should be able to make their own. I mean I have seen tens make decisions and they are not quite the smartest of people. They are too naïve for the most part.

3: Everything.

I'll leave you with a quote: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear 100 battles."

1. I'm still trying to figure out what things public schools teach that you would call 'biased opinion.' Care to enlighten me?

2. No, parents don't get carte blanche when it comes to their children, nor should they. In my case, indoctrination was actually psychologically harmful. Parents don't have a right to do harmful things to their children.

3. Considering I never once said anything about the news, I'd say it has nothing to do with this. Unless you care to explain otherwise.

Your not the only one who can quote Sun Tzu

Public schools, especially the Humanities program, are seriously wacked. As a WWII and Civil War enthusiast, I cringe when I hear things like "the Civil War was all about slavery" or "the allied victory was imminent." But then again, It probably just depends on the teacher. It just so happens that my AP World teacher is undoubtedly an alcoholic. It could also depend on the state.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

1. I'm still trying to figure out what things public schools teach that you would call 'biased opinion.' Care to enlighten me?

2. No, parents don't get carte blanche when it comes to their children, nor should they. In my case, indoctrination was actually psychologically harmful. Parents don't have a right to do harmful things to their children.

3. Considering I never once said anything about the news, I'd say it has nothing to do with this. Unless you care to explain otherwise.

Your not the only one who can quote Sun Tzu

Public schools, especially the Humanities program, are seriously wacked. As a WWII and Civil War enthusiast, I cringe when I hear things like "the Civil War was all about slavery" or "the allied victory was imminent." But then again, It probably just depends on the teacher. It just so happens that my AP World teacher is undoubtedly an alcoholic. It could also depend on the state.

If the Civil War, which the South started, so don't give me 'Northern Aggression' crap, wasn't about slavery, what was it about? States Rights? States Right to what? Oh, own slaves, thats right. And yes I am well aware all Lincoln originally wanted was a united country, but what Lincoln wanted to achieve is irrelevant because the South are the ones that seceded, and the South are the ones that attacked Fort Sumter before the Union ever fired a single shot. Why? Because they wanted to own slaves.

[Freakoland]

Public schools, especially the Humanities program, are seriously wacked. As a WWII and Civil War enthusiast, I cringe when I hear things like "the Civil War was all about slavery" or "the allied victory was imminent." But then again, It probably just depends on the teacher. It just so happens that my AP World teacher is undoubtedly an alcoholic. It could also depend on the state.

If the Civil War, which the South started, so don't give me 'Northern Aggression' crap, wasn't about slavery, what was it about? States Rights? States Right to what? Oh, own slaves, thats right. And yes I am well aware all Lincoln originally wanted was a united country, but what Lincoln wanted to achieve is irrelevant because the South are the ones that seceded, and the South are the ones that attacked Fort Sumter before the Union ever fired a single shot. Why? Because they wanted to own slaves.

Actually, It really had nothing to do with "Northern Aggression crap." Money. Money, Money, and more Money. The rich 1% of the Planter Aristocracy went to war over their cotton, rice and tobacco, so they could import them to Europe at higher prices, and in addition, avoid tariffs. And actually, believe it or not, the South Carolina Militia, under the command of P.G.T Beauregard, fired on Fort Sumter after the garrison was told repeatedly to surrender, and on top of that, after Lincoln tried to resupply the fort with an armed gunboat. A brilliant, grand-strategy to get the South to fire the first shots by Lincoln. Do you know why they wanted to own slaves? Money. War always about money, some way or another. In the South's case, it was a rich mans war, and a poor mans fight. I'm pretty sure if you went back and asked the average Confederate soldier why they were fighting, they would say their property (slaves, yes, I am well aware), and to defend their home.

[Freakoland]

Public schools, especially the Humanities program, are seriously wacked. As a WWII and Civil War enthusiast, I cringe when I hear things like "the Civil War was all about slavery" or "the allied victory was imminent." But then again, It probably just depends on the teacher. It just so happens that my AP World teacher is undoubtedly an alcoholic. It could also depend on the state.

If the Civil War, which the South started, so don't give me 'Northern Aggression' crap, wasn't about slavery, what was it about? States Rights? States Right to what? Oh, own slaves, thats right. And yes I am well aware all Lincoln originally wanted was a united country, but what Lincoln wanted to achieve is irrelevant because the South are the ones that seceded, and the South are the ones that attacked Fort Sumter before the Union ever fired a single shot. Why? Because they wanted to own slaves.

States rights to what? Money.

[Freakoland]

Public schools, especially the Humanities program, are seriously wacked. As a WWII and Civil War enthusiast, I cringe when I hear things like "the Civil War was all about slavery" or "the allied victory was imminent." But then again, It probably just depends on the teacher. It just so happens that my AP World teacher is undoubtedly an alcoholic. It could also depend on the state.

If the Civil War, which the South started, so don't give me 'Northern Aggression' crap, wasn't about slavery, what was it about? States Rights? States Right to what? Oh, own slaves, thats right. And yes I am well aware all Lincoln originally wanted was a united country, but what Lincoln wanted to achieve is irrelevant because the South are the ones that seceded, and the South are the ones that attacked Fort Sumter before the Union ever fired a single shot. Why? Because they wanted to own slaves.

I also love how you collectivize the entirety of the South Eastern United States, saying "they" wanted to own slaves. That's like saying all Union soldiers went to war to defend the Union.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Actually, It really had nothing to do with "Northern Aggression crap." Money. Money, Money, and more Money. The rich 1% of the Planter Aristocracy went to war over their cotton, rice and tobacco, so they could import them to Europe at higher prices, and in addition, avoid tariffs.

And that Planter Aristocracy was rich because it could produce their cotton, rice, and tobacco using unpaid labor, or, in common language, slaves.

And actually, believe it or not, the South Carolina Militia, under the command of P.G.T Beauregard, fired on Fort Sumter after the garrison was told repeatedly to surrender, and on top of that, after Lincoln tried to resupply the fort with an armed gunboat. A brilliant, grand-strategy to get the South to fire the first shots by Lincoln.

And guess what? Its still an example of Southern aggression because they had no right to be encircling the fort and demanding it to be surrendering in the first place. A United States Military fort has a right to be present in United States territory, and thats what the South was, regardless of the South Carolina Legislature's delusions about their nonexistent "right" to secede.

Do you know why they wanted to own slaves? Money.

Slaves were profitable. Even if they were fighting for the profits from slavery, they were still fighting to keep slaves.

Confederate soldier why they were fighting, they would say their property (slaves, yes, I am well aware), and to defend their home.

And for the Confederate soldier who was unable to own slaves, the answer would be thinly veiled racism, because for many in the south who didn't benefit from slavery, having slaves exist created a class below them, and socially it was important to them to not be the bottom rung of the ladder.

[United Marxist Nations]

Freakoland, you could've said all of that in one post.

[Freakoland]

Actually, It really had nothing to do with "Northern Aggression crap." Money. Money, Money, and more Money. The rich 1% of the Planter Aristocracy went to war over their cotton, rice and tobacco, so they could import them to Europe at higher prices, and in addition, avoid tariffs.

And that Planter Aristocracy was rich because it could produce their cotton, rice, and tobacco using unpaid labor, or, in common language, slaves.

And actually, believe it or not, the South Carolina Militia, under the command of P.G.T Beauregard, fired on Fort Sumter after the garrison was told repeatedly to surrender, and on top of that, after Lincoln tried to resupply the fort with an armed gunboat. A brilliant, grand-strategy to get the South to fire the first shots by Lincoln.

And guess what? Its still an example of Southern aggression because they had no right to be encircling the fort and demanding it to be surrendering in the first place. A United States Military fort has a right to be present in United States territory, and thats what the South was, regardless of the South Carolina Legislature's delusions about their nonexistent "right" to secede.

Do you know why they wanted to own slaves? Money.

Slaves were profitable. Even if they were fighting for the profits from slavery, they were still fighting to keep slaves.

Confederate soldier why they were fighting, they would say their property (slaves, yes, I am well aware), and to defend their home.

And for the Confederate soldier who was unable to own slaves, the answer would be thinly veiled racism, because for many in the south who didn't benefit from slavery, having slaves exist created a class below them, and socially it was important to them to not be the bottom rung of the ladder.

Slaves were just a small part of the equation. They still could of benefited from other forms of labor, like indentured servitude, or the ridiculously low prices that Northern business owners paid their workers (a lot of the time Irish and German immigrants.) The North did pretty well of that system. Slaves weren't the end all be all.

South Carolina was a different case. First of all, it is entirely subjective if they had a "right" to attack the fort. I'm approaching this from a fact based view. Second of all, you collectivized the South under one case. South Carolina was also the first state to succeed from the Union, so if anything was going to go down, South Carolina was the powder keg.

Slaves were profitable, but as I said earlier, there were other forms of low priced labor.

Veiled racism? Really? Cause I'm sure that you know that all Confederate soldiers were fighting for veiled racism. How about to defend their home? Or because they need the money to keep their family fed, after working a crap job in the city?