I'm ashamed of my country
 

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:17:13 GMT, rw wrote:

riverman wrote:
I'm not so sure that they contributed to the outcome at all. We just
lost.

My point is that Iran comes out the winner because their allies, the
majority Shia, control the government. That's what the Sunni are so
****ed about.

Iran couldn't defeat Iraq in their war, in no small part because of the
aid we gave to our old buddy Saddam Hussein. Now we've done it for them
and all they had to do was sit back and watch. We've somehow managed to
lose the war politically by winning it militarily. Leave it to Bush.

A similar thing happened in Afghanistan. Aiding the Mujahadin against
the Soviets, on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend,"
led to the Taliban taking power.

Oh, goody...first Davie of Arabia, and now, Stevie "Chink...in his armor"
Gordon...

I'm ashamed of my country
 

I'm ashamed of my country
 

On 24 Mar 2006 14:33:28 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote:

wrote in
:

If that's what you think children need to be told, again, you've no
business being a parent or otherwise answering children's questions.

Richard--

Perhaps this morning isn't being kind to you, as your reading comprehension
seems to be way, way off. None of my posts involve "telling" or
"teaching" children anything-- not one dram of instruction or feedback
involved. You present the kid with a question that poses a scenario, and
then you ask little Billy how he would behave in that scenario.

Very simply put, before a certain age, if asked if it would be OK for Billy
to steal to feed his family, Billy would say, no, never, stealing is wrong.
After a certain age, Billy would be much less rigid in his answer, showing
an understanding that sometimes a bad behavior is more forgivable than at
other times.

This isn't "my" test. It's an important indicator of ethical development,
one form of which is known as the "Defining Issues Test", developed by a
guy named Kohlberg. It's one of the things some developmental
psychologists do to earn a living.

Got it? Children aren't being "told" a thing. They are asked a few
questions. Nobody tells them that their answers are right or wrong. It's
not for education or the imposition of moral values, it's an assessment of
the kids' ethical development.

Of course, now that we've cleared up this little misunderstanding brought
about by your little brain fart, is it safe to assume that an apology for,
or at least a reevaluation of, your assessment of my parenting skills will
be forthcoming?

No, it wouldn't an apology, but I've done the requested reevaluation of my
assessment: you've absolutely no business whatsoever being a parent, period, if
you subscribe to any of what you wrote above. Just because someone (or several
someones, as the case may be) has co-opted Socratic teaching and is using it
under the guise of their own version of psychological gobbledygook, it doesn't
make it not teaching.

And anyone who asks another person, child or otherwise, if stealing is wrong and
interprets an answer of anything other than "yes," particularly a
rationalization, as a sign of "ethical development," is in need a bunch of
ethical development themselves. Stealing is wrong. Period. However, that
wrong could be viewed as mitigated by the fact that a family would starve (a
greater "wrong" in most modern culture) if that comparatively-lesser-in-most
modern-cultures wrong weren't done. But a wrong has been done, period. The
victim of the theft still has been wronged...or have you forgotten, in your rush
to rationalized things into grey, that for every theft, no matter the mitigating
circumstances, someone loses something they had no duty or obligation to lose.

I'm ashamed of my country
 

I'm ashamed of my country
 

wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2006 13:02:01 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
m:

Like if they are kinda pregnant and need to steal a coat hanger or
something...if you teach your children such total bull****, you've no
business being a parent...mitigating circumstances are not a defense
to guilt, only a temperance to punishment...


Richard--

This stuff isn't "taught" to children. It's what they tell you when you
ask them the question. Apparently, the growth from the black and white
concept of right and wrong to shades of gray is considered an important
step in development.

If that's what you think children need to be told, again, you've no
business
being a parent or otherwise answering children's questions. There are no
"shades of grey" when it comes to right and wrong - right is right and
wrong is
wrong. The only time a "shade of grey" comes into things is when an
informed
and rational person is faced with a decision in which doing or not doing a
thing
they know to be right or wrong is mitigated by the good they believe will
come
of their decision to ignore what is right or wrong. Regardless of the
good
ultimately done, the underlying thing is still either right or wrong.

In all seriousness, you have a truly remarkable talent. Even when you start
out with a strong categorical statement, as in this case.....right or, again
as in this case, wrong......you always manage to come out at the end having
said absolutely nothing.

Wolfgang

I'm ashamed of my country
 

I'm ashamed of my country
 

wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2006 14:33:28 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
m:

If that's what you think children need to be told, again, you've no
business being a parent or otherwise answering children's questions.

Richard--

Perhaps this morning isn't being kind to you, as your reading
comprehension
seems to be way, way off. None of my posts involve "telling" or
"teaching" children anything-- not one dram of instruction or feedback
involved. You present the kid with a question that poses a scenario, and
then you ask little Billy how he would behave in that scenario.

Very simply put, before a certain age, if asked if it would be OK for
Billy
to steal to feed his family, Billy would say, no, never, stealing is
wrong.
After a certain age, Billy would be much less rigid in his answer, showing
an understanding that sometimes a bad behavior is more forgivable than at
other times.

This isn't "my" test. It's an important indicator of ethical development,
one form of which is known as the "Defining Issues Test", developed by a
guy named Kohlberg. It's one of the things some developmental
psychologists do to earn a living.

Got it? Children aren't being "told" a thing. They are asked a few
questions. Nobody tells them that their answers are right or wrong. It's
not for education or the imposition of moral values, it's an assessment of
the kids' ethical development.

Of course, now that we've cleared up this little misunderstanding brought
about by your little brain fart, is it safe to assume that an apology for,
or at least a reevaluation of, your assessment of my parenting skills will
be forthcoming?

No, it wouldn't an apology, but I've done the requested reevaluation
of my
assessment: you've absolutely no business whatsoever being a parent,
period, if
you subscribe to any of what you wrote above. Just because someone (or
several
someones, as the case may be) has co-opted Socratic teaching and is using
it
under the guise of their own version of psychological gobbledygook, it
doesn't
make it not teaching.

And anyone who asks another person, child or otherwise, if stealing is
wrong and
interprets an answer of anything other than "yes," particularly a
rationalization, as a sign of "ethical development," is in need a bunch of
ethical development themselves. Stealing is wrong. Period. However,
that
wrong could be viewed as mitigated by the fact that a family would starve
(a
greater "wrong" in most modern culture) if that
comparatively-lesser-in-most
modern-cultures wrong weren't done. But a wrong has been done, period.
The
victim of the theft still has been wronged...or have you forgotten, in
your rush
to rationalized things into grey, that for every theft, no matter the
mitigating
circumstances, someone loses something they had no duty or obligation to
lose.

So, if any of our brave boys and girls in uniform currently serving their
country proudly in Iraq should happen upon a cache of weapons and other
supplies belonging to the enemy, it would be very naughty of them to take
those weapons and supplies.

Wolfgang
who doesn't think any of you guys fully appreciate how very lucky we are to
have such a high caliber philosopher in our midst.

I'm ashamed of my country
 

wrote:

And anyone who asks another person, child or otherwise, if stealing is wrong and
interprets an answer of anything other than "yes," particularly a
rationalization, as a sign of "ethical development," is in need a bunch of
ethical development themselves. Stealing is wrong. Period. However, that
wrong could be viewed as mitigated by the fact that a family would starve (a
greater "wrong" in most modern culture) if that comparatively-lesser-in-most
modern-cultures wrong weren't done. But a wrong has been done, period. The
victim of the theft still has been wronged...or have you forgotten, in your rush
to rationalized things into grey, that for every theft, no matter the mitigating
circumstances, someone loses something they had no duty or obligation to lose.

Evidently your favorite character in Les Misérables is Javert.

Take the quiz:

http://www.mv.com/users/ang/fanfic/quiz.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I'm ashamed of my country
 

I'm ashamed of my country
 

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:14:50 -0600, "Fiddleaway" wrote:

wrote

And anyone who asks another person, child or otherwise, if stealing is
wrong and
interprets an answer of anything other than "yes," particularly a
rationalization, as a sign of "ethical development," is in need a bunch
of
ethical development themselves. Stealing is wrong. Period.

Without ever explicitly stating that it was right or it was wrong, my early
history books and teachers were pretty unabashed at hinting that stealing
tea and pouring it in the harbor was a good thing ... a damn good thing.
Guess we better rewrite the history books so we can be EC.

Again with the "we"...tell ya what - you do some research, and you rewrite a
few. And when you do, try to be historically accurate. In these teachers'
gung-ho tea-in-the-harbor rah-rah frenzy, did either they or these books you now
look back upon explain why it was tea that they were telling you was dumped, the
occupation(s) of the ringleaders, or to whom they claimed that this alleged tea
belonged? And if they didn't, did you think to ask any such questions?

And here's a hint for your research - The USA is the USA not because a noble
grouping of extraordinary men wanted all mankind to live in the land of the free
and home of the brave, the USA is the USA because a loony king and his
government decided to try to take a little too much out of the trough. Granted,
the men responsible were some pretty extraordinary men, and they did create a
pretty extraordinary country, but unless you descend from the landed white
gentry, for the most part, they weren't real keen about hearing your ancestors'
opinions, their voting, or their having any real say in how things were run.

And as an aside regarding the tea, some folks might wish to look into certain
folks', such as (particularly) Benjamin Franklin, et al, views and position
regarding the aforementioned tea dumping...

HTH,
R