Too much equality?

[SheWolf]

I've been thinking about this one for a while now. It seems as though with all these liberations, feminisms, rights for gay people, rights for etc etc, there has been way too much emphasis on EQUALITY.
Now don't start siptting fire at me just yet. Rights and Equality have different meanings. I'm all for equal RIGHTS. There is no reason why anyone should be denied something on the basis of gender, intellect etc. Up to a certain point. If a certain person is needed for a certain task, then there is nothing illegal about the discrimination made. Not in Australia at least.

Furthermore, what I found interesting was that in sports, Martial Arts etc, the instructor is allowed to discriminate if he believes that the activity will be detrimental to the woman/man (more often than not, the woman). Now, I agree with this. I don't care what anyone says, women are NOT physically equal to men. I'm getting tired of hearing women complaining about not being accepted to do certain menial jobs because of their gender.

There's also this naive belief that everyone is intellectually capable of everything. There's a reason why some people are readily more adept to certain things than others. Taking music as an example, person (a)'s abilities seem natural and learnng about music and how to create it comes easily and strongly. Person (b) practices and practices until his fingers bleed and finally learns how to compose a song, but he will never have that inherent 'spark' that person (a) has. Maybe, just maybe, person (b) has a dfferent calling.

Has anyone ever heard of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences? It's usually referred to in education. Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way. It could be artistic, musical, logical, spatial etc. And it supports the theory that, by learning in a way that best utilises that person's intelligence (eg, through music for someone with musical intelligence) then they have a much better chance of learnign successfully. So let's look at it this way ... if a person with high artistic intelligence is having troubles with mathematics, because that is his weakest point, then we can assume that by learning through art this person can better grasp mathematics. Which contradicts the theory, because that person was not supposed to have a high mathematical intelligence. (like IQ scores, these intelligeces are supposed to be largely stationary).

Another example, Martial Arts. It has become so commecrialised in some aspects that it is being twisted this way and that just to ensure that EVERYone is capable of participating. Well, if everyone was capable of participating, it would not have had to become so rendered, right?

What I'm saying is, everyone has their calling. No one has potential for "anything they set their mind to" because so many people have been setting their mind to something their whole life without getting anywhere. Maybe people have certain things they're good at and certain things they aren't. Maybe some people are complete dolts even. I know what my limits are and I don't try to blindly participate in things I know for a fact I can't do. Why should we have to distort everything to fit our ideal view of humanity? It's nice to imagine that everyone's intelligent and has potential, but are people actually kidding themselves? Should we just accept what we've got and make the best of it the wy it is?

[IRON MAN]

:lovey: I think I'm in love.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that puts a bug up my Libertarian butt, because ultimately the pinkos who want so-called, "equality" can only achieve it by suppressing those who are naturally superior.

[SheWolf]

and here I was thinking people would have some sort of strong argument . :chin:

yes Iron man I love you too ... :madlove:

[IRON MAN]

Don't fret, there are plenty of lefties on here who will want to argue with you.

Hey, when you said Newcastle before, which state were you referring to? There are a lot of Newcastles in the world.

[SheWolf]

As far as I know there is one Newcastle in Australia...in NSW, 2hours from Sydney.

I'll just have to wait for those lefties then.

[IRON MAN]

Oh I see, I was talking about the east coast of the US at the time, I didn't realise you were in Australia.

I am seriously thinking about going to the US at some stage, but being from Tassie originally I am interested in finding out which states have comparable weather. I like the cold but find snow a pain in the arse.

I figure they get snow in NY so that is too far North, Florida sounds like it's hotter than the ninth circle of Hell, and I like to live on the coast, so that leaves the centre latitudes of the East and West Coast, which should put me somewhere about North Carolina, so I am just trying to clarify the climate with some of the yanks.

Hello from sunny Melbourne.

I thought you were up in Maine for a second there.

[viscousmemories]

With the exception of the first sentence, I don't see anything in the OP that I really disagree with. But since I have never heard anyone (even 'lefties') argue that all people should be treated as if they are identical in every way, I'm at a loss for how the conclusion in the OP follows from the rest of the post.

[squian]

This is exactly the kind of stuff that puts a bug up my Libertarian butt, because ultimately the pinkos who want so-called, "equality" can only achieve it by suppressing those who are naturally superior.
What is it about "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," suggests that equality comes at the expense of suppressing natural superiority? For that matter, what about this argument appeals to you, Iron Man? Do you believe you know who is naturally superior at doing certain things?

I think this political aspect of the conversation begs the question, who is the judge of a person's calling?

While the Gardner Multiple Intelligence's model is probably a better explanation for intelligence than traditional IQ, it is much less measurable. SheWolf, you stated that you know your own limits but maybe this is an aspect of your higher-than-average intrapersonal intelligence. If you know complete dolts, you probably know some who don't know their own limits.

So this leads us to a tricky situation. On one hand, if you treat everyone as equals within a particular domain, you will discover that some are better than others. On the other hand, if you attempt to pre-select for success, you are likely to get the selection criteria wrong on account of the difficulty in measuring a potential like intelligence. In a worst case scenario, you could pick pre-selection criteria that are not scientifically correlated to the potential -- for example, selecting by sex or skin color when what you want is logical-mathematical intelligence.

[IRON MAN]

:rolleyes: See what I mean. Someone's been reading far too many pinko philosophy books.

Bill Gates is better at making money that you.

Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than you.

Case closed.

[IRON MAN]

I used to have a friend in the Army, Jennifer, who was the epitome of what I think you are talking about.

None of this equality bullshit, she wasn't ashamed of being a woman, and she could be feminine or one of the boys as it suited her.

That's real equality in my book.

We didn't expect her to to be able to carry an M60 in each arm - but we never got a single complaint out of her when it was time to get the job done, (which is more than I can say for a lot of women there).

Actually when she was 6 months pregnant she could still run faster than me. :blush2:

[viscousmemories]

Wow, that's a really compelling rebuttal. :rolleyes:

[squian]

See what I mean. Someone's been reading far too many pinko philosophy books.

Iron Man, since I'm a better reader than you, let me put it in terms even a comic book character could understand:

Do you want the government to decide who is better at things or do you want the society to decide with a mechanism like the free-market?

[angrybellsprout]

Since when have movements such as feminism ever promoted equality and not just take all the rights and privlidges that men currently have over women and give them to the women while women refuse to give up any of their special rights over men?

I don't see too many feminists going out to rewrite rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over, nor do I see feminists at family court pushing for the rights of fathers. I don't see too many feminists in the military pushing to eliminate the sex gap in the physical fitness tests or encouraging males to be elementry school teachers. Why aren't feminists out pushing to eliminate the illogical pay gap in the porn industry? The male labor pool is much smaller than the female pool, yet men are paid hardly anything.

While I agree with the point of the post, that first chunk of it was pretty offensive to the concept of equality.

[Sweetie]

SheWolf,

Perhaps it could be said though, that there are many different things that the term "equality" applies to.

For instance, are all persons equal as persons? Yes. Equally valuable, equally recognized by law? Yes, this is the type of equality we want in our governmental systems.

But then there is a question of whether people are equally the same, with the same capabilities and same strengths and weaknesses, and this is very obviously impossible, as you suggest, it's just that the two things are different, equality under the law as persons, and then the equality that comes from more a compliment of persons, then anything else.

Some thoughts similar to yours, but it is the secondary thought that is yours, and it draws the distinction between the equality you speak of, and the equality others may speak of:

"This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold seperately......The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe).....is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole....and so on..... For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well."

"Orthodoxy" - G. K. Chesterton

Then there is the question that since all things can not be all ways and sideways, we have to choose one way for things to be, and disregard others. This doesn't make people less equal, it makes reason viable, and the contention is that on a government level, things that we all need, are more important than things this or that man may have a special wish or preference for, because his first essential need is the essential need.

So, I agree with you pretty much, it's.....reality.

Should we just accept what we've got and make the best of it the wy it is?

Yes.

[viscousmemories]

I don't see too many feminists going out to rewrite rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over, [...]
Can you site an example or two of such a law?

[...] nor do I see feminists at family court pushing for the rights of fathers.
Nor do I see Democrats campaigning for Republicans, or Coke trying to sell Pepsi. So?

[Ari]

Of interest, there was an article in Sci-Am a couple months ago that suggested there is really nothing special to being an expert in certain things. Practice makes perfect and often those who don't challenge themselves don't get better. They focused mainly on chess (as it is quantitate) showing that a Chess master isn't any smarter than those under him/her just knows the game better.

[Clutch Munny]

It seems as though with all these liberations, feminisms, rights for gay people, rights for etc etc, there has been way too much emphasis on EQUALITY.

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

don't get too swayed by rights either...means somebody has to grant them.

are ability and equality the same thing? a woman should be given the right to be pummeled by a man in karate...

i agree that it is stupid to rate math skills on a bell curve so dummies can feel good about themselves, but does that mean you look down on dummies? cuz i can tell ya- it is smart people fucking up the world. actually...we all do that equally.

equality comes from within...

michael :)

[angrybellsprout]

I don't see too many feminists going out to rewrite rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over, [...]
Can you site an example or two of such a law?

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10256

[...] nor do I see feminists at family court pushing for the rights of fathers.
Nor do I see Democrats campaigning for Republicans, or Coke trying to sell Pepsi. So?

If femidiots really wanted equality, and not to just screw men over, then they'd be pushing for equality in the legal system which just so happens to be extremely bias in favor of women.

[viscousmemories]

If femidiots really wanted equality, and not to just screw men over, then they'd be pushing for equality in the legal system which just so happens to be extremely bias in favor of women.
I think you misunderstood. I asked for examples of "rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over". That you believe such laws exist has already been established.

[angrybellsprout]

Did you bother even reading the thread?

[viscousmemories]

What a surprise. :yawn:

[angrybellsprout]

Try again genius...

I don't see too many feminists going out to rewrite rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over, [...]
Can you site an example or two of such a law?

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10256

[...] nor do I see feminists at family court pushing for the rights of fathers.
Nor do I see Democrats campaigning for Republicans, or Coke trying to sell Pepsi. So?

If femidiots really wanted equality, and not to just screw men over, then they'd be pushing for equality in the legal system which just so happens to be extremely bias in favor of women.

[viscousmemories]

Sorry, I didn't notice that sole link was your response. I've been spoiled by the people here who actually put time and effort into their replies. In any case I shouldn't have wasted my time attempting to engage you, and I won't waste any more of it.

[angrybellsprout]

Funny that you'd ask about rape laws that are written to screw over men at the same time that a thread is going on about such laws. Wouldn't expect you to understand such advanced concepts such as linking to a thread that is talking about the question you asked.

[IRON MAN]

Serves you both right for trying to complicate something that's otherwise pretty goddamned simple, and crapping on like you're the reincarnation of Jean-Paul Sartre. Now you're wrapped around the axle and arguing about pithy word definitions like a bunch of dicks.

It's not rocket science people - you have equal rights in law, and after that, it's time to take responsibility for your own life. Those laws don't, (or to be more precise, shouldn't), guarantee you anything - except the equal opportunity to pursue whatever, (you personally), think is gonna make your time on this Earth not suck donkey's gonads.*

And you don't have to be a poncey French Philosopher to understand that.


*I'm directly quoting John Stuart Mill here - obviously. I can't take undeserved credit for the "not suck donkey's" concept. Where did he say that? Uh ... it's somewhere in the back. :homer:

[The Jesus Lawyer]

equality should be more about your perception of your own place in society, not that of others...it should be about the self...applying it outside the self is what leads to inequality. it would be best to just forget the concept totally and just start living like the beasts we are. successful species don't talk about this...they wouldn't even understand...lucky them.

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Incidentally, that's almost exactly what I clumsily attempted to say in my first post.

[Freddy]

Equality should apply to equal treatment under the law. Discrimination exists and to deny that is ridiculous. What many ask for is a level playing field. School programs that help students from poor families to have better opportunities for an education is one. Should we stand by when students come to school hungry? A city school has only 30 books for 120 students. None of the students can take the text home to do homework or to study. Ten miles in any direction in the suburbs each child has their own textbook, which is likely a newer version. Should we stand by and allow some kids to have less and then expect them to compete with those kids who have more? If every student received a good education we will have gone a long way to level the playing field. We cannot fix every problem in society, but we can fix those that help kids to succeed! Is that too much to ask?

[Clutch Munny]

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Incidentally, that's almost exactly what I clumsily attempted to say in my first post.

Yeah, in part I was seconding your vote.

[viscousmemories]

I hope that didn't come off sounding like "I said that first!", because I meant "Yes! That's what I was thinking, but failed to clearly articulate".

[seebs]

I think you have misunderstood "equality" -- which is not to say that there are not people arguing in favor of "equality" who misunderstand it the same way.

Equality doesn't mean "you must treat women and men exactly the same". Equality means "you must treat women and men with the same capabilities exactly the same."

Equality doesn't mean "we cannot sell more stepstools to women than men, because that implies that women are short." Equality means we should not demand that a 6'2" woman use a stepstool, while denying one to a man who is 5'4".

In the case of martial arts, your comment that it is more often women that are treated differently by a master shows the distinction excellently. It's not "all women are treated as second-class citizens". It's "people are treated according to their ability in and of itself, whether male or female; this produces some gender disparity in some cases."

That's fine. That's plenty equal. Equality of opportunity, not of outcomes, is the interesting question.

The problem, I think, comes when people try to reason from outcomes to opportunities.

[Watser?]

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Incidentally, that's almost exactly what I clumsily attempted to say in my first post.

Yeah, in part I was seconding your vote.

Can I add a :yeahthat:

It sounded to me too like she was attacking a position nobody takes.

[godfry n. glad]

Too much equality? Is somebody giving away excess equality?

If'n I get enough, can I be more equal than others?

[IRON MAN]

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Incidentally, that's almost exactly what I clumsily attempted to say in my first post.

Yeah, in part I was seconding your vote.

Can I add a :yeahthat:

It sounded to me too like she was attacking a position nobody takes.


Bullcockies! You guys are so full of shit.

She specifically mentioned Gardener's Multiple Intelligences, (is your Google Bar fucking painted on?), and cites it's use in education. Then goes on to give examples like martial arts.

Get your sorry butt to one of the more commercialised karate classes, and you'll see them running this kind of bull to sell dojo memberships to absolute downies.

That would be fine if the inept were just doing it because they enjoyed that form of exercise or atmosphere, and were happy to only ever achieve their modest potential, (some would never get off white belt).

But it's another thing entirely to lower the standards to suit everyone out of some distorted view of "fairness", until you are not even doing martial arts anymore. You're just doing some bizarre form of aerobics with punches and kicks that you flatter yourself to call martial arts.

Anyone in the US should be ashamed to have Australians, (or anyone else in the world), tell you what's wrong with this commie crap. The US is synonymous with freedom and free-enterprise. What the hell has happened to you guys in the last couple of centuries anyway? Shit.

And speaking of America, you want a widespread example closer to home? What about the No Child Left Behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act#Claims_made_in_favor_of_the_Act) Act? Did you know anyone at school who should have been left behind?

Of course there are people who shouldn't graduate high school - for a lot of reasons. The same way there is a percentage of adults who are recividous criminals, or other unproductive members of society.

That's not to say you can't try to help them, but you cannot justify an uneconomical quantity of resources to the task, or not consider the possibility that they may be beyond help.

I know some people who are beyond help, (at this stage), when it comes to learning calculus and it doesn't always necessarily have anything to do with IQ.

Besides if everyone were intelligent "in some way", then what the fuck are some of them doing in fucking high school? Some of them shouldn't even fucking be there.

Either way it adds up to the existence of people who just wont graduate high school, (unless the teacher ignores the fact they can't fucking read). Which is not even saying they can't graduate high school. But it is saying that it is uneconomical and undermines the education system to expend resources trying to bash that square peg into a round hole.

And if any of you fucking bleeding-heart Liberals think I was just talking about money when I used the word, "uneconomical", get your dick out of that dolphin and go back and read it again.

So who are the exceedingly rare individuals who take this unpopular view you ask? Try the fucking Republicans AND the fucking Democrats who both applauded this Act.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8237/nochildleftbehindactgk7.jpg

George W. Bush especially has no excuse for signing this, because he believes the Bible.

Now if God, who is supposedly almighty, can't even prevent some of his own angels from getting a failing grade, what fucking hope has an underpaid high school teacher got of teaching a petrol-sniffing, baggy-pants whigga how to do algebra?

[Plant Woman]

That was a typo, it is actually--no child left a dime.

[Awareness]

It depends on how you look at a person.
If you look real deep, then of course there is diversity.
This we so much need, of each other, this is truly what makes the world go round; our diversity.


Do you laugh with a hyena, or do you only laugh with man? Some laugh with the hyena, seeing no difference.

Listen to a joke(with perfect english), but do not look at him or her,
and laugh, like you always wanted to do.

(This I kept neat and mean, provoking by also saying one's possible reaction,
as preferring not to laugh any more, is also lame, we need everybody of each other)

[SheWolf]

I don't see too many feminists going out to rewrite rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over, nor do I see feminists at family court pushing for the rights of fathers. I don't see too many feminists in the military pushing to eliminate the sex gap in the physical fitness tests or encouraging males to be elementry school teachers. Why aren't feminists out pushing to eliminate the illogical pay gap in the porn industry? The male labor pool is much smaller than the female pool, yet men are paid hardly anything.

While I agree with the point of the post, that first chunk of it was pretty offensive to the concept of equality.

Angrybellsprout, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you’ve said here. I don’t understand though, what’s offensive about my post. Maybe I worded it wrongly. I meant to imply that the ‘equality’ present is merely a delusion people have and strive to support because it’s what’s ‘good’, if you get my drift. Women want to be equal …. When it suits them.

I also hate the fact that women have forever whinged about not having the same career opportunities, and then when they get them they whinge that it’s too much for them, what with the housework etc etc.

To Sweetie: well said.

Nor do I see Democrats campaigning for Republicans, or Coke trying to sell Pepsi. So?

Those two things you mentioned are in opposition though, one’s forever trying to outdo the other. Why should that be the case between men and women????

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Evidence? I’m speaking from experience. But OK, I’ll try to write a fully-referenced essay on it…

I think you misunderstood. I asked for examples of "rape laws that are written specifically to screw men over". That you believe such laws exist has already been established.

I think they inherently may screw men over – I don’t think it’s that blatantly specified, hehehe

equality should be more about your perception of your own place in society, not that of others...it should be about the self...applying it outside the self is what leads to inequality.

Applauds. Exactly. Which is why I don’t kick up a stink when I’m “treated unequality” and I know I’m supposed to.

Should we stand by and allow some kids to have less and then expect them to compete with those kids who have more? If every student received a good education we will have gone a long way to level the playing field. We cannot fix every problem in society, but we can fix those that help kids to succeed! Is that too much to ask?

I associate that more with RIGHTS, in which I’m in favour of.

That would be fine if the inept were just doing it because they enjoyed that form of exercise or atmosphere, and were happy to only ever achieve their modest potential, (some would never get off white belt).

But it's another thing entirely to lower the standards to suit everyone out of some distorted view of "fairness", until you are not even doing martial arts anymore. You're just doing some bizarre form of aerobics with punches and kicks that you flatter yourself to call martial arts.

McDojo I think they call it!

[Dragar]

Equality doesn't mean "you must treat women and men exactly the same". Equality means "you must treat women and men with the same capabilities exactly the same."


Perfectly stated, and it clearly shows where the difficulties lie.

For instance, a man has the 'capability' to continue working before, during and after the birth of his children, without need to make a trip to hospital. A woman cannot do so. That is undeniably a difference, but do we want to call it a capability (and so end up treating women differently based on this, while adhering to equality) or do we call it something else (and so end up saying that treating women differently based on this is not equality)?

It's not as easy as it first appears.

[Clutch Munny]

Setting aside the interesting question about what "etc etc" might mean here, nothing in your OP (nor elsewhere on the thread) supports this claim. The OP seems mostly concerned to establish that people have different abilities. The denial of this rather obvious view is exceedingly rare in my experience. (I would say non-existent, but memory is fallible.) If you want to claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on it, you'll have a quite job providing a plausible degree of evidence.

Evidence? I’m speaking from experience. But OK, I’ll try to write a fully-referenced essay on it…

A fully referenced essay on your personal experience with martial arts, or one establishing your claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on equality?

[D. Scarlatti]

C'mon Clutch. Philosophy includes for "speculative philosophy" too, does it not?

Come to think of it, "pure speculative philosophy" has a nice ring to it.

[Clutch Munny]

I also hate the fact that women have forever whinged about not having the same career opportunities, and then when they get them they whinge that it’s too much for them, what with the housework etc etc.

How many women? Are you sure it's the same ones? And did you ever work a full-time career-path job while doing the bulk of the child-rearing for an average sized family and housework besides? Or is this unargued assertion based on something other than "personal experience"?

[D. Scarlatti]

There's also this naive belief that everyone is intellectually capable of everything.

Who believes this belief, by the way?

I don't think your musical example quite hits the mark at refuting the naive belief, incidentally, since playing music pretty obviously has both intellectual and physical requirements. I've heard kids rattle off some pretty complex shit, but they probably have little or no idea of its intellectual content.

[Adam]

Nor do I see Democrats campaigning for Republicans, or Coke trying to sell Pepsi. So?

*cough* Joe Lieberman *cough* Zell Miller *cough*

Obviously, these two counterexamples prove that there is too much equality in the world.

[ManM]

With the exception of the first sentence, I don't see anything in the OP that I really disagree with. But since I have never heard anyone (even 'lefties') argue that all people should be treated as if they are identical in every way, I'm at a loss for how the conclusion in the OP follows from the rest of the post.
I think the argument was aimed at the expectation that different groups of people achieve equal things.

[viscousmemories]

I think the argument was aimed at the expectation that different groups of people achieve equal things.
Not being facetious, but I couldn't find an argument in the OP. Could you formalize it for me?

[Clutch Munny]

She specifically mentioned Gardener's Multiple Intelligences, (is your Google Bar fucking painted on?), and cites it's use in education. Then goes on to give examples like martial arts.

Did she "cite it[']s use in education"? I thought she just said that one hears about it in education. Is that what you mean by a "citation", or do you consider it evidence of some other sort perhaps? In any case, this:

Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way.

...is "basically" false, as anyone who thought before yapping would realize. Everyone is intelligent does not follow from There is more than one way of being intelligent. Obviously.

I'm no fan of Gardner's theory, myself, since it is difficult to test for empirical accuracy in detail. But its details are not germane to SheWolf's criticism anyhow; presumably any theory of multiple intelligences would be open to the same misrepresentation. In principle the point is just that different people learn differently, and that effective education should accommodate this fact where possible. How this plays into your obsession with dolphin sex is unclear. How it shows that there is too much emphasis on equality is still less clear.


Of course there are people who shouldn't graduate high school

Can you give some argument for this claim? The streaming of classes and differentiation of programs provides the most obvious way of giving educations tailored to both the interests and abilities of students; these methods are in virtually universal use in North America. So your bald assertion above is not only false on its face; it's unrelated to your meandering rant about strict equality. High school graduation is not an undifferentiated endorsement of identical achievement along identical dimensions.

[lisarea]

CLUTCH MUNNY! VISCOUSMEMORIES! I am disappointed in you two.

Seriously disappointed.

How dare you marginalize these legitimate opinions by demanding "evidence"? It is very clear that the generalized, unsourced emotional accounts herein are valid on their face. Just because they cite no specific examples, no scientific data, and not even any credible anecdote does not mean that they are not perfectly legitimate expressions of some deep emotional truth!

Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe these people feel strongly enough about these interpretations to lend them a legitimacy that is equal to your white man "science"? What do you want? A fully-referenced essay? Must someone cite specific before-and-after wording before you'll acknowledge that a law must be changed? Isn't it enough for you that someone has strong emotional feelings about an issue? Is a sparsely detailed college newspaper article not academically rigorous enough for you? Are someone's stream-of-consciousness emotional interpretations of the world around them not as valid as your facts?

You make me sick.

Sick, I tell you.

[seebs]

For instance, a man has the 'capability' to continue working before, during and after the birth of his children, without need to make a trip to hospital. A woman cannot do so. That is undeniably a difference, but do we want to call it a capability (and so end up treating women differently based on this, while adhering to equality) or do we call it something else (and so end up saying that treating women differently based on this is not equality)?

Exactly. Fairness is very difficult to obtain.

I would say, in that case, that the question is much simplified if you distinguish between contributors of genetic material and bearers. Look at surrogate mothers for an example; a woman using a surrogate mother can, indeed, work during the birth of her child.

That said, I think a certain amount of support for family time during the birth of your child, no matter who is giving birth, would be a very good idea.

[seebs]

I think it's fairly clear that some people with serious mental retardation cannot successfully complete a high-school education. However, I do think there's a lot of room for variety and range in school. I think it would do better if we eliminated the "grade advancement is age" system currently in use, and let people take faster or slower classes, as suitable, until they were done with the material. If we built the system so that a majority (say, 90%) of kids could graduate at 18, a lot might make it out at 17, and some at 16, but we'd be giving them all a fairer chance with less hassle.

[Clutch Munny]

CLUTCH MUNNY! VISCOUSMEMORIES! I am disappointed in you two.

Seriously disappointed.

How dare you marginalize these legitimate opinions by demanding "evidence"? It is very clear that the generalized, unsourced emotional accounts herein are valid on their face. Just because they cite no specific examples, no scientific data, and not even any credible anecdote does not mean that they are not perfectly legitimate expressions of some deep emotional truth!

Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe these people feel strongly enough about these interpretations to lend them a legitimacy that is equal to your white man "science"? What do you want? A fully-referenced essay? Must someone cite specific before-and-after wording before you'll acknowledge that a law must be changed? Isn't it enough for you that someone has strong emotional feelings about an issue? Is a sparsely detailed college newspaper article not academically rigorous enough for you? Are someone's stream-of-consciousness emotional interpretations of the world around them not as valid as your facts?

You make me sick.

Sick, I tell you.

Facts are for liberal pussies.

[Clutch Munny]

I think it's fairly clear that some people with serious mental retardation cannot successfully complete a high-school education.

For some interpretations of "serious" this has to be correct. Yet many people who largely lack the abilities to learn and apply general abstract reasoning or literacy can acquire useful and important skills over 12 years of education. The mistaken presupposition, I think, is that "a high-school education" must always mean the same thing. It doesn't; where I live there are applied versus academic streams, college versus university streams. And continent wide the streaming is vastly varied beyond this.

[ManM]

I think the argument was aimed at the expectation that different groups of people achieve equal things.
Not being facetious, but I couldn't find an argument in the OP. Could you formalize it for me?
Sure.
First, it appears that “equality” means equal representation or equal achievement. I define that based on context clues in the OP, such as the opposition between “rights” and “equality”, along with the complaint about neutering martial arts so that everyone could participate.

1) Groups of people are different at a biological level (From paragraph 2, eg, men/women and physical strength).
2) Biological differences impact a person's abilities. (From paragraphs 2-6)
3) Different abilities lead to different levels of success in fields that rely on those abilities. (From paragraphs 3,4)
4) Therefore, we would expect that different groups of people would have different levels of success in fields that rely on the abilities impacted by biological differences.

The tension between the logical expectation of inequality and the push for equality leads SheWolf to criticize equality. Of course, I hope SheWolf will correct me if I'm wrongly interpreting the OP.

[viscousmemories]

1) Groups of people are different at a biological level (From paragraph 2, eg, men/women and physical strength).
2) Biological differences impact a person's abilities. (From paragraphs 2-6)
3) Different abilities lead to different levels of success in fields that rely on those abilities. (From paragraphs 3,4)
4) Therefore, we would expect that different groups of people would have different levels of success in fields that rely on the abilities impacted by biological differences.
Okay well I thought that argument was pretty clear, which is why I was compelled to comment that I'd never heard anyone claim otherwise. What I don't get is how her claim that advocates of equal rights place "too much emphasis on equality" is supposed to follow from that.

The tension between the logical expectation of inequality and the push for equality leads SheWolf to criticize equality.
This is where she lost me. When we talk about "equal rights", we're talking about a specific concept formed form a compound of the words 'equal' and 'rights'. So in context it's just seems like a bizarre non sequitur to challenge the popular conception of 'equality'. For example if I said think everyone should eat fried chicken, would you ask why the emphasis on frying? That would seem a pretty odd response to a discussion of fried chicken, no?

[ManM]

What I don't get is how her claim that advocates of equal rights place "too much emphasis on equality" is supposed to follow from that.

The tension between the logical expectation of inequality and the push for equality leads SheWolf to criticize equality.
This is where she lost me. When we talk about "equal rights", we're talking about a specific concept formed form a compound of the words 'equal' and 'rights'. So in context it's just seems like a bizarre non sequitur to challenge the popular conception of 'equality'. For example if I said think everyone should eat fried chicken, would you ask why the emphasis on frying? That would seem a pretty odd response to a discussion of fried chicken, no?
Why would it be odd? Why not grilled chicken? Why not raw chicken? A person could very well claim that the natural state of chicken is raw, and challenge those people who place “too much emphasis on frying”. Personally, I think it would be odd (and counterproductive) to respond in a way that doesn't explain why we fry chicken, in spite of what chicken is naturally expected to be.

In this case, SheWolf is pointing out that the natural order is one of inequality. There may be an underlying assumption that nature knows best, it is more efficient to go with nature rather than oppose it, it is unfair (and thus wrong) to limit some people in order to make others feel better, or something similar, that leads to her claim that people are placing too much emphasis on equality. However, I think the most relevant response to this particular challenge would be an explanation of why people pursue equality in spite of the natural order of things.

[Clutch Munny]

SheWolf clearly accepts that there are good reasons why people pursue equality: "There is no reason why anyone should be denied something on the basis of gender, intellect etc. Up to a certain point." The question is why she thinks that the fact that people have different abilities entails that there has been too much emphasis on equality. No such reasoning follows as it stands; and the argument's porous structure and proliferation of false and highly dubious claims is grounds to think that no valid argument is in the offing, either.

vm, I don't follow the chicken analogy. How does it map onto this case?

[viscousmemories]

It might've been a shoddy analogue, but my point was that "fried chicken" is a concept distinct from the independent concepts of 'frying' and 'chicken', just as "equal rights" is a concept distinct from the concepts of 'equality' and 'rights' taken independently. So asking why people who are interested in equal rights are so concerned with equality seems similar to asking why people who like fried chicken are so concerned with frying.

Naturally the more I try to explain it the crazier I sound, so I'll just stop there.

:tiptoe:

[Plant Woman]

I'd like to kick some young butts back to the 60s and let them experience the long, difficult road it was to get to where they can now sit back and think everything is hunky-dory, and how dare any woman complain about equality.

But then they would have to hike 5 miles in 10 feet of snow to get to the grocery store in summer.

You can never have too much equality.

[BDS]

I think that the amount of emphasis on equality should be exactly equal to the amount of emphasis on everything else. That is, if more people are concerned about promoting “equality” than are concerned with promoting Ultimate Frisbee for Cats, there is “too much” emphasis on equality.

Why, for example, are school children taught that 4+4 = 8? Why not teach them that 4 + 4 > 7, or that 3 x 9 < 7,039? We as a society seem infatuated with equality, and third grade arithmetic classes are one manifestation of this infatuation. Think of the blessing it would be to our school children if we placed less emphasis on equality! Their odds of guessing correctly on arithmetic quizzes would improve dramatically!

[SheWolf]

A fully referenced essay on your personal experience with martial arts, or one establishing your claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on equality?

Everything, but not just narrowed down to my experiences with Martial Arts.

How many women? Are you sure it's the same ones? And did you ever work a full-time career-path job while doing the bulk of the child-rearing for an average sized family and housework besides? Or is this unargued assertion based on something other than "personal experience"?

Well it was a general statement. No I don’t have a full-time career-path, but that does not mean I can’t make an educated guess.

Who believes this belief, by the way?

I don't think your musical example quite hits the mark at refuting the naive belief, incidentally, since playing music pretty obviously has both intellectual and physical requirements. I've heard kids rattle off some pretty complex shit, but they probably have little or no idea of its intellectual content.

Many ‘new-age, modern’ types do, including everyone in Education.
They don’t need to have an idea of the ‘intellectual’ component of music to have a high score on their musical intelligence. You don’t have to know lots about art history and concepts to be artistically ‘intelligent’. It’s based on people’s strong points, their talents if you will. Of course naming musical, natural, artistic qualities will put everyone into the scope of being ‘intelligent’, so one of my arguments was that people are trying their all to warp the theories so that they can make everyone intelligent.

Did she "cite it[']s use in education"? I thought she just said that one hears about it in education. Is that what you mean by a "citation", or do you consider it evidence of some other sort perhaps? In any case,

No I didn’t CITE it but if everyone insists I will. I’m an education student so I thought I had SOME authority to mention it.


Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way.


...is "basically" false, as anyone who thought before yapping would realize. Everyone is intelligent does not follow from There is more than one way of being intelligent. Obviously.

No, but it does follow on from “everyone is intelligent IN THEIR OWN WAY”. I hate it when people leave out words and then use to argue a point. It’s biased.

The question is why she thinks that the fact that people have different abilities entails that there has been too much emphasis on equality. No such reasoning follows as it stands; and the argument's porous structure and proliferation of false and highly dubious claims is grounds to think that no valid argument is in the offing, either.

Because the fact that people have different abilities is sometimes overlooked, or sometimes looked too much into.

It is overlooked in: Martial Arts (generally): it has been changed, marketised, commercialized, softened up, just so everyone can participate. Well, the fact that all this has to be done to encourage participation only goes to prove that Martial Arts, in its authentic form, is NOT for everyone. Furthermore, there has been the production of pink gear lately, to encourage female participation. Not only was this degrading to me and probably many other women (do they take us to be that materialistic and stereotyped to want/need pink gear to start training?) but also demonstrates more of the “warping” of the system to accommodate for everyone.

Looked too much into: Education, as previously stated. “What? O you’re not good at Maths, I see. Nevermind, look, you can play a piano, you ARE smart enough to pass!”

Why, for example, are school children taught that 4+4 = 8? Why not teach them that 4 + 4 > 7, or that 3 x 9 < 7,039? We as a society seem infatuated with equality, and third grade arithmetic classes are one manifestation of this infatuation. Think of the blessing it would be to our school children if we placed less emphasis on equality! Their odds of guessing correctly on arithmetic quizzes would improve dramatically!

Haha! They DO that though! A lot of the time, yes, they do that! Sometimes the answers are tailored so that they’re very hard to get wrong, other times it’s multiple choice, with something like 5 + 5 = (a) 10, or (b) 346276.
You have just backed up my point. “God forbid we tell a student they’re WRONG, what will that do to their self-efficacy!? No competitive games either, we mustn’t’ emphasise potential superiority.”

[angrybellsprout]

The American educational system is the best example of 'equality' gone wrong. If your students can't pass, then obviously you need to lower your standards so that everyone can be 'equal'...

[D. Scarlatti]

Many ‘new-age, modern’ types do, including everyone in Education.

Well I'm a modern type and I'm in education and I don't believe it.

I advise my students to avoid "new age" music, however.

They don’t need to have an idea of the ‘intellectual’ component of music to have a high score on their musical intelligence.

What is musical intelligence and how do they measure it?

eta: Is this (http://ijea.asu.edu/v2n4/) what you're referring to as musical intelligence?

Musical Intelligence – abilities to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch, and timbre; appreciation of the forms of musical expressiveness.

The first three are what I teach children in their first 30 minutes at the instrument. The fourth could encompass Ph.D. studies.

[Clutch Munny]

A fully referenced essay on your personal experience with martial arts, or one establishing your claim that there has been "too much emphasis" on equality?

Everything, but not just narrowed down to my experiences with Martial Arts.

Okay. I look forward to your posting it.

How many women? Are you sure it's the same ones? And did you ever work a full-time career-path job while doing the bulk of the child-rearing for an average sized family and housework besides? Or is this unargued assertion based on something other than "personal experience"?

Well it was a general statement. No I don’t have a full-time career-path, but that does not mean I can’t make an educated guess.

How is your guess "educated", and how could it support the entirely general statement you made? Look, you make these ridiculously strong claims; they're obviously false. You seem impatient with having this pointed out, and with questions that would force you to get serious -- to defend a view on just how weakened these claims would have to be, before they could be justified.

But it's between obvious falsity and complete triviality that any interesting truth will be found. If all you mean, for example, is that some women are whiny -- ie, complaining without justification -- about their careers and home-duties, I guarantee that nobody will dispute this. There are a lot of women in the big old world, eh? So you must mean something more than this blazing triviality.

How much more, though, and what reason is there to believe it?

Or, for another example:

Who believes this belief, by the way?

Many ‘new-age, modern’ types do, including everyone in Education.

Really? Everyone in Education? That's pretty astonishing. Any evidence for this sweeping generalization? Of course not. Any evidence for a weaker claim -- ie, most people in education believe that "everyone is intellectually capable of everything"? Of course not. It's kind of a surprising claim, isn't it? Because you'd think that people in education would have a lot of experience with unsuccessfully trying to teach things to students. I guess nobody's getting marks under 100%! Or, at a minimum, all teachers are consumed with self-loathing at their inability to teach even some simple concepts to people who are intellectually capable of everything.

...one of my arguments was that people are trying their all to warp the theories so that they can make everyone intelligent.

No. That was one of your assertions. Arguments are things with premises (evidence, that is) and conclusions.

Did she "cite it[']s use in education"? I thought she just said that one hears about it in education. Is that what you mean by a "citation", or do you consider it evidence of some other sort perhaps? In any case,

No I didn’t CITE it but if everyone insists I will. I’m an education student so I thought I had SOME authority to mention it.

The fact that Gardner's MI is referenced in educational psychology is not up for dispute, so far as I know. What's unclear is that it means, or is universally taken to mean, that everyone qualifies as intelligent in their own way.


Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way.


...is "basically" false, as anyone who thought before yapping would realize. Everyone is intelligent does not follow from There is more than one way of being intelligent. Obviously.

No, but it does follow on from “everyone is intelligent IN THEIR OWN WAY”. I hate it when people leave out words and then use to argue a point. It’s biased.

You're missing the point. Gardner's theory: There is more than one kind of intelligence. Your depiction of Gardner's theory: Everyone is intelligent (in their own way). The latter does not follow from the former. Do you see the problem?

I do not claim that you are the only person in the world to make this rather obvious error, of course. Maybe some people in Education theory or psych make it too. But (1) this is strictly distinct from the question of whether Gardner is right -- which people concerned about "standards" would presumably take more seriously than has been done on this thread; and (2) it is grossly implausible (indeed, known to be false) that everyone in Education holds this strange misrepresentation. See problem with sweeping generalizations and triviality, above.

The question is why she thinks that the fact that people have different abilities entails that there has been too much emphasis on equality. No such reasoning follows as it stands; and the argument's porous structure and proliferation of false and highly dubious claims is grounds to think that no valid argument is in the offing, either.

Because the fact that people have different abilities is sometimes overlooked, or sometimes looked too much into.

It is overlooked in: Martial Arts (generally): it has been changed, marketised, commercialized, softened up, just so everyone can participate. Well, the fact that all this has to be done to encourage participation only goes to prove that Martial Arts, in its authentic form, is NOT for everyone. Furthermore, there has been the production of pink gear lately, to encourage female participation. Not only was this degrading to me and probably many other women (do they take us to be that materialistic and stereotyped to want/need pink gear to start training?) but also demonstrates more of the “warping” of the system to accommodate for everyone.

That's interesting. It's worth posting in a thread, IMO. And no broad conclusion about "too much equality" could possibly be thought to follow from it.

Looked too much into: Education, as previously stated. “What? O you’re not good at Maths, I see. Nevermind, look, you can play a piano, you ARE smart enough to pass!”

Sorry, is that a quote, or something made up? Because I was asking about actual evidence, not made up things.

If you have examples of people passing mathematics classes on the strength of their piano-playing, bring 'em on. The provincial curricula, grading processes, and testing at both the local and provincial levels in Grades 3, 6 and 9 effectively preclude this possibility in Canada's most populous province -- where Gardner is discouragingly popular, I've found -- but maybe things are radically different where you live. Cite the actual cases and we can go from there.

[RevDahlia]

Why is everyone ignoring seebs' posts on this thread? Am I hallucinating them or something? Cause I think he kinda nailed it. That's all.

[D. Scarlatti]

Nobody ever replies to seebs because he's too eminently sensible, and there's little to disagree with.

I feel sorry for the guy actually.

[viscousmemories]

Oh, I thought it was 'cause we don't take to his kind around here.

[SheWolf]

Well I'm a modern type and I'm in education and I don't believe it.

So am I, but I said MANY.

Okay. When will you post it?

Maybe when I have nothing better to do. Kind of bogged down at the moment.

How is your guess "educated", and how could it support the entirely general statement you made? Look, you make these ridiculously strong claims; they're obviously false. You seem impatient with having this pointed out, and with questions that would force you to get serious -- to defend a view on just how weakened these claims would have to be, before they could be justified.

That's pretty astonishing. Any evidence for this sweeping generalization? Of course not. Any evidence for a weaker claim -- ie, most people in education believe that "everyone is intellectually capable of everything"? Of course not.

I think it’s a “ridiculously strong claim” that it’s FALSE. Where’s YOUR evidence?

No. That was one of your assertions. Arguments are things with premises (evidence, that is) and conclusions.

O don’t get all technical on me. It’s a point I was arguing, hence it’s my argument. Besides, where’s your EVIDENCE for this?

You're missing the point. Gardner's theory: There is more than one kind of intelligence. Your depiction of Gardner's theory: Everyone is intelligent (in their own way). The latter does not follow from the former. Do you see the problem?

If there is “more than one type of intelligence” then “everyone is intelligent in their own way”. It’s what the theory tries to support.

I do not claim that you are the only person in the world to make this rather obvious error, of course. Maybe some people in Education theory or psych make it too. But (1) this is strictly distinct from the question of whether Gardner is right -- which people concerned about "standards" would presumably take more seriously than has been done on this thread; and (2) it is grossly implausible (indeed, known to be false) that everyone in Education holds this strange misrepresentation. See problem with sweeping generalizations and triviality, above.

O damn my misguided soul! I do declare, you’re nitpicking at my words, whilst indeed not presenting any EVIDENCE of you own.
:thescream


Sorry, is that a quote, or something made up? Because I was asking about actual evidence, not made up things.

If you have examples of people passing mathematics classes on the strength of their piano-playing, bring 'em on. The provincial curricula, grading processes, and testing at both the local and provincial levels in Grades 3, 6 and 9 effectively preclude this possibility in Canada's most populous province -- where Gardner is discouragingly popular, I've found -- but maybe things are radically different where you live. Cite the actual cases and we can go from there.

I can’t officially cite anything I’ve experienced myself. I didn’t come here to present research findings and academic essays. I also refused to be rebutted on the basis of my LACK OF EVIDENCE by someone who does not provide any EVIDENCE themselves.

[D. Scarlatti]

I said MANY.

You said "everyone," but alright.

[SheWolf]

Originally Posted by SheWolf
Many ‘new-age, modern’ types do, including everyone in Education.


Well I'm a modern type and I'm in education and I don't believe it.

I advise my students to avoid "new age" music, however.

if people want to get technical...

[D. Scarlatti]

if people want to get technical...

I do, occasionally.

Many ‘new-age, modern’ types do, including everyone in Education.

What you're saying is there are new-age, modern types. You're also saying there are people in education. It seemed to me that the group of new-age, modern types was larger than the group of people in education. So while many new-age, modern types believe the naive belief, all of the new-age, modern types in education ("everyone in Education", not just the new-age modern types in education) believe the naive belief.

I suppose if you had written "every one" instead of "everyone," I might have understood your meaning to be, only those new-age, modern types in education, which is what I'm now guessing that you meant. And more particularly only those that are both "new-age" and "modern" and are in education believe the naive belief.

So if all you're saying is that some people believe the naive belief, well, I guess that's probably true, because it would only take five or six people to believe the naive belief to support what you said, and that's not a terribly remarkable observation at all.

Even so, as I said, I'm a modern type (although not "new-age") and am in education, and I don't believe the naive belief. The comma between "new-age" and "modern" still doesn't make it clear to me whether you mean that the people in education that do believe the naive belief must be either new-age or modern, or both.

[Adam]

Because the fact that people have different abilities is sometimes overlooked, or sometimes looked too much into.

It is overlooked in: Martial Arts (generally): it has been changed, marketised, commercialized, softened up, just so everyone can participate. Well, the fact that all this has to be done to encourage participation only goes to prove that Martial Arts, in its authentic form, is NOT for everyone. Furthermore, there has been the production of pink gear lately, to encourage female participation. Not only was this degrading to me and probably many other women (do they take us to be that materialistic and stereotyped to want/need pink gear to start training?) but also demonstrates more of the “warping” of the system to accommodate for everyone.

Have you considered the possibility that this is not due to some misguided societal overemphasis on equality but, rather, simply due to the fact that the people who run strip mall dojos and the people who sell athletic gear find that they are liable to make more money marketing their goods and services to a broader array of consumers than to a narrower one? I highly doubt there's much profit to be made in refusing to take money from anyone who is not suited for martial arts in its 'authentic form', whatever that may mean.

[SheWolf]

What you're saying is there are new-age, modern types. You're also saying there are people in education. It seemed to me that the group of new-age, modern types was larger than the group of people in education. So while many new-age, modern types believe the naive belief, all of the new-age, modern types in education ("everyone in Education", not just the new-age modern types in education) believe the naive belief.

Well the new-age group would be larger than the education group. Despite the number of people who actually hold the belief, it is still prevalent. As a student I know this much: I’m plagued by it. It’s what we’re taught to believe, it’s what our lecturers say, and it’s what our research material supports. And it’s what every student I’ve talked to has come to believe.

I suppose if you had written "every one" instead of "everyone," I might have understood your meaning to be, only those new-age, modern types in education, which is what I'm now guessing that you meant. And more particularly only those that are both "new-age" and "modern" and are in education believe the naive belief.

Probably … which would encompass about 85% of the students in my course and 100% of the lecturers.

[IRON MAN]

Did she "cite it[']s use in education"? I thought she just said that one hears about it in education. Is that what you mean by a "citation", or do you consider it evidence of some other sort perhaps? In any case, this:

Clutch, you are nothing but a hair-splitting, disingenuous fuckwad who pollutes debates with red-herrings and lefty bullshit, thinking you are actually making an argument.

Now I know that if I hear you talking about logic, I'll know you are not citing rationality either. :rolleyes:

Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way.

...is "basically" false, as anyone who thought before yapping would realise. Everyone is intelligent does not follow from There is more than one way of being intelligent. Obviously.

In other words some people do not have the required skills and should be left behind - yet this supposedly unheard of idea is really popular with both major political parties in the US isn't it? Fuckwad.

I'm no fan of Gardner's theory, myself, since it is difficult to test for empirical accuracy in detail.

Yeah, like you'd know. :rolleyes:

But its details are not germane to SheWolf's criticism anyhow; presumably any theory of multiple intelligences would be open to the same misrepresentation. In principle the point is just that different people learn differently, and that effective education should accommodate this fact where possible. How this plays into your obsession with dolphin sex is unclear.

It wasn't a dolphin, it was a herring ... A red one. Putz. :rolleyes:

How it shows that there is too much emphasis on equality is still less clear.

Yeah I guess nothing is very clear to you when you have your head up your arse. Could she be suggesting that society is accommodating inept dipshits where it is possible but not at all practical? I guess it's easier for you to just ignore the real thrust of her argument and take literally what you wish, and read into what you wish you disingenuous fuckwad.

One minute you deny there's a problem at all, next you agree and claim the magnitude is not a problem - wanker.

:rolleyes: Here we go flip-flopping again ...


Of course there are people who shouldn't graduate high school

Can you give some argument for this claim? The streaming of classes and differentiation of programs provides the most obvious way of giving educations tailored to both the interests and abilities of students;* these methods are in virtually universal use in North America. So your bald assertion above is not only false on its face; it's unrelated to your meandering rant about strict equality. High school graduation is not an undifferentiated endorsement of identical achievement along identical dimensions.

You're assuming there aren't students who aren't interested at all, as well as those who lack ability. You can lead a horse to water dickhead.

*Can you give some argument for this claim? See it's easy to just be an obtuse gaywad ain't it?

Shut the fuck up Clutch and stop trying to act clever - you'll hurt yourself.

[RevDahlia]

Because the fact that people have different abilities is sometimes overlooked, or sometimes looked too much into.

It is overlooked in: Martial Arts (generally): it has been changed, marketised, commercialized, softened up, just so everyone can participate. Well, the fact that all this has to be done to encourage participation only goes to prove that Martial Arts, in its authentic form, is NOT for everyone. Furthermore, there has been the production of pink gear lately, to encourage female participation. Not only was this degrading to me and probably many other women (do they take us to be that materialistic and stereotyped to want/need pink gear to start training?) but also demonstrates more of the “warping” of the system to accommodate for everyone.

Have you considered the possibility that this is not due to some misguided societal overemphasis on equality but, rather, simply due to the fact that the people who run strip mall dojos and the people who sell athletic gear find that they are liable to make more money marketing their goods and services to a broader array of consumers than to a narrower one? I highly doubt there's much profit to be made in refusing to take money from anyone who is not suited for martial arts in its 'authentic form', whatever that may mean.
That just makes good economic sense, from a purely capitalist perspective. It's the McDojos' right to haul in and mollycoddle anyone they like, and tempt them with pink handwraps or whatever, if it works and the consumers are happy. The integrity of an art form is hardly a business' concern if they don't want it to be, and if consumers don't want that kind of instruction they can always go elsewhere.

Unless you want to get into the argument that the damn wimmins wouldn't even get it into their heads that they can do martial arts at all, if it wasn't for all the misplaced emphasis on "equality" that's ruining this culture or whatever.

[viscousmemories]

IRON MAN, when you came here you said you were interested in learning more about critical thinking. If that's true I strongly recommend that you read this article Clutch wrote for us: Critical Thinking As Knowledge of Biases - Part I (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=8) and Critical Thinking as Knowledge of Biases - Part II (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=9). After several years of reading his stuff I can just about guarantee that if you think Clutch is talking out of his ass about logic or reason, it's because your own head is lodged up there.

ETA: Incidentally I'm not trying to put you down or flatter Clutch, it's just a matter of fact that he has probably forgotten more about critical thinking and logical argumentation than most of us know - and FWIW I don't think he's remotely disingenuous.

[D. Scarlatti]

IRON MAN, maybe you could try actually engaging some of the portions of text you quoted? I mean, flames are fun and everything, but they're generally a bit more effective when they're actually accompanied by some material of substance.

[IRON MAN]

I don't care if this guy is the Archbishop of fucking Canterbury. He's on some nitpicking ego-trip and I'm calling him out on it.

It's easy to go through a post and, like I said, selectively take things literally or not in some obtuse little parade or fuckwittery. I've seen it a million times on these boards, but that doesn't help anyone get anywhere.

Just because somebody's post is a bit rough around the edges doesn't mean their point is invalid or unintelligible to anyone with at least half a brain.

Grow the fuck up, and stop obtusely pretending otherwise, just because you don't personally agree with the point being put forward.

[IRON MAN]

That just makes good economic sense, from a purely capitalist perspective. It's the McDojos' right to haul in and mollycoddle anyone they like, and tempt them with pink handwraps or whatever, if it works and the consumers are happy. The integrity of an art form is hardly a business' concern if they don't want it to be, and if consumers don't want that kind of instruction they can always go elsewhere.

Unless you want to get into the argument that the damn wimmins wouldn't even get it into their heads that they can do martial arts at all, if it wasn't for all the misplaced emphasis on "equality" that's ruining this culture or whatever.

From a purely capitalist perspective it is fine to use any, (legal), tactic to gain an advantage. That doesn't mean that some of those tactics, (whether they work or not), are not in and of themselves questionable, or beneficial to the customers.

Selling snake oil on the street is one thing, institutionalised government snake oil is quite another. Either way you are well within your rights to call 'bullshit', and openly debate the purveyor of said bullshit.

[D. Scarlatti]

Either way you are well within your rights to call 'bullshit', and openly debate the purveyor of said bullshit.

You mean like Clutch is doing?

[RevDahlia]

That just makes good economic sense, from a purely capitalist perspective. It's the McDojos' right to haul in and mollycoddle anyone they like, and tempt them with pink handwraps or whatever, if it works and the consumers are happy. The integrity of an art form is hardly a business' concern if they don't want it to be, and if consumers don't want that kind of instruction they can always go elsewhere.

Unless you want to get into the argument that the damn wimmins wouldn't even get it into their heads that they can do martial arts at all, if it wasn't for all the misplaced emphasis on "equality" that's ruining this culture or whatever.

From a purely capitalist perspective it is fine to use any, (legal), tactic to gain an advantage. That doesn't mean that some of those tactics, (whether they work or not), are not in and of themselves questionable, or beneficial to the customers.

Selling snake oil on the street is one thing, institutionalised government snake oil is quite another. Either way you are well within your rights to call 'bullshit', and openly debate the purveyor of said bullshit.
Well, okay. But the problem here, according to SheWolf, is that McDojos are pandering to some halfassed PC notion of "equality" in trying to attract female customers -- the implication being that if the PC stuff didn't exist, the McDojos wouldn't bother trying to attract females. I'd argue that it's just as likely that the McDojos have simply found a market and are appealing to it; it's a very simple economic equation. The integrity of the instruction and whatnot is sort of irrelevant, if that is the case.

And I can't help but point out that were it not for some loudmouthed nosy people blathering on about equality, SheWolf would have been laughed out of existence for wanting to train at all, quite recently.

[godfry n. glad]

And I can't help but point out that were it not for some loudmouthed nosy people blathering on about equality, SheWolf would have been laughed out of existence for wanting to train at all, quite recently.

I was wondering when somebody would get to this. :giggle:

[IRON MAN]

Either way you are well within your rights to call 'bullshit', and openly debate the purveyor of said bullshit.

You mean like Clutch is doing?

Is that what he thinks he is doing?

Well, okay. But the problem here, according to SheWolf, is that McDojos are pandering to some halfassed PC notion of "equality" in trying to attract female customers -- the implication being that if the PC stuff didn't exist, the McDojos wouldn't bother trying to attract females. I'd argue that it's just as likely that the McDojos have simply found a market and are appealing to it; it's a very simple economic equation. The integrity of the instruction and whatnot is sort of irrelevant, if that is the case.

And I can't help but point out that were it not for some loudmouthed nosy people blathering on about equality, SheWolf would have been laughed out of existence for wanting to train at all, quite recently.

So, no women in the east ever learned martial arts before the women's liberation movement in the west got equal rights and dumbed it down enough for them?

I guess you support Affirmative Action* too, because as you know, loudmouthed nosey people blathering on about equality can never go too far - more is always better and always right.

I guess Wolf shouldn't worry her pretty little head about the actual fundamental issues since she's got Mack-truck-bench-pressing, short-haired, lesbian feminazi's looking after her political interests for her.


(*What we call Positive Discrimination in Aust.)

[RevDahlia]

So, no women in the East ever learned martial arts before the women's liberation movement in the west got equal rights and dumbed it down enough for them?
I have no idea. Probably. But martial arts have not been an acceptable pursuit for females in the West for very long at all.

If you're honestly claiming that it was easy, or even possible, for a female to get good martial arts instruction in the Western world pre-second wave feminism, I would love to see a source on that.
I guess you support affirmative action too, because as you know, loudmouthed nosey people blathering on about equality can never go to far - more is always better and always right.
Non sequitur.
I guess Wolf shouldn't worry her pretty little head about the actual fundamental issues since she's got Mack-truck-bench-pressing, short-haired, lesbian feminazi's looking after her political interests for her.
And another.

ETA: I'm sorry, but the inclusion of "short-haired" in the above quote got me giggling. You virtually inflected that in about the same way that most people would inflect "Nazi Germany".

[IRON MAN]

I have no idea. Probably. But martial arts have not been an acceptable pursuit for females in the West for very long at all.

Stating a truth here does not make the rest of your post automatically correct. So I'll say: so what? That has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing now.


If you're honestly claiming that it was easy, or even possible, for a female to get good martial arts instruction in the Western world pre-second wave feminism, I would love to see a source on that.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof to a red herring just because your argument has been shown up as absolutely irrelevant.

Non sequitur.

No it isn't. You said:

And I can't help but point out that were it not for some loudmouthed nosy people blathering on about equality, SheWolf would have been laughed out of existence for wanting to train at all, quite recently.

Apparently attempting to imply that because a cause was once morally beyond question, that the extremist remnants of that movement still are. Affirmative Action is simply another cause with the same fallacious justification.

And another.

Once again read your own post. You are again attempting to imply that "loudmouthed noisy people blathering on" are champions of justice that are beyond question because their cause used to be justified.

How about trying to justify the argument in the present based on a proper argument?

ETA: I'm sorry, but the inclusion of "short-haired" in the above quote got me giggling. You virtually inflected that in about the same way that most people would inflect "Nazi Germany".

I thought, "Mack-truck-bench-pressing", had a way stronger inflection, (I spent a whole five seconds thinking that one up). :D

And if you are trying to invoke Godwin's law, then I'll counter by saying that the entire description is nothing more than a colourful and whimsical metaphor describing a stereotypical feminist extremist, done for the benefit of my own amusement and to keep me awake while trudging through the overflowing boatload of red herrings that would make Jesus Himself envious.*


*And yes, that was another one. About eight seconds that time.

[RevDahlia]

If you're honestly claiming that it was easy, or even possible, for a female to get good martial arts instruction in the Western world pre-second wave feminism, I would love to see a source on that.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof to a red herring just because your argument has been shown up as absolutely irrelevant.

Non sequitur.

No it isn't. You said:

And I can't help but point out that were it not for some loudmouthed nosy people blathering on about equality, SheWolf would have been laughed out of existence for wanting to train at all, quite recently.

Apparently attempting to imply that because a cause was once morally beyond question, that the extremist remnants of that movement still are. Affirmative Action is simply another cause with the same fallacious justification.

And another.

Once again read your own post. You are again attempting to imply that "loudmouthed noisy people blathering on" are champions of justice that are beyond question because their cause used to be justified.

How about trying to justify the argument in the present based on a proper argument?
Sigh. All right, I will spell it out for you:

The problematic nature of some groups' quests for parity aside, it looks realy silly when someone who directly benefits from such action starts bitching like SheWolf is. It sounds an awful lot like "I was cool with this as long as it benefits me directly, but apart from that, fuck it."

This does not mean that the women's movement is beyond reproach. But it is being taken for granted here, to a degree that the rest of SheWolf's argument sounds shortsighted and lame. ESPECIALLY since arguments like hers -- "equality just isn't practical, people are different, why do we have to pretend that everyone's the same just to make people feel good" -- have historically been used to prevent women from doing all kinds of things that the dominant culture thinks are inappropriate. Like, say, martial arts.

And what the fuck was that business about Affirmative Action? Did I really say that "all kinds of agitation are good, as long as the goal is supposed to be equality"? My evil twin must have posted that, because I don't think it. At all.

But I gotta say, and I mean this in the most generous of spirits, you're not demonstrating a real willingness to respond to what's actually posted here. I like spewing vitriol on occasion too, but using a discussion like this as an excuse to spew vitriol all over the place doesn't help your position. I know, I know, you don't give a shit, who cares what my short-haired (snerk) Mack truck whatever lesbian blahdeeblah thinks? There, I'll show myself out. I done got told.
ETA: I'm sorry, but the inclusion of "short-haired" in the above quote got me giggling. You virtually inflected that in about the same way that most people would inflect "Nazi Germany".

I thought, "Mack-truck-bench-pressing", had a way stronger inflection, (I spent a whole five seconds thinking that one up). :D

And if you are trying to invoke Godwin's law, then I'll counter by saying that the entire description is nothing more than a colourful and whimsical metaphor describing a stereotypical feminist extremist,
Yeah. I didn't get that. Because, you know, I'm pork stupid and totally unobservant.

It's just ... "short hair". Is that really an epithet on par with "feminazi" and "lesbian" and "Mack-truck-bench-pressing"? It just sounded kind of out-of-place in the middle of such an otherwise directed rant.

[Plant Woman]

I was wondering when somebody would get to this.

I did, but it was overlooked, as usual, around these parts.

[IRON MAN]

Sigh. All right, I will spell it out for you:

The problematic nature of some groups' quests for parity aside, it looks realy silly when someone who directly benefits from such action starts bitching like SheWolf is. It sounds an awful lot like "I was cool with this as long as it benefits me directly, but apart from that, fuck it."

I must disagree in the strongest possible terms, (how's that for tactful? Look Ma, I'm a diplomat. :D ).

I'd say that is the exact opposite of the argument she is making.

This does not mean that the women's movement is beyond reproach.

Yeah, I know - someone forgot to put the rebel leaders up against the wall after the revolution. Now we have to put up with people who continue to stir shit, just because they like that choice of career - even when there's no just cause to fight.

But it is being taken for granted here, to a degree that the rest of SheWolf's argument sounds shortsighted and lame. ESPECIALLY since arguments like hers -- "equality just isn't practical, people are different, why do we have to pretend that everyone's the same just to make people feel good" -- have historically been used to prevent women from doing all kinds of things that the dominant culture thinks are inappropriate. Like, say, martial arts.

Oversimplification of a statement taken out of context.

It's not the women's rights movement she's taking for granted, it's the rights they fought for and won that she is taking for granted. Because ... well, those rights have actually been granted.

All she, (and anyone else who ain't just bug-nutty about the feminists), is saying now is, "Well you got what you wanted, now shut the fuck up please."

Hey, here's a novel idea for feminists, why don't you go and use those rights to actually do something other than pretend to fight for the rights you already have.

You're a big girl now, you have the right to sit at the front of the bus.* If anyone wants to deny you that right, I'll be the first to inform them otherwise, but until then, can we just get on with our fucking lives please?

You have your rights, assert them by all means, but for the love of Christ don't fucking bore me to death. I'd rather have SheWolf drive a sword through my chest for violating her rights, than have you give me a two minute speech about violating yours. That's the difference between you two.

Don't just talk about how unfair it is that you can't sit at the front of the bus, go fucking sit there, you have the right now.

If people have an attitude about that, too fucking bad, the rights you have didn't come with a badge, gun and membership with the Thought Police.

And what the fuck was that business about Affirmative Action? Did I really say that "all kinds of agitation are good, as long as the goal is supposed to be equality"? My evil twin must have posted that, because I don't think it. At all.

That was the point. I figured pointing out another bunch of bananas making the same form of argument might just penetrate far enough into your preconceived ideas long enough for you to see that line of bull doesn't apply for the feminists anymore than it does for anyone else.

But I gotta say, and I mean this in the most generous of spirits, you're not demonstrating a real willingness to respond to what's actually posted here. I like spewing vitriol on occasion too, but using a discussion like this as an excuse to spew vitriol all over the place doesn't help your position. I know, I know, you don't give a shit, who cares what my short-haired (snerk) Mack truck whatever lesbian blahdeeblah thinks? There, I'll show myself out. I done got told.

Attacking my style of argument is yet another red herring, an Ad Hom, and still doesn't make the actual content of it go away. I have addressed what's being said here. It is SheWolf's argument that is being dodged by nit-picking arseholes, and strawman experts.

It's just ... "short hair". Is that really an epithet on par with "feminazi" and "lesbian" and "Mack-truck-bench-pressing"? It just sounded kind of out-of-place in the middle of such an otherwise directed rant.

Well, that's an aesthetic point I guess. I would have personally thought that it would be considered by most people the least insulting remark in the whole line. But either way, :shrug:


*And if you make a pretence about not understanding the relevance of this metaphor I've going to shove my arm through the screen, reach down my phone line and throttle your obtuse narrow arse. :whup:

[Plant Woman]

In a world where the poorest people on this planet are women and children, does not show that there is equality. There is a lot more work to be done and those that are out there making waves, give women like Shewolf the freedom to be out there in the world taking everything for granted while she complains about those who paved the road and continue to work on that same road she coasts on.

Funny how the complainers and some of the loudest mouths tell others to quit complaining and shut up.

[SheWolf]

Thank you Iron Man.

I resent people stating that the only reason I haven't been laughed out of the dojo is because of the so-called women's rights, and that I'm rebutting the very rights that gave me this freedom. Bull-shido!! I have had put my foot into this door and keep it there. I am the only woman at training. I have earned my place there MYSELF with lots and lots of "sticking with it" and fighting.

It's not the women's rights movement she's taking for granted, it's the rights they fought for and won that she is taking for granted. Because ... well, those rights have actually been granted.

All she, (and anyone else who ain't just bug-nutty about the feminists), is saying now is, "Well you got what you wanted, now shut the fuck up please."

exactly right.

I would never have gotten the treatement I am now. I'm treated there as how I deserve to be treated, I know that if I'm to get treated as "one of the men" or even equal to them, I'd have to accept getting treated like that without exception, ie, not when it suits me.

I don't subscribe to convention - I'm not there because femenists put me there. I'm there because I want to be, and would still be there even if we went back 80 years.

Furthermore, there were female warriors and Martial Artists back in Japan.

And Plant Woman, i think you've missed my point and relied too much on other people's posts for the view you take. I'm not taking anything for granted. I realise there is still enormous prejudice out there - hell, here in Australia it is common knowledge that women earn less than men for exact same jobs and positions? Is it legal? No. Does it still happen? Yes.

[IRON MAN]

In a world where the poorest people on this planet are women and children, does not show that there is equality. There is a lot more work to be done and those that are out there making waves, give women like Shewolf the freedom to be out there in the world taking everything for granted while she complains about those who paved the road and continue to work on that same road she coasts on.

Funny how the complainers and some of the loudest mouths tell others to quit complaining and shut up.

Oh my fucking god listen to yourself. You don't want SheWolf out there taking her rights for granted?

Fuck arse! That's exactly what you do want.

In 1950, a white man could tell a black man to get his arse to the back of the bus. Think about that. Think how fucking ridiculous it would be these days for someone like George W. Bush to tell Christopher Judge to get his arse to the back of the bus, and what sort of reaction he would he get?

He'd be like WTF?! Sit yo' crazy white arse down boy.

That's exactly what people were fighting for back then. A day when black people could and would take their rights for granted.

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day a cracker will tell a black man to go to the back of the bus and that black man will assume the guy is crazy ...

... Uh well actually I added that last bit, but anyway, why shouldn't Wolf take her rights for granted? Damn anyone who says otherwise to the ninth circle of Hell I say! :fuming:


Let me ask you a question:

Who has done the more to change attitudes about blacks,* Martin Luther King Jr. or Bill Cosby?

The answer is Bill Cosby, because even a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon would laugh his cracker tits off at that guy. King changed the legal rights by activism, Cosby changed people's attitudes by exercising those rights.

Likewise women like SheWolf are the ones who are really doing the most to change attitudes out there, (and that is primarily all that remains to change), by just living their lives, taking responsibility and not blaming all men for their problems.

Bill Cosby

I Spy In 1965, Cosby achieved a first for African-Americans when he costarred with Robert Culp in I Spy, an adventure show that reflected cold-war America's seemingly endless appetite for James Bond-style espionage fantasies. But Cosby's presence as the first black star of a dramatic television series made I Spy unique; Cosby and NBC executives were concerned that some affiliates might be unwilling to carry the series. At the beginning of the 1965 season, however, only four stations--in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama--declined the show. But the rest of the country was taken with the show's exotic locales and the authentic chemistry of the stars, and it became one of the ratings hits of that television season. I Spy finished among the twenty most-watched shows that year, and Cosby was honored with an Emmy award for outstanding actor in a dramatic series, as he would be again for the next two consecutive years. Although ostensibly focused on Culp's character, the show had clearly become a vehicle for his costar.

Yet throughout the series' three-year run Cosby was repeatedly confronted with the question of race. For him it was enough that I Spy portrayed two men who worked as equals despite their different races; but critics took the show to task for not having a black character engage the racial issues that inflamed the country at that time. Cosby was relieved when the series ended, enabling him to concentrate on his family (he and wife Camille had two daughters by this time) and to return to live performing.

He opposes affirmative action on the premise that it does the African American community more harm than good ...

... Cosby was the impetus for the formation of ARISE Detroit! when, in a January 13, 2005, speech at Wayne County Community College he challenged black Detroiters to stop blaming white people for problems they could solve themselves. "It's not what they're doing to us. It's what we're not doing," the entertainer told the audience of nearly 2,000 people. A little more than a year later, ARISE Detroit! was formed to address this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby#Biography

I guess in your view Bill Cosby is just coasting on a road paved by King.

Bullshit. King did the hard yards of getting the building permit. People like Portier and Cosby did the paving to make his dream a reality, along with every person who has walked that road after them, and now its a fucking highway.

Sure, it should be a fucking 12 lane autobahn, but it's not activism and affirmative action that's gonna make that happen, it's more people walking the road, not sitting on their sorry arses complaining about the loose shoulders.

Take that 'road metaphor'! :deadhorse: and this and this and this ...


And nice try by the way at expanding this debate on womens rights issues to a world-wide context ... and including children along with it. No sale.


*Notice I didn't say African-Americans? To me the term 'black' is not intended as anything derogatory, and I hate having to use a mouthful of PC-crapyola to specify a distinction that doesn't need to be complicated.

[Clutch Munny]

Well I'm a modern type and I'm in education and I don't believe it.

So am I, but I said MANY.

No. You said "everyone in education". Why not simply read what you wrote before telling others that they're misquoting you?


That's pretty astonishing. Any evidence for this sweeping generalization? Of course not. Any evidence for a weaker claim -- ie, most people in education believe that "everyone is intellectually capable of everything"? Of course not.

I think it’s a “ridiculously strong claim” that it’s FALSE. Where’s YOUR evidence?

Well, this is overdetermined. First, your claim is a sweeping generalization, and these are almost always false when they describe large numbers of people. There's just too much variation in persons for statements like "Everyone in education believes that everyone is capable of everything" or "Every Democrat supported Bill Clinton" or "Every libertarian is a sexually frustrated fourteen year-old" to be correct. There tend to be exceptions, leading to the open question between falsehood and triviality that I explained, and hence the need for actual clarification and argument.

Second, I personally know many teachers who do not believe what you said everyone in education believes -- indeed, who frequently go on and on to exactly the opposite effect, complaining about cutbacks that force the closure of different course levels (this in high school) so that they end up teaching kids who can't handle or don't want the mainstream material. So, not everyone in education believes what you said everyone in education believes.

Third, you went out of your way to ask for evidence that your universal generalization is false, without quoting what I wrote immediately afterwards.

It's kind of a surprising claim, isn't it? Because you'd think that people in education would have a lot of experience with unsuccessfully trying to teach things to students. I guess nobody's getting marks under 100%! Or, at a minimum, all teachers are consumed with self-loathing at their inability to teach even some simple concepts to people who are intellectually capable of everything.

Do you think that this bit, which you snipped, might have included some grounds to think your claim was overstated? The point seems quite clear: your claim is generally at odds with the operational facts of many educational systems. For example, any educational system offering both academic and applied courses on the same general topic, having different curricula, would seem a counterexample to the claim that the educators in that system hold that everyone is intellectually capable of everything.

No. That was one of your assertions. Arguments are things with premises (evidence, that is) and conclusions.

O don’t get all technical on me. It’s a point I was arguing, hence it’s my argument. Besides, where’s your EVIDENCE for this?

No. It's not a point you were arguing. It's something you said, without providing any argument. The difference is not small. Now... you want my evidence that an argument contains one or more premises? Or, even more strangely, you want my evidence that you failed to give an argument for the conclusion: People are trying their all to warp the theories so that they can make everyone intelligent?

You're missing the point. Gardner's theory: There is more than one kind of intelligence. Your depiction of Gardner's theory: Everyone is intelligent (in their own way). The latter does not follow from the former. Do you see the problem?

If there is “more than one type of intelligence” then “everyone is intelligent in their own way”. It’s what the theory tries to support.

Well, no. Those are two entirely different statements. If you don't see that, then (1) it explains a lot and (2) there's not much point to this.

I do not claim that you are the only person in the world to make this rather obvious error, of course. Maybe some people in Education theory or psych make it too. But (1) this is strictly distinct from the question of whether Gardner is right -- which people concerned about "standards" would presumably take more seriously than has been done on this thread; and (2) it is grossly implausible (indeed, known to be false) that everyone in Education holds this strange misrepresentation. See problem with sweeping generalizations and triviality, above.

O damn my misguided soul! I do declare, you’re nitpicking at my words, whilst indeed not presenting any EVIDENCE of you own.

I wish I could simply read your mind and extract any actual arguments that you might be keeping a secret; but your words are what you actually write, and it's what they actually say (and don't say) that serves as the basis for exchange. For my part, I don't know what you want by way of evidence for the assertion that "There are multiple intelligences" doesn't mean "Everyone is intelligent in their own way." A dictionary? Would it help to point out that the addendum "...but you're not intelligent" can be coherently appended to the former, but not the latter, indicating that they have distinct truth-conditions?

Sorry, is that a quote, or something made up? Because I was asking about actual evidence, not made up things.

If you have examples of people passing mathematics classes on the strength of their piano-playing, bring 'em on. The provincial curricula, grading processes, and testing at both the local and provincial levels in Grades 3, 6 and 9 effectively preclude this possibility in Canada's most populous province -- where Gardner is discouragingly popular, I've found -- but maybe things are radically different where you live. Cite the actual cases and we can go from there.

I can’t officially cite anything I’ve experienced myself. I didn’t come here to present research findings and academic essays.

I didn't ask for an academic essay; it's interesting that you think that giving actual evidence for a claim is some Herculean exercise in academics. I just want to know if there's any reason -- if even you have any reason -- to believe the assertions you're making. You chose to characterize education (the whole Shebang, though the claim would be strong confined even to specific aspects of education) in the following way, for example:

Education, as previously stated. “What? O you’re not good at Maths, I see. Nevermind, look, you can play a piano, you ARE smart enough to pass!”

It is not actually anyone else's fault that you said this without having any reason to think it accurate.

[Clutch Munny]

Did she "cite it[']s use in education"? I thought she just said that one hears about it in education. Is that what you mean by a "citation", or do you consider it evidence of some other sort perhaps? In any case, this:

Clutch, you are nothing but a hair-splitting, disingenuous fuckwad who pollutes debates with red-herrings and lefty bullshit, thinking you are actually making an argument.

Foolish and irrelevant.

Now I know that if I hear you talking about logic, I'll know you are not citing rationality either. :rolleyes:

That would be a very strange way of talking, yes. In the context of asking for evidence -- which was the context -- the claim that somebody "cited" something connotes that they made some allusion to an credible source or authority. I was simply pointing out that your use of the term seemed to depict Shewolf's mere assertions as something more evidentially weighty.

Basically, it recognises everyone's intelligence, and is an optimistic view of 'acknowledging' that everyone's intelligent in their own way.

...is "basically" false, as anyone who thought before yapping would realise. Everyone is intelligent does not follow from There is more than one way of being intelligent. Obviously.

In other words some people do not have the required skills and should be left behind

I see you need to be on the dictionary mailing list as well. Let me guess: I need to give an argument that "Not everyone is intelligent" doesn't actually mean "Some people do not have the required skills and should be left behind"?

yet this supposedly unheard of idea is really popular with both major political parties in the US isn't it? Fuckwad.

Well, again, I'm talking about actual things, not stuff you make up. I think it's logically possible to recognize the existence of people who are only average, or even slightly below average, on however many dimensions of intelligence, without concluding that they "should be left behind". And you seem, dimly, to have tumbled to the fact that this view is not only logically possible, but pretty widespread. What does this show about your claim that "Not everyone is intelligent" actually means "Some people do not have the required skills and should be left behind"? If you can't puzzle that one out, I'll explain it for you. An intelligent reader would already have got it, but that doesn't mean that you should be left behind.

I'm no fan of Gardner's theory, myself, since it is difficult to test for empirical accuracy in detail.

Yeah, like you'd know. :rolleyes:

Foolish irrelevance. But yes, I'd know. One of the biggest problems is the narrow range of predictions the theory makes, given the overlap between the allegedly different kinds of intelligence. It's a problem common to the testing of modular theories of mind more generally, of which Gardner's is arguably just a rather vague version.

But its details are not germane to SheWolf's criticism anyhow; presumably any theory of multiple intelligences would be open to the same misrepresentation. In principle the point is just that different people learn differently, and that effective education should accommodate this fact where possible. How this plays into your obsession with dolphin sex is unclear.

It wasn't a dolphin, it was a herring ... A red one. Putz. :rolleyes:

Foolish and irrelevant. Do you anything of substance to say?

How it shows that there is too much emphasis on equality is still less clear.

Yeah I guess nothing is very clear to you when you have your head up your arse. Could she be suggesting that society is accommodating inept dipshits where it is possible but not at all practical?

That's possible. But (1)