Schools have mandatory math, history, and other classes. Why not mandatory ethics classes? Doesn't have to be anything esoteric, just the basics. For that matter, maybe even have advanced classes, if the schools think the students would be capable of benefiting from it?
This post was spawned by all the bad things I see happening in our schools, week after week after week.
[An edit] These classes should be initiated at a very young age. Seriously, I mean kindergarten, first grade, etc.
I have thought this for a long time.
There are problems, though.
Who gets to define the ethics?
1. Religions think that God gives ethics, and much of the religious 'ethics'
contradict each other.
2. Secular ethics are not accepted by religious people.
3. Situational ethics are not accepted by religious people either.
Some thinkers believe that ethics are the result of empathy and compassion. I don't think so.
I think ethics evolved as a result of survival practices. Some rules just ensured that the tribe was more likely to survive.
Examples would be as follows.
1. If people within the tribe were murdering/killing each other, the tribe wouldn't last long, especially if it was small in numbers (as tribes often were 2000 or 3000 years ago).
2. If men and women were jealous of each other, and there were fewer women or fewer men around, it might lead to murder and mahem. That would eventually destroy the survival chances of the tribe.
In other words, all the things we think of as negative, can in one way or another have been seen as contrary to survival at one point. Pig meat spawned tape worms, and people died from it, so they were forbidden to eat it.
And, yes, the quickest way to make people believe they musn't do something is to tell them that a god told them.
But religions is indoctrinated form an early age, and what we are told over and over again when we grow up, is what we believe. Certainly, some people grow out of it, but that is more the result of exposure to increasing amounts of contradictive data over a period of time.
A charter of human ethics is what needs to be agreed upon by all nations. It is the only thing that is going to bring about peace in the long term. Different cultures have different beliefs in terms of ethics, and these differing 'ethics' result in clashes.
I might suggest the following.
1. Never put self-interest ahead of the tribe if self-interest will harm the tribe/community, because the individual cannot survive without the tribe/community. The individual needs the tribe/community in order to survive. In other words,
2. Never take more than you give. In the medium to longer term, if one takes more than one gives, then someone else is getting less than they gave. Eventually that causes resentment, agression, violence, and finally warfare.
Anti-religious collectivism is the death of true precepts of liberty. And anyone who has tried to plan an economy around these factors has failed, EVERY TIME.
What we need to bring back is civics classes. To educate people on their constitutional rights.
??? That is simply not true.
It seems that Americans have all been so brainwashed about the dangers of the old USSR that they have never watched the other countries that have no religion.
Finland has no religion. If you told someone in Finland that you believed in God, they would think you are nuts. They have a far better education system that any other country in the world, plus they have liberty.
There are 196 countries in the world. 184 of them have liberty. Liberty is not a scarce resource. And many of those countries are without religion - or at least religion is only followed by a minority. In the UK, only 2% are practicing Christians.
The top six countries in the world that are atheist are:
3. Czech Republic.
France is the founder of liberty. The statue of liberty was given to American by France. France created the saying ''liberty, equality, fraternity.'
And there is very little religion in France. And I can assure you that France has a good working economy as has Australia, China, etc.
So you're talking ideology and you've been indoctrinated to believe what you believe.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a … 46291.html
China is hugely repressive towards religious freedom. That means people aren't free to worship how they choose, People in Hong Kong are currently rioting in the streets to retain those liberties against a giant collectivist oppressor. (Probably the worst example you could have cited).
But I'm more concerned with the collectivism than whether or not they are religious. Taxation is theft and by it's very nature is a strain on individual liberty. That's not indoctrination that's a fact.
Indoctrination is to believe that taking money away from people at gunpoint for the so called greater good, and letting a wasteful and corrupt government spend it how they see fit is somehow a form of liberty.
Um. Fact has to be proven. If you follow the research, that is not what it says.
How did collectivism enter this conversation? You made an erroneous assumption - that non-belief is related to collectivism. That is the result of brainwashing in the United States in the 60s at the height of the cold war. France, Finland, Germany, Japan, and numerous other countries that verge on atheist are NOT collective economies.
Taxation is NOT theft. It is a voluntary contribution to the State in order to pay for services that are considered beneficial to the collective good of society. People who are unwilling to pay taxes for that benefit should actually immediately go and live in Somalia and see how far a lack of taxes gets one. And paying taxes has nothing to do with teaching ethics at school.
Youre responses indicate that your mind is a hive of indoctrination. YOu actually cannot follow the text of what is presented without going off on a tangent.
"Never put self interest ahead of the tribe" That's collectivism.
I find it ironic that you claim I am going off topic when not only did you bring collectivist ideology into the conversation with your first post, but you denied it in one sentence, and then went on to defend it in the very next paragraph.
I don't mind having a discussion over the pros and cons of collectivism since you were the first to bring it up. It is odd however, that you accuse me of indoctrination when the concept is so ingrained in your thoughts that you don't even realize when you are writing about it.
Ah, I see. So Christianity is a collectivist creed, is it?
You do know that Christianity teaches Christians to put themselves last, don't you?
You are unconsciously connecting things that aren't actually connected.
It is wise to look at the collective good rather than one's own private interest. For instance, the USA and the UK have become dog-eat-dog societies because everybody has been encouraged to become self-interested.
I grew up in the 50s, and to be self-interested was considered evil. Actually, to be self-interested has been considered evil for the 2000 years that Christianity has been about. Perhaps you ought to read your bible?
So let's get this straight.
Your family wants to go to the movies, but they need an escort because it's dangerous out there. You want to go play football. Do you honestly think that putting your family's interests ahead of yours makes the state a collective one?
Putting the good of others ahead of one's own personal interests (which might harm the collective good) is called kindness. It is not called ''collectivism.'
Individualism is a sick creed. It totally bewilders me how people who advocate family also advocate individualism. The family cannot function well if everyone is bent on their own self-interest. It destructs.
You mistake something.
You were the one that thought that putting others ahead of oneself when others will be harmed if one follows one's own self-interest is collectivism. That is not the definiton of collectivism.
Collectivism is a STATE-RUN government, not a personal choice to put one's own desires (when they are harmful to others) aside.
Let me give you some examples of that.
If producing a particular product (denim jeans, for instance) were to destroy entire towns and villages because of the blue dye that goes into the rivers, is it a good thing to focus on the profit (for the owner) or for hte well being of the town. If the owner put aside his own self-interest (profit), the people of the town would survive. This is NOT collectivism. This is good taking precedence over evil.
Incidentally, entire rivers have been destroyed in China in providing 350 million pairs of blue jeans annually to Americans.
Then, again, if you think that the self-interest of one man is more important than the collective good of a village or town, then you don't understand Christianity.
Also, I very purposely said tribe/community, precisely because there are so many people who don't understand the difference between state run collectivism and the simple ethic of putting others ahead of oneself when one's own self interest would conflict with the well-being of the community. And communities can be as big as two people.
Your idea of localized tribalism is merely a steppingstone towards state ran collectivism. And you applaud China for it's repression towards the religious. No, you don't believe in liberty.
I certainly don't have the hangups that you have about liberty. I have lived free in multiple countries and on multiple countries in the world. I can do exactly what I like within the framework of the law.
You belong to a tribe. You belong to the whtie nationalist tribe. You probably belong to an evanglical christian tribe as well. Your entire dogma is that of a particular tribe. You think your tribe is superior. That is tribalism.
Within framework of the law. Is that not always the case, whether a country is "free" or not? You may do as you wish, as long as that country says it is all right to do so?
Yes, of course. What is it that you think I can't do that you can or visa versa? I'm really interestesd.
There is something mentally off-centre about all these people who go on about their freedom.
What is it, exactly, that you want to do that you can't do.
You can go shopping, see a movie, say what you like (provided it doesn't harm the freedom of others), etc.
I genuinely believe people who go on about 'freedom' when there already is freedom are mentally ill.
Clearly the laws of a country permit freedom in 184 countries. That's about 95% of countries that have their citizens living freely.
I truly wonder what it is that you think you don't have that you ought to have.
Well, the first, and possibly largest, obstacle to "freedom" is a government that takes most of what you build in order to give it to others, without providing you any benefit at all. There will always be dissension about what a country needs, but when there is no benefit for the person paying the bill it is not "freedom". Not by any definition I would accept.
Then there are a host of "morality" laws, dictating how you shall behave, for no more reason than because others think you should.
Finally, any time two or more people live in close proximity to each other, some "freedom" must be give up. It becomes, then, a matter of how much is given up in order to live together. Some countries require more, some less. Some require large sacrifices, some require many small ones.
In any case, the point is that when you declare that 95% of countries have citizens living freely...if they choose to abide by the laws of the country...you aren't saying much. Every country gives it's people that choice: "Do what I say or else!"
Sorry, tax does not fall under freedom. That is really twisted reasoning.
Next, you're welcome to pack up and go and live in the middle of the Amazon or Somalia or somewhere where people pay taxes.
The price of living in a modern society is paying taxes to a government.
1. Taxes pay for the infrastructure of a country. Without that infrastructure, ther eis no country.
2. We are now finally seeing what laissez faire capitalism is doing. It has enriched the top few hundred people at the top who own about 90% fo the world and the rest are fighting over the crumbs and blaming everybody but the real culprits. Business is incapable of providing that infrastructure. Wherever it has, it has failed miserably.
3. According to sources outside of America, 60% of American taxes go to the miltiary. That's why you get nothing for your money. In Europe, people pay about the same rate of taxes that Americans do, but they actually get something for their money. If you want to live in a country that has a bigger military that the next 26 countries with the largest militaries, combined, that has nothing to do with 'freedom.'That has everything to do with a big business making money out of weapons. And Americans wanting to boast to the rest of hte world about how mighty it is.
3. You are quite right when you say that when two or more people live together, there is compromise in freedom. So why don't you go and live in the bush. That way you have all the freedom you like. I will grant you that when a primitive culture lives alongside a sophisticated culture, there is conflict. Secular, scientific, technological societies do not do well alongside superstitious, religious ones.
4. Actually, I'm assuming that that you actually realize that I'm saying that people can't go and murder, rape, and steal from other people. The 184 countries have decent laws - the same as any first world western country. I can assure you that the South African constitution is acknowledged as far better than the American constitution. I receive a pension, free medical, and I'm just as free as I ever was in the USA. Of course, there are problems, and my point is not that other countries do not have problems, but that your obsession with 'freedom' is rediculous.
5. Your real problem with tax is that you don't want to pay it because you want more for yourself. If you're so clever, then go make yourself a billion, then you will actually have more for yourself.
"1. Taxes pay for the infrastructure of a country. Without that infrastructure, ther eis no country."
I tried to indicate (and think I did) that there is no problem with such taxes. It is when taxes are required and then simply handed out to someone else, with no benefit to the one paying, that freedom is lost.
"So why don't you go and live in the bush. That way you have all the freedom you like."
I'm struggling with just why you seem to think I demand no losses at all. Again, I made it very clear that it is necessary that some loss is required - it is a question of how much. If you're required to pray to Allah daily, that's too much. If you cannot fire a gun in city limits, that's reasonable and quite acceptable. Yes, I fully realize that you can't go around raping and murdering; I assume you do as well.
"I receive a pension, free medical, and I'm just as free as I ever was in the USA."
And there is the crux: someone is paying for your pension, free medical, etc., and their freedom to spend their earnings as they wish is lost, while getting no benefit from it. I have difficulty comprehending why you can't seem to recognize that fact; it is a simple concept. You may find it "ridiculous" that that freedom was lost, but that's not an excuse to state that it was not. Nor is it an excuse to demand that others pay your way - to give up the freedom they enjoy so that you can live off of their wallet.
You're right - I want what I earn. Whether "clever" (why the obnoxious comment?) or not, I deserve to keep it, not have someone else take it away because they want more than they earn.
Those are certainly a lot of presumptions you are making about me, all wrong of course. It would seem that you are unconsciously connecting things that aren't actually connected.
It is strange that at first you were all about putting the tribe ahead of the individual, yet your new definition of tribalism is repugnant.
On the contrary, you don't actually understand what a tribe is. Perhaps you might go and get a more advanced education. I, on the other hand, studied anthropology at university.
A tribe (and note that I put the word 'community' next to tribe so that there could be no confusion as to its meaning) means a group of people who share similar values.
In addition, in popular parlance, it is also slang for the people you hang out with. In other words, today someone might say 'I see you hung out with your tribe, today."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio … lish/tribe
I made sure that I didn't use the word 'nation,' particularly so that there could be no misunderstanding of what I meant.
I'd be interested to know the following.
1. How many languages do you speak. Generally people who speak more than one language have a better understanding of meaning.
2. How many countries (particularly first world countries) have you lived and worked in besides the United States and besides the US military. That's because generally people who have done that have a greater understanding of the world and a far broader perspective.
3. What is your level of education?
Coming at me from an authoritative stance is unwise. You feel that simply because of your level of formal education that somehow others can not speak to socioeconomic issues on the same level. I have more education than you think, I've been around the world, and I speak more than one language. It means nothing because I can read. And incidentally we're both speaking English right now.
And you are now reverting back to the concept of "tribe/ community" to the dictionary definition to justify hocking accusations of white nationalism at me.
I will say that there is one thing about America (a well traveled person such as yourself seems to be unable to grasp) that's different than the rest of the world, is that we can love our country without being racist because it was founded on the concept of "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. It is not race based, it allows for anybody from any background to become a citizen and a true American from the moment they raise their hand and take that oath.
You can never become German, Mexican, or Japanese by taking an oath, which is what separates The United States from the rest.
Read very carefully what I said in my response to an example of values. Putting others ahead of oneself was the Christian teaching I received. Why do you have a problem with it? Tribe is modern slang for the community one hangs out with. I put the word community next to it to make sure that was understood.
You said "And you are now reverting back to the concept of "tribe/ community" to the dictionary definition to justify hocking accusations of white nationalism at me."
Doesn't the dictionary settle the meaning of words? I was always taught that it was. And I have no idea how defining a word (which includes the way it is used in slang today) means that I am thrwing white nationalist at you.
Where did I say that?
Do you seriously believe that one cannot lie when one takes an oath??? I'm confused. I'm sure there are lots of nations where one does take an oath. What does it prove? I truly don't understand what is so fabulous about taking an oath.
An oath is just a promise. People promise to stay married their whole lives and then get divorced. Promises/oaths are broken all the time.
Your country is racist. It has a racist president. And, yes, your country is different to others. On my immigrant welcome papers is said that America was the only country in the world that put the individual before the good of hte community. I was gobsmacked.
No, it's not level of formal education that determines whether one arrives at factual information. It's a combination of factors - IQ, life experience, analysis, education, travel, languages, etc. All of it broadens the perspective.
When people project their fears onto what other people are saying, and that happens all the time when one speaks to conservatives from the USA, it is frustrating to deal with.
You immediately thought I was saying something that I wasn't. And it absolutely and utterly does go back to the meaning of the words. I couldn't have been clearer.
So, of course, I'm questioning your education. I think it's relevant.
It's typical that Liberals revert to one's formal credentials when they loose an argument. It is elitism, and no matter how qualified anybody is, nobody is more qualified to run my life than me.
America is one of the least racist countries in the world and that should be made evident by the millions of people from all over the world that are trying to get into this country every year. All citizens of this country have the same rights regardless of race, creed, or religion. Every fortune five hundred company in America abides by strict nondiscrimination policies that allow for the most economic opportunities. People are afforded the ability to lift themselves out of poverty at every turn. There are countless scholarship programs offered to minorities for higher education, and everyone is afforded equal protection under the law.
Are you now saying that you didn't call me a white nationalist? Once again you don't seem to be capable of keeping track of your own words.
I am really struggling here Tess. As a non-participant I am aware that I am just butting in, and I did try, (through multiple exposures), to refrain from responding), but . . .
Your questions in this comment are pretty damning. I am sorely tempted to look back in the forum archives because, like Jake Earthshine and Alternate Prime, I am certain I have encountered you before under another persona.
Your questions amount to a credibility litmus test, and I think that arrogance reflects poorly on you.
You shouldn't have to toot your own horn. Your actions and words should be such that others would do the tooting for you. However, in the threads I have followed, that hasn't been the case. You are doing all the tooting.
Also, to confirm my lack of credibility, via your litmus test;
1. I only speak one and a half languages. English and a less than fluent Spanish.
2. I have only lived in the United States, but my Navy experience did allow me to visit half a dozen others.
3. I do not have a college degree, so obviously I must not be qualified to have a knowledgeable conversation with you.
Yet, I have had many good informative and knowledgeable conversation with other folks here that have better credentials, (by your standards). Go figure.
I think you might deserve one of Readmikenow's "Bless your hearts'.
"I am certain I have encountered you before under another persona. "
You have. Do you recall a "Sophia Angelique", around late Dec, 2012, that was banned and left amongst some really nasty forum posts and badly hurt feelings?
Sounds familiar, and fits my recollection. I just didn't have the energy to go back and search.
If I remember correctly, the earlier persona got caught in a discrepancy of whether she spoke 7 or 11 languages and claimed that her profile picture, (a very attractive one), was really her, but folded her tent when it was shown that her profile picture was actually an internet image she had adopted as her own.
I really did try to ignore that last "litmus test" post, but after repeatedly seeing it when I checked the thread, temptation got the best of me.
I was never banned. Please check with Robin Edmonton. I left because the trolling by the Conservatives, the bullying by Evangelical Christians, etc. was more than I could bear. I am reporting the lot of you for misinformation. I am writing to Robin now. And, yes, if Robin remembers, I met her at a Hubpages tutorial in Houston, and she may remember what I looked like.
The reason I have to keep 'tooting my own horn,' is because I keep being undermined by you lot.
And, yes, education, being informed about other cultures, beliefs, etc. are the mark of people who know what they are talking about.
For the record, all past colonies of the British Empire, include American, Canada, Inida, South Africa, etc. are predominantly English speaking.
Love the ethic idea. Teach more in schools about sexual relationship, independently, how to make money, or lessons in love. More important things we all can use alot more of.
LOL While you might (might!) get a very general agreement over very basic morality, you will never, ever get any kind of agreement with anything remotely sexual.
Will you teach total abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control? Will you teach that sex outside marriage is sinful and to be avoided at all costs? Will you teach that prostitution is a valuable service, performed by upstanding citizens or a sin, disgusting and immoral - performed only by the dregs of society?
Will you teach that women must be completely covered at all times so as to not arouse unacceptable feelings in the boys seeing them? Will you teach that women shall never speak to a male when unaccompanied by their spouse?
And who will teach the teachers? The hierarchy of the Ku Klux Klan or the Pope? Given the coverup of Catholic priest activities, I wouldn't accept either one!
You may find sex education in school creepy.
Take it from Denmark, the happiest country in the world. Plus many countries in Northern Europe. Also personally sex has been my greatest pleasure on earth and laughing second. Plus an ultimate bond for the one I love most. Why be taught sex ignorance from teenage locker rooms and porn industry larger than Hollywood.
The sex week campaign is run by Sex & Samfund (Sex & Society), a non-profit dedicated to improving sex education in Denmark.
It began 11 years ago as a week of programming dedicated to all aspects of sex and sexuality, tailored to different ages. Each year has a distinct theme, the most recent being “boundaries” — an in-depth exploration of digital safety, sexting, the sharing of sexual images and consent.
Comprehensive sex education is mandatory in Danish law, but Sex Week isn’t. That hasn’t hindered its popularity, however. The most recent sex week reached over 20,000 teachers and around 400,000 pupils — around two-thirds of all school-age children in Denmark.
“The political environment means we have a great framework for sex education,” said Lene Stavngaard, national director at Sex & Samfund, who cited support from politicians and a progressive sexual culture in the country as important factors in making CSE so widespread.
One particular strength of the framework, she argued, was its focus on competencies, rather than specific topics.
Danish children aren’t just expected to know about specific topics like consent, or reproductive biology, for example. Instead, they are expected to be able to understand and express themselves against much broader competencies, such as analysing gender norms, sexual rights, and different countries’ laws regarding sex.
Sex week doesn’t stop at the school gates, either. Each year also includes tasks for parents to learn how to talk about sex with their kids. This year, the challenge encouraged parents to talk to their kids about nude image sharing and online safety in six itemised conversations.
“If you don’t open space for discussions of nude image sharing online at home, and if as a parent you’re signalling [that] we can’t talk about this, then the child will feel ashamed and think it’s their own fault,” said Stavngaard.
But Stavngaard emphasised that sex week is just a way to top-up and reinforce sex education that runs throughout Danish schooling, both in stand-alone sex education lessons, and integrated into other subjects, such as biology and physical education.
Policy and practice
Stavngaard was keen to temper any notion that Denmark has entirely cracked sex education, despite its many successes.
“Denmark is often cited as a good example of sex education, but there was a recent evaluation on how sex is conducted in schools and it seems that often it’s not done very well,” she said. “Teachers aren’t always doing it and teachers don’t always have skills they require to do it well.”
That’s not a unique problem. Sweden’s sex education curriculum is often cited as an example of best practice by international researchers, but one study found that 96% of students felt sexual assault wasn’t adequately covered.
The problem is partly a skills gap that exists in teacher training curricula, said Stavngaard.
“It’s mandatory for teachers to teach sex education, but it’s not mandatory for them to learn,” she said, arguing that including CSE in teacher training courses would do much to improve the implementation of ambitious laws.
A second factor behind the gap between national policy and on-the-ground implementation is that some school heads support CSE more strongly than others. Stavngaard recommended that every principal set out a clear plan for the delivery of sex in their schools.
But she also argued that schools alone aren’t enough to ensure young people receive the CSE they need. Parents need to be engaged, and NGOs
“There are some things that are better coming from external people rather than your maths teacher,” said Stavngaard. Sexual pleasure, for example, might be better coming from an external voice. “It’s good to have a broad palette in how you deliver CSE in schools.”
The lesson from the Danish experience in Stavngaard’s eyes is clear.
“It’s not enough just to have knowledge,” she said. “Young people need to be empowered, and feel that they can make good decisions.” — Edward Siddons
child marriage school girl
Jobs and paid-for schooling can keep Tanzanian girls from early marriages
How nice for the Danish, and like them I have zero problem with sex education, all facets...as long as it meets my criteria for what is "right".
The Danes are, compared to the US, an extremely homogeneous group of people, all with pretty much the same concepts of how we should live. Which was my point; those concepts vary so widely in the US that no agreement is even close to being possible and thus, given our concept of freedom of religion (where most sexual mores originate), agreeing on a training program is not possible.
The US is probably unique in this world in that it really is a great melting pot of people. But that doesn't mean that they all conform to a universal way of life; it means that we (hopefully) tolerate other ways. And you're trying to put a common thread onto sex; probably the biggest difference we have amongst ourselves.
We know sex is a hogposh of confusions with love. It's why we need lessons in love.
Most of the top ten worst sins in America Christianity polls is about sex. I see a melting pot in interracial sex in America porn, just not in the schools. Families are too afraid to talk about it.
Wtf? Please feel free to join Tessa Schlesinger on facebook and ask all my school friends, my daughter, my sister, etc if that is really me
I also said my late father spoke 11 languages - not me. I don't lie. I don't have to. I'm gifted, came from a wealthy well known family in my country, was privately schooled, grew up with live in servants, etc. You people really have problems. I take it if I don't receive requests for me to add you on facebook, and if I don't see you asking friends if that is what I really look like, that you don't want to believe it because it would expose weaknesses in your arguments that I am a fraud. The only way you are free to carry on believing what you do is if I am a fraud. I have bad news for you. I am exactly what and who I say I am.
Wilderness, people are born unequal, and the price of anon violent, peaceful, well educated country is that some people do pay taxes so that other people have a reasonable quality of life. I take it you aren't a Christian as you have no generoristy of spirit towards others. You should read the story of the good Samaritan sometime. Actually, you should study the full creed of Christianity sometime. You are not free to give to give to only those you care about, and you need to give up to half of your goods to complete strangers. In addition, Jesus said Render unto Ceasar what is Caesars when asked about tax. And I can assure you that the Jews got nothing out of Rome
You want to argue Christianity and the bible or Ayn Rand or anyone else, please feel free.
"I take it you aren't a Christian as you have no generoristy of spirit towards others."
How in the world would you know whether I have "generoristy of spirit" or not? No, I'm not Christian, and I have never had large sums of money to give away. But I DO provide help to others - I have spent my life helping others, from helping to build playgrounds for children to repeatedly taking the homeless into my own home and supporting them until they can get on their feet.
But there is an enormous difference between helping others and forcing a third party to provide the resources I think the poor should have. It is this that differentiates us - you think it is good, and you have the right (or even duty) to take what others have to spend as you see fit because you feel your cause is just. It isn't - the rich should help the poor, but if they choose not to it is neither my duty (nor yours) to force them to do so. You have the right, and duty (IMO) to help provide for the poor, but you have neither right nor duty to play Robin Hood, taking whatever you wish from one to give to another.
Why is it that every conversation gets to be about the conservative vs liberal agenda. This conversation was about ehtics, and two minutes later, it had a conservative agenda projected on it.
I was using Christian basics for it.
It totlaly blows my mind.
I am also sick and tired of being constantly undermined on this site when I say things that are progressive/liberal/atheist, and then when I defend myself, I am accused of lying and tooting my own horn.f
Am I expected to be insulted all the time?
Am I expected to lie down and be kicked?
Must I kowtow to belief systems that are outmoded in the EU?
Right from the start, my value system has been the one that dominated western thinking outside the USA. I have been bullied by far too many conservatives just because of them.
For more than 15 years (1994 to 2012) I was consistently bullied and mocked and belittled by Americans. I had no idea why. Because I grew up in a heavily abusive environment I thought there must be something wrong with me.
Then I joined Google Plus, and over a period fo time, I learned about the political system, and that I had liberal values. I had absolutely no idea. Nobody had every told me that. The last thing I ever thought I was was a liberal. I thought I was conservative because I grew up well-behaved. That is all the word meant to me.
And then I started learning all about the great divide in the STates. I learn that the biggest fight was about abortion. The blew my mind. I take it for granted. Not that I have ever had one. But it's accepted that a woman can choose in the EU.
So from now on, I think it's best that I just dont' speak or respond to people who belittle me and then accuse me of 'tooting my own horn' or when I point out the errors in what they say just past over them and attack from somewhere else.
Please don't respond to me if we dont' agree. I don't want to speak to you.
I have reported this to Robin bedause I was never banned and I absolutely am who I say I am.
I think it is a great idea. The proliferation of STEM courses in fact necessitates formal introduction to ethics. How else do we make sure students are thinking about the complex social implications of tech. Today it's all a gospel: tech this, tech that, all hail tech; or the other extreme: down with tech. Ethics makes us understand that tech is really about ease of doing things, not simply things like phones, AI, and the likes. It is equally abstract as it is material (Please see: Sociology: The Essentials)
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
I do believe that what is needed is greater discussion of what individualism means.American exceptionalism is greatly misunderstood...individual freedoms are not upheld for oneself let alone for another"The initial US's "exceptionalism" is the cure for this kind of thinking. People...
by MrMaranatha 9 years ago
I'm sick to death of listening to people bash religion with this line of thinking... "Where is my freedom from your religion?" Well... Where is MY freedom from YOURS? Yours is being taught in the schools as Science... call it Evolution if you will but the fact is that...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
What are THE TOP TEN REASONS that people are religious? No holds barred, be as frank aspossible?
by Stephen Meadows 4 years ago
Are atheists generally happier people than believers?Many believers can't understand that a person can be happier without religion in their life. What are your thoughts?
by jomine 10 years ago
believers always say non believers are false, but they can't explain their religion logically or rationally. why not even two believers agree on there beliefs, but still go on talking non sense?can anybody explain.
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest. Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault weapons, like AR15's to protect themselves from the eventual tyranny of their own...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|