[Kaitlyn S]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-01, 13:59, said:

I find it interesting that most of your complaints about poor educational outcomes focus on innumeracy while your complaints about the common core seem focused on fears about political indoctrination.

For the moment, lets shelve issues like Civics or History and focus instead on topics such as Mathematics, Physics, and Biology.
Are you also opposed to the Common Core being used for these subjects?

Why would I be? If I thought the children would learn better, I'm all for it.

Personally I think it would be bat **** crazy to be opposed to something simply for the reason that conservatives "are supposed" to be opposed to it. After all, as a conservative I am "supposed to" be opposed to the government buying land to be forever wild and yet I just voted for an amendment to do that because I think it's a good idea.

[billw55]

I get the feeling that Kaitlyn's concern is not so much the content of common core, but rather the idea of a single curriculum set by a national authority and enforced in all localities. Such a system would enable misuse for political indoctrination in the future, even if the current CC content does not do so. Would that be better than local control - and hence local variation?

Really it comes down to a fundamental question about what the federal government is supposed to provide, and what it isn't.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 14:22, said:

Why would I be? If I thought the children would learn better, I'm all for it.

In my experience most people who make comments like the following

"I have read some sample questions from Common Core last year (I wish I still had them) and I couldn't understand how they would teach anybody anything."

follow up by using a math question as their primary example

[Kaitlyn S]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-01, 14:32, said:

In my experience most people who make comments like the following

"I have read some sample questions from Common Core last year (I wish I still had them) and I couldn't understand how they would teach anybody anything."

follow up by using a math question as their primary example

If I thought that it was "proven" that children would learn math better by some system that I didn't understand all that well, I would still be in favor of it. Isn't the primary issue the education of our children?

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 14:54, said:

If I thought that it was "proven" that children would learn math better by some system that I didn't understand all that well, I would still be in favor of it. Isn't the primary issue the education of our children?

I agree that the primary issue is the education of the Nation's children.

However, I don't think that "No proving something to Kaitlyn" is a sufficient reason to reject the Common Core, especially since you have yet to present any coherent argument why you disapprove of the system.

The examples that you raise "Government Indoctrination" are not specific to the Common Core.
They certainly aren't specific to the Math and Sciences portion of the exam.

You say that you want to be treated seriously...
Make some kind of coherent argument.

[Kaitlyn S]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-01, 15:10, said:

I agree that the primary issue is the education of the Nation's children.

However, I don't think that "No proving something to Kaitlyn" is a sufficient reason to reject the Common Core, especially since you have yet to present any coherent argument why you disapprove of the system.

The examples that you raise "Government Indoctrination" are not specific to the Common Core.
They certainly aren't specific to the Math and Sciences portion of the exam.

You say that you want to be treated seriously...
Make some kind of coherent argument.

OK, here's a coherent argument.

I believe that Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, wants to do things to take power away from the people and give it to the Federal Government.

I believe she wants to annihilate the Second Amendment, no matter what she says.
Hillary wants to end gun ownership

She thinks the state can raise children better than parents
state can raise children better than parents

She wants the state to control health care. Step #1 for controlling the people
From:
Rules for radicals


Section 1:

How to create a social state – The Cloward-Piven Strategy:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

• Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people.
• Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
• Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
• Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state
• Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives. (Food, Housing, and Income)
• Education – Take control of what people read and listen to us" take control of what children learn in school.
• Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
• Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Where does Hillary come in? With single payer, the government will control health care.

Hilary supports single payer


I could go down that Cloward-Piven list and check off one by one how Hillary will bring about each one of the eight items. I've already gone over guns and healthcare.

What about #8? She wants to help Wall Street which will only exacerbate the divide between the healthy and the poor.

Hillary likes Wall Street

What about #3? Her debt free college plan will put the country way in debt when combined with college debt forgiveness plans.

I won't even go into Poverty, Welfare, and Religion; conservatives know only too well about the Democratic Party's affect on these and liberals won't believe me anyway.

So we come to education. Common Core will give the Clinton Machine (I presume she is winning) the power to control #6, Education. And you wonder why I'm against that?

You have my serious argument. Would you like to present one now instead of flaming me?

[cherdano]

And I thought I was exaggerating.

 cherdano, on 2016-October-26, 17:47, said:

I guess it's just a small step from "The governors of all states ask a group of experts to give recommendations on how to best teach fractions" to fascism. Kaitlyn continues to amaze.

[mycroft]

You know, when I first posted my last on this thread, I made a mistake (3^3 came out as 3^4 in my head). I knew the scale of the answer - and that's something I think we should be teaching, even if I could care less about the 19, or even the 7, times table - and realized I'd done something wrong. I looked at it for a minute, couldn't figure it out, (but knew 18x12 couldn't be bigger than 20x20) and pulled out my calculator. Why? Because it was easier to use it to double check than backing up and trying to figure out what was going on. Did I have to? No, but it would have taken longer and my ego doesn't need that much stroking. I play bridge; I expect to make mistakes.

I don't have a problem if people need a tool to figure out why I handed them $10.23 for the $9.98 bill (I do have an issue with those that move the change aside, add the two cents and expect me to take it.) I don't care if people need a crutch to work out 8x7 (or even 12x18), for the same reason that I don't care if anyone knows my phone number except me (and that only to fill out forms). They can still reach me when they need to, because their smartphone has my number, and when they get a new one, moving the contacts whole cloth is a couple of clicks. But my dad was famous for his ability to remember 7-character random strings (you know, phone numbers and license plates?) I don't have that skill, and it doesn't matter. I don't care if people have nice handwriting - or even can cursively write at all. Why? Because apart from signing a form or a cheque (and I do *that*, maybe, two or three times a year; I void more) nobody has to write. Type, swype, text, or just stick it in a "note program" and leave it in the aether to be found whenever. If you're a bridge player, get numbered stickers for the entry form. If you have to use old-fashioned technologies like a horse-and-cart or pencil-and-paper, printing is just fine, and frankly more legible in most cases.

I don't wear a watch, haven't for almost 10 years (except when I'm directing). I'm never anywhere where the time is more than a look over a shoulder, or at worst two keytaps or a buttonpress away (except when I'm directing). I certainly don't need to be able to tell time, either with an analog clock or "it's 1037. What time will it be in an hour and a half?" (as I said before, the answer is either "lunchtime" or "bedtime").

Note, however, that I have a pen (in fact, many, beautiful, pens); I can do mind arithmetic, and play Countdown for fun; all but one of "my" clocks are analog (and I'm still meaning to buy a CounterClock, because I'm an old UWaterloo CSC hack); and many other things that I think are elegant or useful or just plain cool. But I don't have a problem if others don't; because they, like math someone with a calculator can do as fast as I, are not *necessary*. 100, 50 years ago, they were; and guess how old the complainers (and, frankly, the curriculum setters and teachers) are?

Note that that doesn't mean that we don't need to teach basic math skills!

It does matter if people look at "57% of 300 million" and come up with either around 17 or around 520 million, because that's what the calculator said. It does matter if they don't realize that 650 million in a week is ludicrous, especially because that's twice the extant number. It does matter if they don't understand that 37 cases in over a billion, or 5 cases in 200 million, or even a 1 in 13.6million chance to win (potentially share) a prize of $5m, $2 a throw, is as close as all-get-out to zero to be ignorable, comparatively. It does matter (given that I am an engineer) that going from 176 in 2014 to 203 in 2015 is reported as a 15.34% increase or when a report of 160 000 of one disease and 256 of another get reported as 160 256 cases; it matters when the same tricks that were debunked in 1954's "How to Lie With Statistics" (and, of course, were not new even then) still show up on TV screens every week, and still seduce a significant fraction of people (0.19, p<0.75 - in other words, I pulled that number out of thin air).

By the way, if you've never read that book, spend an hour or two with it. I don't think it will teach any of this audience much, but it's a lot of fun.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 16:58, said:

You have my serious argument. Would you like to present one now instead of flaming me?

Certainly...

In a previous post you asserted the following: "If I thought that it was "proven" that children would learn math better by some system that I didn't understand all that well, I would still be in favor of it."

It it appears as if you are stating that we should measure the Common Core by evaluating its effectiveness imparting information to students.
However, the critique that you are presenting of the Common Core would appear to be some kind of meta narrative about the coming of the anti-Christ.

As such, the criticism that you have leveled is not responsive to the evaluation criteria that you originally specified...

[mikeh]

deleted Some people aren't worth a response. Kaitlyn might want to ponder the phrase 'invincible ignorance' as it applies to her 'arguments'.

[Elianna]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 14:54, said:

If I thought that it was "proven" that children would learn math better by some system that I didn't understand all that well, I would still be in favor of it. Isn't the primary issue the education of our children?

At it's base, common core isn't a system, but more an aspirational set of standards.

The "system" is put together by educators (and textbook publishers) who try to meet the hoops that students will be tested on.

The main part about Common Core Math is the Standard Math Principles, which many people take as standards, but I (and many people who have thought about math education) take more as explicitly stating what are traits of good mathematicians, and so we need to make sure that students are building skills in those areas.

Here they are:
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

If anyone is interested in more detail about those or the rest of the "content standards", you can find them here.

And the "system" HAS been studied in many ways. There is a giant core of educational theory about this but it's not my area of expertise so I can't link you to studies (I'm not taking the time to search for them past the time I'm spending replying).

[Kaitlyn S]

 Elianna, on 2016-November-01, 22:45, said:

There is a giant core of educational theory about this but it's not my area of expertise so I can't link you to studies (I'm not taking the time to search for them past the time I'm spending replying).

I assume most of us appreciate the time you put into thus thread. I know I do.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-01, 21:14, said:

deleted Some people aren't worth a response. Kaitlyn might want to ponder the phrase 'invincible ignorance' as it applies to her 'arguments'.

I looked it up. If you were posting with some conservative posters, you would be accused of invincible ignorance.

A poster asked me why I feared Common Core being used for political means. At the cost of much time, I answered. Whether or not you think my fears have grounds, they are real and I answered honestly.

[billw55]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 16:58, said:

Section 1:

How to create a social state – The Cloward-Piven Strategy:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

• Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people.
• Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
• Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
• Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state
• Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives. (Food, Housing, and Income)
• Education – Take control of what people read and listen to us" take control of what children learn in school.
• Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
• Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Earlier I thought you were being somewhat reasonable, but now you're just reposting far right conspiracy nonsense.

[kenberg]

Fwiw, I want to say a few words about differing abilities. I start with a recognizable quote:

Quote

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

I like this. But that's not my point. Shakespeare, I understand, wrote in blank verse.
I went to http://literarydevic...et/blank-verse/ and found:

Quote

Blank verse is a literary device defined as un-rhyming verse written in iambic pentameter. In poetry and prose, it has a consistent meter with 10 syllables in each line (pentameter); where, unstressed syllables are followed by stressed ones and five of which are stressed but do not rhyme. It is also known as un-rhymed iambic pentameter.

There is a link there to explain iambi parameter.And I am still working on the iambic stuff.

Quote

Pentameter is a literary device that can be defined as a line in verse or poetry that has five strong metrical feet or beats. There are different forms of pentameter: iamb, trochaic, dactylic and anapestic. The most commonly used pentameter in English is iambic. It also can be described as a line consists of ten syllables, where the first syllable is stressed, the second is unstressed, the third is stressed and so on until it reaches the 10th line syllable. For instance, “Shall I com PARE thee TO a SUM mer’s DAY?”(Sonnet 18 by Shakespeare)

Ok, I counted the syllables in the first line, ten it is. But unless "glorious" is two syllables, I count eleven ni line two.

I can, probably, understand this if I try. but now I will compare it with my reaction to geometry. I took geometry when I was 14, it was based on Euclid's axioms, and we proved theorems. What a wonderful idea! Maybe some things were hard, a lot of it was pretty easy, but the overall approach was clear to me from the beginning. I think we all understand the difference. In Pretty Woman, Richard Gere takes Julie Roberts to an opera, the first one she has ever seen. He explains that it all depends on a person's first reaction. Some can, with study, learn to appreciate opera. Others take to it immediately. It's different.

This takes many forms. When taking algebra in high school I helped this classmate. He did not want me to do it for him, he wanted to understand it and I helped. Later, I took metal shop. He was very good at it, and he helped me. Talents vary.

Probably just about everyone can learn Euclidean Geometry, Iambic Pentameter, and how to use a lathe. But it can sometimes be a struggle, and it is very possible for someone to find one of these natural and clear while finding the other opaque. At the college level, things are easier. If Quantum Mechanics is not your thing, don't major in Physics. That's simple. At the high school level, teachers are supposed to get everyone to manage at an acceptable level in a wide variety of things. That's tougher.

[Zelandakh]

Yes Ken, glorious is 2 syllables, just as Romeo is always two in Romeo and Juliet (think Rome-Yo rather than Rome-Ee-Oh and count the syllables in "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo"). You have to remember that these plays were written a long time ago and sometimes the rules are slightly different from what you might expect. It might sound silly but at school I learned iambic pentameter as "dee DAH dee DAH dee DAH dee DAH dee DAH" and that has worked for me to remember it to this day. Sometimes things can be made just too complicated when the simple and direct approach works best.

[diana_eva]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 16:58, said:

OK, here's a coherent argument.

I believe that Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, wants to do things to take power away from the people and give it to the Federal Government.

I believe she wants to annihilate the Second Amendment, no matter what she says.
Hillary wants to end gun ownership

She thinks the state can raise children better than parents
state can raise children better than parents

She wants the state to control health care. Step #1 for controlling the people
From:
Rules for radicals


Section 1:

How to create a social state – The Cloward-Piven Strategy:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.

• Healthcare– Control healthcare and you control the people.
• Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
• Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
• Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state
• Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives. (Food, Housing, and Income)
• Education – Take control of what people read and listen to us" take control of what children learn in school.
• Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
• Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Where does Hillary come in? With single payer, the government will control health care.

Hilary supports single payer


I could go down that Cloward-Piven list and check off one by one how Hillary will bring about each one of the eight items. I've already gone over guns and healthcare.

What about #8? She wants to help Wall Street which will only exacerbate the divide between the healthy and the poor.

Hillary likes Wall Street

What about #3? Her debt free college plan will put the country way in debt when combined with college debt forgiveness plans.

I won't even go into Poverty, Welfare, and Religion; conservatives know only too well about the Democratic Party's affect on these and liberals won't believe me anyway.

So we come to education. Common Core will give the Clinton Machine (I presume she is winning) the power to control #6, Education. And you wonder why I'm against that?

You have my serious argument. Would you like to present one now instead of flaming me?

This was definitely your evil twin. I can't believe you really fall for this stuff.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-01, 23:54, said:

I looked it up. If you were posting with some conservative posters, you would be accused of invincible ignorance.

A poster asked me why I feared Common Core being used for political means. At the cost of much time, I answered. Whether or not you think my fears have grounds, they are real and I answered honestly.

You claim to be reasonable, and to be not racist, and not dogmatic, yet you refer to Breitbart as a reliable source! You do know what Breitbart is? And who its head guy is, and whose campaign he is running?

Then, and what prompted my post, you spout this nonsense about how to create a police state. Do you know ANYTHING about the rest of the world? Do the names Norway, Denmark, the UK, France, Canada (I could cite many others, including most of western Europe) mean anything to you?

Guess what factors these 'police states' have in common?

Government controlled universal health care

Gun control

Low murder rates

Low gun violence rates

low (compared to the US) economic inequality figures

low (compared to the US) poverty levels

better (compared to the US) public education

lower infant mortality

longer life expectancy

significant social welfare programmes

far lower rates of killing of citizens by police

far less fetishizing over the military

far less militaristic police forces


Edit: btw, I have sympathy for your police, since so many people they encounter have lethal firearms, and so the risk to the officers, in almost every encounter, is staggeringly high compared to countries with rational gun laws. I provide legal advice to a medium sized police department and have extensive knowledge of use of force policies both across Canada and in the US. I once cross-examined one of the US's leading use of force experts for 6 hours, and he agreed that police officers in the US are at far greater risk than officers in Canada precisely because of your gun laws...and that this created more hazard for all involved in police-civilian interactions. US cops tend to be on a hair-trigger, and any psychologist will tell you that people under stress tend to make bad decisions.

But this of course creates a feedback, where the citizenry (especially if black) learns to fear the police, and the police learn to fear the citizenry, and on it goes. Which is why, oddly enough, countries with strong gun control generally have less authoritarian (scared) police on the street.

I describe these countries, including my home of Canada, as police states because they obviously must be if your C-P strategy is correct. Funny thing, tho...the one country in the world (other than Mexico) where I have ever been afraid for my safety is the US. The only countries in the world where I am nervous about the police are Mexico and the US. Fortunately, I am white and older, so I am probably relatively safe...but nowhere else have I had guns pointed at me from extremely close range on a routine traffic stop (I was speeding on a highway at 2 am en route to a bridge tournament).

You tell me: do you actually believe the crap that you posted? Have you actually ever given it the least bit of critical thinking? If so, please provide us with examples in the real world of police states that began with nationalized health care. Hint: there aren't any.

[Kaitlyn S]

 diana_eva, on 2016-November-02, 09:37, said:

This was definitely your evil twin. I can't believe you really fall for this stuff.

I said that I feared Common Core for reasons that the government would use it in a political way. That should have been enough, but one poster requested that I back up that argument. I tried to do that by stating my true belief that Hillary is trying to move the country toward socialism, for better or for worse; I think that many of our youth think it's for the better so she will get their full support, but I feel it's for the worse.

I stated my reasons for thinking that. Of course, as was to be expected, when I actually post links to articles, people say that the sites I linked to are unreliable nutjob sites.

Am I falling for something? Only time will tell. Hillary will probably be our president for the next eight years, and it should be pretty obvious whether I fell for something or whether I was right and you all fell for something. I sincerely hope I am wrong here because I love our country. And while Donald Trump is likely to be a total disaster, we are still likely to have a democratic republic when he is finished. However, when I look at the last line of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I don't think the government as the Founding Fathers intended it will perish under Trump but I fear that it might under Hillary.

Again, I hope I am wrong, because we are very likely going to have Hillary Clinton as our president, and you all, who are mostly very smart people, seem to think that she will do a fine job, and either do not fear a move toward socialism, or support it.

If you support it, let's just agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours because we're talking fundamental beliefs here.

If you don't support socialism but don't fear that Hillary will move in that direction, then you can feel good that much of the country feels the same as you do, and if you are correct, then I will be proven wrong in eight years. For the sake of our country, that is really the best scenario because I can't see much good coming from a Trump administration. However, if you feel I am falling for something ridiculous, you will be surprised how many other are falling for it too - Donald Trump will get at least 40% of the popular vote in all likelihood.

For those of you who do support socialism, let me tell you a story which I believe to be true (but it might be some nutjob site propaganda!) A professor of a course on political ideologies gave his first test. Some students studied like hell and got an A, and others slacked off and got an F. The professor announced that since he was currently teaching socialism, he would share the grades equally among the students, so they all got a C. The next exam, fewer studied and the result was a D- for everybody. The third exam, those who worked hard realized the futility of their efforts and nobody passed so the entire class got an F. When the professor asked the class if they wanted him to grade in a manner more consistent with capitalism, the answer was a resounding yes - even the slackoffs didn't want to screw their classmates.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-02, 09:37, said:

You tell me: do you actually believe the crap that you posted? Have you actually ever given it the least bit of critical thinking?

I have put quite of bit of thought into it and have read much of the liberal argument. To me, it is not convincing. I've tried to weigh the evidence on both sides and after doing that, it appears from where I'm sitting that the Breitbarts of the world have it right. However, it doesn't bother me when people try to convince me that I'm wrong, for I realize I might be wrong. But none of us have all the information and I easily could be the most correct too. There are issues that I have taken a softer stance on after considering the liberal position. For example, I am not nearly as dismissive of the man-made climate change argument as practically every other conservative in America, and that comes from reading both sides' arguments and trying to think critically about each one.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-02, 11:18, said:

I said that I feared Common Core for reasons that the government would use it in a political way. That should have been enough, but one poster requested that I back up that argument. I tried to do that by stating my true belief that Hillary is trying to move the country toward socialism, for better or for worse; I think that many of our youth think it's for the better so she will get their full support, but I feel it's for the worse.

I stated my reasons for thinking that. Of course, as was to be expected, when I actually post links to articles, people say that the sites I linked to are unreliable nutjob sites.

Am I falling for something? Only time will tell. Hillary will probably be our president for the next eight years, and it should be pretty obvious whether I fell for something or whether I was right and you all fell for something. I sincerely hope I am wrong here because I love our country. And while Donald Trump is likely to be a total disaster, we are still likely to have a democratic republic when he is finished. However, when I look at the last line of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I don't think the government as the Founding Fathers intended it will perish under Trump but I fear that it might under Hillary.

Again, I hope I am wrong, because we are very likely going to have Hillary Clinton as our president, and you all, who are mostly very smart people, seem to think that she will do a fine job, and either do not fear a move toward socialism, or support it.

If you support it, let's just agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours because we're talking fundamental beliefs here.

If you don't support socialism but don't fear that Hillary will move in that direction, then you can feel good that much of the country feels the same as you do, and if you are correct, then I will be proven wrong in eight years. For the sake of our country, that is really the best scenario because I can't see much good coming from a Trump administration. However, if you feel I am falling for something ridiculous, you will be surprised how many other are falling for it too - Donald Trump will get at least 40% of the popular vote in all likelihood.

For those of you who do support socialism, let me tell you a story which I believe to be true (but it might be some nutjob site propaganda!) A professor of a course on political ideologies gave his first test. Some students studied like hell and got an A, and others slacked off and got an F. The professor announced that since he was currently teaching socialism, he would share the grades equally among the students, so they all got a C. The next exam, fewer studied and the result was a D- for everybody. The third exam, those who worked hard realized the futility of their efforts and nobody passed so the entire class got an F. When the professor asked the class if they wanted him to grade in a manner more consistent with capitalism, the answer was a resounding yes - even the slackoffs didn't want to screw their classmates.




I have put quite of bit of thought into it and have read much of the liberal argument. To me, it is not convincing. I've tried to weigh the evidence on both sides and after doing that, it appears from where I'm sitting that the Breitbarts of the world have it right. However, it doesn't bother me when people try to convince me that I'm wrong, for I realize I might be wrong. But none of us have all the information and I easily could be the most correct too. There are issues that I have taken a softer stance on after considering the liberal position. For example, I am not nearly as dismissive of the man-made climate change argument as practically every other conservative in America, and that comes from reading both sides' arguments and trying to think critically about each one.

This is why you might be having problems: first, you wish to agree to disagree about socialism, but not without first providing a vapid tale that sounds like the plot of an unpublished Ayn Rand short-story to "prove" your views should prevail.