DescentBB

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:You first need to define success.

No I don't, because the rule applies regardless of the relativity of success or failure. It applies on every level.

then by your logic the girl is a success as she has a college degree and, while she now works as a waitress, she has every chance to find a better job commensurate with her education. So why are we bemoaning her fate?

tunnelcat wrote:Homeschoolers have never had the glorious experience of going through the school of hard knocks, walking to and from the bus stop in horrid weather, sitting still for long periods at a time listening to some teacher try to fill their brains with just a smidgen of knowledge, put up with peer pressure from their classmates, deal with bullying and violence directed at them by entire group of their peers. They also never had to follow orders or instructions by someone other than their parents either. Kids can only learn this stuff outside of the cloistered walls of their homes, out of reach and the protection of their parents. To truly learn about the world, one needs to be taught outside the home and fully immersed in the world around them, warts and all.

Homeschoolers don't live in monasteries, TC. Friends, public places, extra-parental authority figures, bad weather, public outings, hard work, etc... Granted your example is a harder environment. I have mixed feelings about this, though. I believe children should be sheltered to some degree, during their formative years, from the evil that goes on in the world. How much is hard to decide. They must be prepared to deal with it at some point. I see a lot of kids around now-days hardened in a way that I don't think is healthy for them--too much too soon. It's something I think about when I think about raising my own children (still single).

Sure vision I will give you that point, but there is still a difference between admitting to having an advantage and knowing you have an advantage. I’m pretty sure that guy knows he has an advantage, it’s just not within some people's nature to admit it.

As far as the psychology…I can’t comment, that kind of thing is beyond my pay grade, for all I know that guy could be the most generous person on the planet…behind the scenes.

Lothar wrote:...neither side able to recognize the actually-true middle.

And obviously can't see the "actually-true middle" either, or are not able to express it coherently, because everything you've written so far reads like the middle-ground fallacy. Everyone knows there are exceptions to the rule. That's not the message the strip is trying to convey.*

Lothar wrote:But the comic strip author also chose to present the panel in question, implying that it's inevitable that a poor child will watch a lot of television instead of reading books or performing other educational tasks -- as if the parents don't have any way to get books in front of their children, as if libraries and public schools don't exist.

Not seeing the forest for the trees. Again. You've decided to focus on a single panel where the artist used a common trope to support a larger argument, and again with you've proven his point with your anecdote. Why aren't you focusing on the panel where the female character is studying Polytech while working? Why are all of you selectively editing the strip to fit your worldview?

woodchip wrote:then by your logic the girl is a success as she has a college degree...

What in God's name are you talking about? Your comment has nothing to do with the conversation.

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure that guy knows he has an advantage, it’s just not within some people's nature to admit it.

Ok, but that doesn't really change anything, now does it?



*The strip has a secondary message, which is to highlight the research of Auckland City Mission, and organization that studies poverty cycles.

vision wrote:

Lothar wrote:...neither side able to recognize the actually-true middle.

And obviously can't see the "actually-true middle" either, or are not able to express it coherently, because everything you've written so far reads like the middle-ground fallacy

I'm not saying there must be a middle ground simply because there must. I'm saying that we know there is an "actually-true middle" because we can see the effects, and they are in the middle. We see that if you take two people with as-similar-as-possible biological makeups and put them in divergent scenarios (rich-poor), in adulthood, on average, they will each end up partway between "average" and "their upbringing". Not all the way, and not none of the way, but partway. This is strong evidence in favor of the idea that upbringing matters, but it's not like the inevitable Fates of mythology. It matters... some.

Lothar wrote:But the comic strip author also chose to present the panel in question, implying that it's inevitable that a poor child will watch a lot of television instead of reading books or performing other educational tasks -- as if the parents don't have any way to get books in front of their children, as if libraries and public schools don't exist.

Not seeing the forest for the trees. Again. You've decided to focus on a single panel where the artist used a common trope to support a larger argument, and again with you've proven his point with your anecdote. Why aren't you focusing on the panel where the female character is studying Polytech while working? Why are all of you selectively editing the strip to fit your worldview?

I addressed the panel specifically because it was relevant to the point Top Gun made -- that being "raised by random influences" (Thorne's words) wasn't a choice parents had, and that they simply had to compromise in that way because there was no other option. It's not that I'm missing the forest; it's that this particular tree was being discussed. And the argument that the parents didn't have a choice about what influences their child had in life is simply wrong -- and I can point you to an awful lot of very-poor parents who would tell you the same exact thing. There are very-poor parents who let the TV babysit their child, and very-poor parents whose children spend their afternoons at the library. Acting like TV-babysitting is inevitable is insulting to those parents who make different choices for their children.

I'm not directly addressing the panel where she's working her way through school because it's not relevant to the point *I* am making. I don't see any particular reason to confine discussion merely to the point the original author is making -- I find "privilege-shaming" kind of boring, and not particularly worthy of focusing on. My point is much broader than the cartoonist's -- yes, privilege matters, and upbringing matters, but that's not the end. It's not fate. It's not inevitable. And, most importantly, many of those parts of privilege that matter the most are things that can be addressed -- so instead of focusing on privilege-shaming, why not focus on actually doing something to be helpful? Based on findings that one of the biggest factors separating poor and wealthy kids' achievement levels in math is focused small-group tutoring, my district hired hundreds of full-time small-group tutors. The students who received these benefits aren't adults yet, but the early results are very promising. So instead of talking about what a great comic strip this is, why don't you come help the kids in my neighborhood? Or get involved in your own local school, providing the same sort of access to kids who can't afford private tutors? "This comic needs to be seen" is akin to hashtag-kony2012 -- worthless slacktivism. Instead of privilege-shaming, get involved and make a real difference.

This topic reminds me of a webcast I once listened to on the bus, and it's an eerie parallel to the comic.

The problem with that comic is the way it is intended to blur the distinction between good fortune and privilege.
With "privilege" being a euphamism for 'stolen from the poor' or 'the cause of another's poverty'.

Spidey wrote:Ok, I guess I misunderstood you tc, are you saying that a screwed up educational experience is preferred, like some kind of rite of passage, or something?

No, it's definitely not preferred. I did get a decent education in my public schools, but the social aspect of dealing with some of other kids was a nightmare for me. If a kid wasn't part of one of the usual social "cliques", that kid was an outcast to be harassed to no end. So I'd like to see more effort into making it a better experience for all kids, especially the different or socially awkward kids. Kids can be very cruel when left to their own devices, so the social settings and social interactions in public schools need a lot of work in that department. If the social setting is nice, then the learning comes easier. When the usual knee-jerk solution is to cut finding because the public schools are screwed up anyway, that's only going to make it worse for those kids who can't afford private schooling or don't have parents who are willing to put out the effort, or have the smarts, to home school their own kids. There will always be those kids stuck in that situation and many of them drop out with little or no education.

I'm another member of the "grew up poor and ended up okay" group.

I'm also amazed at the way that my parents were able to do it.

Not everyone is you.

tunnelcat wrote:Not everyone is you.

No, indeed. I can say that in my case it was my parent's strong faith and Christian values that rooted us & held us together as a family. I attribute those strong values largely for the positive place where I am now. Other's mileage may vary... but that's my story.

Lothar wrote:I addressed the panel specifically because it was relevant to the point Top Gun made -- that being "raised by random influences" (Thorne's words) wasn't a choice parents had, and that they simply had to compromise in that way because there was no other option. It's not that I'm missing the forest; it's that this particular tree was being discussed. And the argument that the parents didn't have a choice about what influences their child had in life is simply wrong -- and I can point you to an awful lot of very-poor parents who would tell you the same exact thing. There are very-poor parents who let the TV babysit their child, and very-poor parents whose children spend their afternoons at the library. Acting like TV-babysitting is inevitable is insulting to those parents who make different choices for their children.

I'm not sure where you got this idea, because nowhere in my posts did I imply that the parents had no choice but to park their child in front of a TV for hours on end. Nor do I think the comic was trying to imply that either: hell, given the massive distraction it's caused, I'd much rather it have been a panel of the girl struggling over a dog-eared textbook on her own. The point being made here is that the two working parents don't have enough time or energy to sit down and really help their kids through a subject they're struggling with (provided they understand the material themselves), or don't have the extra income to hire private tutors. As you rightly point out, access to that sort of individualized attention is crucial to good educational outcomes. Yes, libraries are free, but not every child out there learns well by self-driven research, and for those who don't, there has to be some sort of time and/or financial commitment by someone.

Hmm..internet strikes again.

A person gets to put his/her own thoughts on "paper" and toss it out there to the masses and it's true.
Based on generalizations, and concludes in generalizations.

So goes the dredges of free speech.

Well not quite Duper.

As this comic shows (in a very simplistic way) and the TED talk shows (in a little more detailed way), that there are some people born into a situation where they clearly have an advantage over others. Better access to resources; money and intellectual, a better support system, better infrastructure, better everything. Those people who are in a position of advantage don't have to face nearly the challenges or obstacles as less-fortunate people do. So you end up with people thinking they didn't have things handed to them on a plate when they clearly have since birth.

Will Robinson wrote:The problem with that comic is the way it is intended to blur the distinction between good fortune and privilege.

as does real life

With "privilege" being a euphamism for 'stolen from the poor' or 'the cause of another's poverty'.

once again, some reality to that, as well. If we view the overall economy as a slightly growing pie, the bigger slice I get means less for someone else. It is always amusing to read about stock market crashes, where the headline reads: Billions lost on market today. Truth be told,those were TRADES and an equal number of folks made out along the way to those trades to the tune of trillions. It simply sucks to be the guy holding the bad paper when it goes south.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The problem with that comic is the way it is intended to blur the distinction between good fortune and privilege.

as does real life

So the comic strip is dishonest and thats OK because there is dishonesty in real life?
Or did you have some sort of unspoken rationalization embedded in your comment?

It is a popular rhetorical tool of the left, the misrepresentation of reality, in this case blurring the distinction to imply any disparity in opportunity between two people is the result of some ones wrong doing. That is dishonest. Some degree of good fortune is inevitable in our culture and it makes your argument weaker if you need to lie about examples in order to illustrate the alleged wrongdoing. Your choice to take that road.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:With "privilege" being a euphamism for 'stolen from the poor' or 'the cause of another's poverty'.

once again, some reality to that, as well. If we view the overall economy as a slightly growing pie, the bigger slice I get means less for someone else. ...

Flawed logic. Wealth and opportunity and good fortune, etc. are not in limited supply. It isn't a finite sum. And beyond that, if you aren't implying those things should actually be equally dispensed by some central authority then why try to steer popular sentiment that way if not as a dishonest rhetorical manipulation.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The problem with that comic is the way it is intended to blur the distinction between good fortune and privilege.

as does real life

So the comic strip is dishonest and thats OK because there is dishonesty in real life?
Or did you have some sort of unspoken rationalization embedded in your comment?

blurring distinctions is merely an example of the nuance that real life provides that black and white absolutist thinking can never quite grasp. Nothing at ALL dishonest. Life is complicated. People are complicated.

[removed]

callmeslick wrote:[removed]

So by your logic the entity that has tied up more wealth and kept it from people is the federal govt and the national debt. Base line budgeting and incompetent management are doing more to keep people poor than any wealthy individual ever could.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The problem with that comic is the way it is intended to blur the distinction between good fortune and privilege.

as does real life

So the comic strip is dishonest and thats OK because there is dishonesty in real life?
Or did you have some sort of unspoken rationalization embedded in your comment?

blurring distinctions is merely an example of the nuance that real life provides that black and white absolutist thinking can never quite grasp. Nothing at ALL dishonest. Life is complicated. People are complicated.

Yes life has an abundance of blurred distinctions. That much was already well established.
And I cited a specific case where it is a problem.
And the best you can do is restate the obvious? That life is rife with blurred distinctions.

What's wrong? Can't figure out how to address the specific point so you try to dismiss it with bluster?

[removed]