391–400 of 424 posts
What is more reasonable for me is educate children in smaller group of parents, that want do homeschooling and than have ie one day per week just for teaching a small group of children among our friends. Also this could be more connected to professions of parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Swim lessons? Get out of here. Church? I did imagine that. Try reading. And anyway, schooled kids do all of those things as well. Where's the advantage? There's a reason I don't consider those activities when talking about school socialization. All of the activities you mentioned are part-time and/or self-selected. School is full-time and you don't get to choose your kids' peers. You can't pull them out easily if you…
> Swim lessons? Get out of here. Church? I did imagine that. Try reading. I think we agree on this subject, but as a 3rd party in this back and forth I have to say that this is not appropriate discourse for this site. Please try to interpret others comments as charitably as possible. There is never a justification for saying something snarky and rude like "Get out of here" or "Try reading".
My contribution to civility here was to just stop responding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I know some incredible public school teachers, the average homeschool parent I know is going to be much better for their kids than the average public school teacher. Fortunately if you are homeschooling you can seek out specific teachers to help expand on things and choose those that are excellent. (Many homeschooler start taking community college classes in highschool if there are good options available.)
> average homeschool parent I know is going to be much better for their kids than the average public school teacher This is a sampling question. Consider that you may be looking at a bunch of well-educated parents choosing homeschooling over extra income. I bet they're not choosing to homeschool kids with whom they have a bad relationship, don't understand, can't motivate... Increasing the sample could produce much d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, he brought up religion for no particular reason. You do not understand why it was mentioned. Then you claim you do. Then you write words that many would consider insulting. You can do better. Try.
Sorry what's insulting about what I wrote?
Saying that someone brought something up "for no particular reason" is not respectful. Just because you don't understand the reason is not a valid justification for being dismissive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because you don't even know what your own religion is. Please explain. To whom are you referring with "your"? Me, whom you don't know? Someone in general?
I'm referring to you personally, but also a number of our mutual readers. I don't need to know you at a personal level to know what your religion is; it's clear from your comments.
Have you read enough of my writing to characterize my worldview with any degree of accuracy or precision? I doubt it.
But you are not alone -- large chunks of people use confirmation bias to judge people based on a small number of cherry-picked words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not mean it is obscured intentionally. quite the contrary -- if you read my comments I've explained my views in many different ways. I've put the effort in.
If you start with "L and P don't deny other viewpoints" and then you spend 3 paragraphs explaining why they do exactly that but you feel justified to say the opposite, it just sounds like needless obscurantism.
You call my writing obscurantism ("the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known: I've been accused of obscurantism and willful misdirection.") which implies that it was willful.
This is in incorrect assumption on your part. I was elaborating in the hopes that you would understand. If you re-read the comments, it is clear that I pushed back against the desire for a simplistic answer, since I think doing so is limiting and foolish. My elaboration provides context to help you understand.
Put another way, what you call obscurantism is better thought of as elaboration. You didn't understand, and then you lashed out. That was an egotistical, unkind thing to do. It is hard to admit you don't understand. It is easy to blame someone else for not explaining it well.
Also, using a term like obscurantism makes it plain that you are making assumptions about people's intentions. Another approach would be to simply ask and/or operate on good faith, which generally meshes with the HN guidelines. Being judgy won't do much to encourage people to take the time to discuss with you.
A useful approach here is to be patient and recognize that communication is a sense-making process.
Based on your other comments, I'm inclined to think you probably are aware of Theory of Mind, at least intellectually. The upshot is this: it is very hard to communicate effectively when you don't know what other people know. Acting in ways that do not build goodwill tend to make it even harder.
So that leaves a key question: why would you make it harder on yourself? Because of the human condition. Call it pride, ego, status-seeking, venting, whatever. But it doesn't really help much in the long term.
I'll try to summarize in the hopes that it will be clear this time. If you are willing to let go of the desire for simplistic questions and simplistic answers, then I hope you will be able to understand. (You don't have to agree to understand.)
Liberalism and pluralisms don't categorically deny the truth of other viewpoints. But they are incompatible with some other viewpoints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry what's insulting about what I wrote?
> Yeah, he brought up religion for no particular reason. Saying that someone brought something up "for no particular reason" is not respectful. Just because you don't understand the reason is not a valid justification for being dismissive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The world is too interesting and too nuanced to waste time trying to decipher a worldview obscured with wordplay. Ah, yes, classic self defense when one feels threatened. Interesting that you use wordplay to criticize wordplay. I've done it too. Everyone has. But it isn't really getting us anywhere. It is a good way to protect one's ego though. I'm sorry you don't understand it. I'm sorry if you perceived my quip a…
>My intent is for more people here to broaden their perspective. I see very strong signals have people been anchored in computer science but not philosophy or ethics or history. I see common tendencies for people to dig in. It is easier to defend oneself than to learn. My nickname is an amalgamation of my two favorite thinkers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nagasena. They are from different time periods (20th century AD an…
> If you think that analyzing language won't get us anywhere, I highly suggest to read both of them.
I agree that analyzing language is useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The world is too interesting and too nuanced to waste time trying to decipher a worldview obscured with wordplay. Ah, yes, classic self defense when one feels threatened. Interesting that you use wordplay to criticize wordplay. I've done it too. Everyone has. But it isn't really getting us anywhere. It is a good way to protect one's ego though. I'm sorry you don't understand it. I'm sorry if you perceived my quip a…
>My intent is for more people here to broaden their perspective. I see very strong signals have people been anchored in computer science but not philosophy or ethics or history. I see common tendencies for people to dig in. It is easier to defend oneself than to learn. My nickname is an amalgamation of my two favorite thinkers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nagasena. They are from different time periods (20th century AD an…
> In 1912 Wittgenstein joined the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, an influential discussion group for philosophy dons and students, delivering his first paper there on 29 November that year, a four-minute talk defining philosophy as "all those primitive propositions which are assumed as true without proof by the various sciences." He dominated the society and for a time would stop attending in the early 1930s after complaints that he gave no one else a chance to speak. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Cambridge_...
> ... The club became infamous within popular philosophy because of a meeting on 25 October 1946 at Richard Braithwaite's rooms in King's College, Cambridge, where Karl Popper, another Viennese philosopher, had been invited as the guest speaker. Popper's paper was "Are there philosophical problems?", in which he struck up a position against Wittgenstein's, contending that problems in philosophy are real, not just linguistic puzzles as Wittgenstein argued. Accounts vary as to what happened next, but Wittgenstein apparently started waving a hot poker, demanding that Popper give him an example of a moral rule. Popper offered one – "Not to threaten visiting speakers with pokers" – at which point Russell told Wittgenstein he had misunderstood and Wittgenstein left. Popper maintained that Wittgenstein "stormed out", but it had become accepted practice for him to leave early (because of his aforementioned ability to dominate discussion). It was the only time the philosophers, three of the most eminent in the world, were ever in the same room together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialization is important, on that we agree. Socialization at school is not always positive or even effective. There are many ways to socialize and jamming people of the same age in a room for 6-7 hours at a time is far less effective, in my opinion, than being part of extracurricular programs, clubs, etc that often mingle kids of different ages, backgrounds, neighbourhoods, and cultures far better than any school.…
> jamming people of the same age in a room for 6-7 hours at a time is far less effective... This may be true, if one is raising a philosopher-king or something. In life I'm thrown into situations where I'm jammed together with people in an "ineffective" manner all the time. If extra-curricular programs are more effective they can deal with both environments. Personally I had some effective, good teachers in school as…