As individuals and the world become more specialized in purpose and pursuits, general knowledge has suffered greatly. For instance, Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, a 16th century French aristocrat wrote extensive essays and musings. In these essays, Montaigne wrote about such topics as education and pedantry (cannibalism is another topic of his). Montaigne like the European elite despised pedantry. To the elites of Europe a pedant was a creature to be despised. It was a mark of low class. Instead, these elites of Europe preferred to be dilettantes. Out of this cultural backdrop, the Salon society of pre-revolutionary France evolved. The Salons of Paris were one of the main contributors to the collapse of totalitarian France and the installation of republican government. In a Parisian Salon individuals were not separated based upon title or money, only one’s ability to carry forth conversation (side note: the novel evolved from Salon conversation). The egalitarian mindset of the Salons quickly spread forth and encapsulated France leading to the Revolution.
Let us return to the Dilettante. The dilettante of less than 100 years prior is more education and refined than the pedant of today. Latin was a language of more than just academia. Children, both rich and poor could quote poetry, and literature. President Teddy Roosevelt as a child mentioned his Smike suit, referencing an unremarkable and rather forgettable character from Charles Dickens Nicholas Nickleby (the Smike suit was an ill-fitting garment, indicative of the under sized clothing the orphan Smike wore in Dickens’s novel) Not only is it remarkable that a young Roosevelt would make such a reference, but according to the sources, everyone understood the comment. Now, if a young child would comment on their Smike suit it would be a miracle based primarily on knowing who Smike is and would be more of a miracle if individuals actually understood the comment. Likewise, newspapers of the past instead of creating filler with the most recent and uninteresting goings on would produce filler of educational value. Even though the breadth and grasp of the intellectual filler is not indicative of academic discourse, nonetheless, the fact that it appeared in the newspaper speaks bounds.
Modernly, we have pedants, individuals who maybe capable of producing pi to the 5,000 figures, but when asked to speak in another language, or a discussion about literature are dumbfounded. Furthermore, we have individuals who have enveloped their life in the study of the classics and literature while abandoning other pursuits. Writing them off as the interest of lesser men. How unlucky we are, when individuals understand Robert Frosts’s “The Road Not Taken,” and England’s King Ethelred (meaning not much at all). The misquoting and misinterpretation of Frosts work is a result of pedantry and disdain for intellectual thought. This new disdain is a result of the pedants rise and cannot be equated to the dilettante’s disdain for academia. At least the dilettante of the 16th and 17th centuries understood the classics and understood the literature.
Why then have we allowed the rise of the pedant? Where from have we come that pedantry is now accepted and cherished?

8/10/2005 3:45:21 PM

It's easier to control pedants.

/thread

8/10/2005 3:50:40 PM

what the fuck does control have to do with anything?

8/10/2005 3:59:57 PM

It seems like people would rather put their knowledge to use than know things for the sake of knowing them. They think in terms of degrees and not what they want to study.

I'd like to know what percentage of undergrads pursue graduate degrees.

8/10/2005 4:02:01 PM

Because, Jason -- look at the shit we're fed nonstop from control structures like mass media. From day one you're conditioned to buy into some sort of dogma -- it's the social standard in the US because it's easier to keep your little clique in line.

That's why kids who don't feel like being fuckups in middle school/etc do the retarded "straight edge" bandwagon. Weak minded individuals who need a dogma to buy into, or they couldn't keep their shit together. It's societal. Same with political parties and the news they basically control. If you want your party members to fall in line even when it's not in their own best interest, you want them to have a dogma to follow. If they had analytical skills and a wide range of knowledge, that kind of control would not be possible.

8/10/2005 4:09:24 PM

Unlike pre-revolutionary France, upward and downward movement is very possible in modern culture. A result of this is a more competetive society.

While an education that includes classic literature and the mastery of dead languages may be interesting, it has little applicability in the real world. As such, classical educations have little value when compared to a practical education that would include things like business management, finance, and computer use.

The entire university experience might have something to do with it, as well. Instead of becoming well rounded, students are told to choose one or two subjects to focus on.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2005 4:11:48 PM

It's unfunctional to focus your efforts so broadly. As they say, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I think of men as machines. Most machines have one purpose, they do that one purpose well, providing functionality to do another task generally results in the machine doing neither well. Much is the same of people, people who learn diversely different tasks, I'd rather be able to do one task well than only be able to dick around in a hundred tasks. I have read the classics, and I also keep up with modern pop culture, but I'm not going to learn something like foriegn languages or poetry or anything like that. There is certain purposes for "Swiss army knives" but those purposes are vastly outweighed by the functionality of one taks machines.

8/10/2005 4:27:13 PM

Quote :

"Unlike pre-revolutionary France, upward and downward movement is very possible in modern culture. A result of this is a more competetive society."

actually, we have a rather non-forgiving social structure. Movement between the classes isn't all that available. Forget the bullshit about the American dream.

8/10/2005 4:29:41 PM

I'M GETTING AN EDUMACATION

everytime i see one of these sorts of things, i can't help but chuckle on how it's written on a web forum frequented by STATE students

8/10/2005 4:57:55 PM

Quote :

"actually, we have a rather non-forgiving social structure. Movement between the classes isn't all that available."

Can you provide any evidence to support your notion of this fixed American class structure? Personally, I can think of many individuals who were either able to move up via hard work, or to move down via laziness.

Are you thinking about what you're typing or are you just posting to contradict me?

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2005 5:21:58 PM

Well you're not really presenting anything but anecdotal evidence.

http://www.brechtforum.org/intensive/2005/NYT1.htm

I don't really think that there is nearly as much class mobility as americans like to think there is.

8/10/2005 5:42:15 PM

From the article:

Quote :

"At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains linked tightly to class. Mobility happens, just not as rapidly as was once thought."

Which is exactly my point. The article does point out that quality of education is linked to social status, which I also agree with. However, such a link does not rule out social mobility, nor does it mean that it is a rare thing.

8/10/2005 5:55:09 PM

I need an anthropolgist to help me out here, but in order for a civilization to be a civilization it has to meet five specifications and one of them is a rigid class structure with little or no mobility. Also, there is more to class than just wealth. If the Rockefellers were to lose all of their money tomorrow, they would still be considered upper class.

Quote :

"everytime i see one of these sorts of things, i can't help but chuckle on how it's written on a web forum frequented by STATE students "

let's play the stereotype game. Naustote is it.

[Edited on August 10, 2005 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2005 6:46:41 PM

just cause i'm black doesn't mean you've got to be hate'n

do you cry at night

to yourself, by yourself?

8/10/2005 6:49:22 PM

While there is a class structure in the United States, I would hardly call it rigid. Mobility is still possible and always has been. Obviously, a class structure has to exist in a capitalist society. This is where a practical education comes in, those who attain an education that is more likely to get them a good job and the possibility of advancement have a better chance of moving up in the class ladder. This is desirable both because of the increased comforts as well as the prestige that accompany upward movement. As such, people are more attracted to educations that teach them a single set of valuable skills and less attracted to educations that focus on Latin and classic literature.

Quote :

"Also, there is more to class than just wealth. If the Rockefellers were to lose all of their money tomorrow, they would still be considered upper class."

They would still have their name and their connections, which in their case would be quite valuable, however, not everyone with money has the notoriety of the Rockefellers. I'll admit that this is one of the weaknesses of any class structure, the upper rungs are almost always better connected. However, this isn't to say that those born to wealthy parents don't need to work to maintain their footing.

8/10/2005 7:52:13 PM

Quote :

"The article does point out that quality of education is linked to social status, which I also agree with. However, such a link does not rule out social mobility, nor does it mean that it is a rare thing."

The point of that part of the article was to show that poor people generally go to bad schools, this causes them to lose many of the opportunities avialble to upper class children.

Quote :

"Mobility is still possible and always has been."

Class mobility was possible for even for slaves, it's possiblity doesn't make it any less rigid.

Quote :

"However, this isn't to say that those born to wealthy parents don't need to work to maintain their footing."

For the most part they aren't. They can do absolutley nothing all day long and live on their family's estate. The only way they are really going to lose that money is an addiction to drinking, drugs, or gambling, or possibly a really stupid business mistake. But pretty much you don't have to do any work to stay rich, the only way to not be rich is to seriously fuck it up.

8/10/2005 8:34:17 PM

Quote :

"The point of that part of the article was to show that poor people generally go to bad schools, this causes them to lose many of the opportunities avialble to upper class children."

Yeah, this is pretty well-known and well documented. I'm not arguing against that at all. However, simply going to a poor school does not destroy every opportunity in life.

Quote :

"Class mobility was possible for even for slaves, it's possiblity doesn't make it any less rigid."

True, but the ease of class mobility when compared with other societies does make it relatively less rigid. Someone born to lower-middle class parents isn't marked for life as "poor", rather than can attain a quality education and ultimately live better than their parents did.

I should clarify, though: I'm not arguing that anyone who is born dirt poor can become a billionaire by the time that they retire. Rather I'm saying that it is entirely possible for someone to live a life significantly better than their parents did via good vocational training and a degree of hard work.

Quote :

"They can do absolutley nothing all day long and live on their family's estate."

This is certainly true of some people, but I would hardly call those people a majority of the wealthy. When I said wealthy I meant the upper-middle class and above, not the top one percent.

8/10/2005 9:10:57 PM

Quote :

"However, simply going to a poor school does not destroy every opportunity in life."

That doesn't matter, it does restricts the class mobility. Obviously class mobility is POSSIBLE in any society, even in the most oppressive totalitarian discriminatory society, if someone put enough effort and enough on the line, they could possibly overcome any obstacle, however this doesn't justify an oppressive society.

Quote :

"Someone born to lower-middle class parents isn't marked for life as "poor", rather than can attain a quality education and ultimately live better than their parents did."

Or they could have been put in a bad school district and live worse. This system surely isn't the cream rises to the top kind of society capitalists like to say it is.

Quote :

"When I said wealthy I meant the upper-middle class and above, not the top one percent."

Even they most likely own the means of production. They need not do any labor themselves, they need only to own to make money. All they have to do to keep their financial position is to keep paying people and raking money in, not a difficult position to sustain.

8/10/2005 10:25:20 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't matter, it does restricts the class mobility. Obviously class mobility is POSSIBLE in any society, even in the most oppressive totalitarian discriminatory society, if someone put enough effort and enough on the line, they could possibly overcome any obstacle, however this doesn't justify an oppressive society."

It certainly does restrict it to a degree, although its not oppressive by any means.

Quote :

"Or they could have been put in a bad school district and live worse. This system surely isn't the cream rises to the top kind of society capitalists like to say it is."

Being put in a bad school district doesn't wreck anyone's life. While it puts them at a disadvantage, it doesn't mean that they can't live better than their parents with a degree of hard work and good decision making.

Quote :

"Even they most likely own the means of production. They need not do any labor themselves, they need only to own to make money."

I would guess that the majority of the wealthy are not self-employed. In my own personal experience, most people that I know and would classify as wealthy worked for other people. While there certainly are wealthy people who achieved such status via their own business, I would imagine that they make up the minority of their economic group.

Regardless, I think that our ideas of class in the US aren't terribly different. You just view it through the eyes of a communist and see it as a more rigid structure where mobility is more difficult than I do.

8/11/2005 10:21:06 AM

I posted these statistics before, with a link to the source, but silly TWW won't let me search for it, so all I have is the statistics...

34% of those between 1996-1999 that were poor were poor less than 4 months
80% were poor for less than a year.
1/17 of those poor were poor for the whole period
47% in the highest quintile moved to a lower quintile within 10 years.
of the people in the lowest 1/5th in 1988, half of them moved to the highest 1/5 within 10 years.

In all fairness, I must admit that these statistics are a little skewed by immigrants which, invariably, enter the country severely disadvantaged, winding up being listed as poor, but over the next 10 year period advance far quicker than the native born poor.

Whether or not social mobility is as high as everyone thinks it is, I think is irrelevant. The fact is, we are a class mobile society, especially relative to other societies, and hence our collective beliefs are close enough for government work.

For more anecdotal evidence, check out the list of America's richest 100 people. Over the past 15 year period, the vast majority of the list was ussurped by newcomers.

Meanwhile, on Europe's list, over the same time period 9 out of 10 are still there.

[Edited on August 11, 2005 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2005 10:33:18 AM

Quote :

"It certainly does restrict it to a degree, although its not oppressive by any means."

People are still chained down by their parent's level of income. Perhaps you don't see it as oppressive, but when I look at it, it seems barbaric and primitive. Like those medieval societies where if your father was a brickmason, you were a brick mason. Of course now it is much more de facto and hidden as to present the illusion of class mobility, but the restraints are still there.

Quote :

"Being put in a bad school district doesn't wreck anyone's life."

It wrecks millions of people's lives. The environment you learn in conditions you for society, when you grow up in a school where no one ever succeds, you end up in a life where no one ever succeds. Now you capitalists like to think that free will lets you magically do whatever you want to do, and the millions of poor in this country are poor because they want to be poor, but it's simply not true.

Quote :

"While it puts them at a disadvantage, it doesn't mean that they can't live better than their parents with a degree of hard work and good decision making."

I could say the same thing about a slave child. I could say, being born into bondage due to the color of his skin puts him at an advantage, but life isn't fair, if he works at it hard enough he could become a wealthy land owner with slaves of his own. That possiblity of mobility certainly doesn't justify the injustice of slavery.

Quote :

" would guess that the majority of the wealthy are not self-employed."

Then you are still talking about the working class. Every wealthy person owns the means of production, always has, always will. No boss even makes less than their employee.

Quote :

"so all I have is the statistics"

I don't trust you or those statistics, did you read the article I linked?

8/11/2005 11:37:32 AM

Quote :

"Like those medieval societies where if your father was a brickmason, you were a brick mason. Of course now it is much more de facto and hidden as to present the illusion of class mobility, but the restraints are still there."

What restraints? If my father is a brick mason, I can still work hard at school. I can get into college, even if financial aid is necessary. I can use my degree to get a job that is better than brick masonry. How many people at State have parents that didn't go to college? I think its pretty reasonable to say that they will probably live better than their parents did.

Quote :

"The environment you learn in conditions you for society, when you grow up in a school where no one ever succeds, you end up in a life where no one ever succeds."

I agree with that to an extent. There certainly are people who go to bad schools, don't do well, and ultimately end up right where they started. Although this is due to more factors than just school. Being raised by parents who don't pay their bills and can't hold a job is equally detrimental to a child's view of the world. Being raised in a neighborhood where few people make an honest living is also detrimental.

But going back to my original statement, people who are born in this environment are still capable of upward social movement. By way of learning skills that are useful and in demand, they can earn more money and prestige, thus climbing the social ladder. There are plenty of people from such environments that go on to community college and earn a valuable education that makes them a necessary part of the work force.

Quote :

"I could say the same thing about a slave child."

You can say that, but it is hardly analogous.

Its impossible to set a level playing field. Smart people will pass through life easier than stupid people. Attractive people will have an easier time than ugly people. People born with money have it easier than people born without it. I agree that its not fair, but the circumstances of ones birth really are a total crapshoot.

Quote :

"Then you are still talking about the working class. Every wealthy person owns the means of production, always has, always will."

I'm talking about modern society, not the Marxist class struggle between the factory owners and the proletariat. There is no longer the black and white line between two classes, that was one of the points of the article that you linked.

8/11/2005 12:06:43 PM

Quote :

"What restraints? If my father is a brick mason, I can still work hard at school. I can get into college, even if financial aid is necessary."

Seems you are having trouble seeing the restraints, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. You are assuming that you went to a good enough school to get into a good school. Even then you are assuming that you lived in an environment that conditioned that level of success and conditioned the "desire" to further your education. The restraints are still there.

Quote :

"There certainly are people who go to bad schools, don't do well, and ultimately end up right where they started."

It's not really just some people, it's almost all.

Quote :

"But going back to my original statement, people who are born in this environment are still capable of upward social movement."

Assuming their environment allowed for those opportunities.

Quote :

"Its impossible to set a level playing field."

It's impossible for man to fly. It's impossible for man to travel any faster than he can run. It's impossible to lift a large rock.

Your statement lacks foresight.

Quote :

"but the circumstances of ones birth really are a total crapshoot."

Nothing is a crapshoot, nothing. Absolutely nothing in this world is truely "random".

Quote :

"I'm talking about modern society, not the Marxist class struggle between the factory owners and the proletariat."

It's still there. It might have dyed it's hair, but the beast is still there.

8/11/2005 2:12:25 PM

Kris, how do you propose we save children from parents which are poor?

Giving someone more money will not make them more thrifty. Giving someone a free education will not make them care more about education.

My enthusiasm for educational attainment is largely determined by that of my parents. This is only fair, because the only alternative is either prevent the poor from having children or take them away after birth.

I recomend a book titled "Freakonomics" to dispel the myth that schools are the end all of education. Predominantly, the reason crappy schools have low test scores is because crappy parents are more likely to send their children to crappy schools.

8/11/2005 2:48:53 PM

Quote :

"Seems you are having trouble seeing the restraints, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. You are assuming that you went to a good enough school to get into a good school."

I'm not assuming that they even need to get into a good school. They can go to Wake Tech, they can get a real estate license, they can seek out a way to have a job better than brick mason. The opportunity is there for anyone who wants it.

Quote :

"Even then you are assuming that you lived in an environment that conditioned that level of success and conditioned the "desire" to further your education. The restraints are still there."

Yeah, I guess we can kick that around. If you aren't raised with a desire to succeed then you probably won't. If you have a desire to lay around the house and drink, you probably will. This is beyond the scope of social mobility and moves more into the realm of social philosophy. To an extent we are all a result of our environment, but I wouldn't use that to justify someone who has no desire to be a productive part of society.

Quote :

"It's not really just some people, it's almost all."

But not all. The ability to move upward or downward is present.

Quote :

"Assuming their environment allowed for those opportunities."

The opportunity exists.

Quote :

"Your statement lacks foresight."

Yeah, I did rule out creating a world where all people are given equal intelligence, charisma, athletic prowess, good looks, and all of the other traits that are factors in one's success.

Quote :

"Nothing is a crapshoot, nothing. Absolutely nothing in this world is truely "random"."

Thats true, but we still have no control over who our parents are and what traits we will inherit.

Quote :

"It's still there. It might have dyed it's hair, but the beast is still there."

Some distant cousin of it may be there, but there is no longer a clear line between two classes. As your article states, its a ladder with many many rungs.

8/11/2005 2:50:30 PM

Quote :

"Kris, how do you propose we save children from parents which are poor?"

Well a good place to start would be the restructuring of the family system.

Quote :

"Giving someone more money will not make them more thrifty. Giving someone a free education will not make them care more about education."

Of course. The key to obtaining the results you want is the correct conditioning environment for children. Test to find what works best, and raise the children in that environment. Then we are assured to have functioning members of society instead of the lazy, the greedy, and the criminals that we end up with now.

Quote :

"Predominantly, the reason crappy schools have low test scores is because crappy parents are more likely to send their children to crappy schools."

Chicken and the egg. The reason those crappy parents send their kids to crappy schools is because they were sent to crappy schools by their crappy parents. etc, etc.

Quote :

"I'm not assuming that they even need to get into a good school. They can go to Wake Tech, they can get a real estate license, they can seek out a way to have a job better than brick mason. The opportunity is there for anyone who wants it."

That oppurtunity isn't always availble to everyone, ESPECIALLY not the poor. ANY college takes a huge commitment of money and time. Something that someone working 50 hours/week in a crappy paying job simply doesn't have.

Quote :

"To an extent we are all a result of our environment, but I wouldn't use that to justify someone who has no desire to be a productive part of society."

Then where did that desire come from?

Magic? Your soul? Does it come from this scientifically unexplainable free will that capitalists talk so much about in justifing their system?

Quote :

"The ability to move upward or downward is present."

THAT ABILITY IS PRESENT IN ANY SOCIETY. Even a jew in the holocaust had the potential of overthrowing hitler if he really put his mind to it.

8/11/2005 4:21:06 PM

Quote :

"That oppurtunity isn't always availble to everyone, ESPECIALLY not the poor. ANY college takes a huge commitment of money and time. Something that someone working 50 hours/week in a crappy paying job simply doesn't have."

Go to any night class at a community college and tell me how many of the people there you would classify as "poor".

Quote :

"Magic? Your soul? Does it come from this scientifically unexplainable free will that capitalists talk so much about in justifing their system?"

Ultimately this comes down to a philosphical difference. I'm a believer of free will, although I agree with many things that you've said.

Quote :

"THAT ABILITY IS PRESENT IN ANY SOCIETY."

It is more present in this society than in any one that preceded it.

Differences aside, you're probably the best person on TWW to have this kind of discussion with. You're well informed and you don't turn into a total douche over the course of a discussion.

8/11/2005 4:42:17 PM

Quote :

"Go to any night class at a community college and tell me how many of the people there you would classify as "poor"."

Well I consider poor people to be people that can barely afford a car.

Quote :

"Ultimately this comes down to a philosphical difference. I'm a believer of free will, although I agree with many things that you've said."

I guess I can respect that. Really if you believe in capitalism you have to believe in free will or your system is extremely cruel.

Quote :

"It is more present in this society than in any one that preceded it."

I'd say the native american tribes probably had the most class nobility, granted that society couldn't be applied with a nation of this size.

Quote :

"Differences aside, you're probably the best person on TWW to have this kind of discussion with. You're well informed and you don't turn into a total douche over the course of a discussion."

Thank you. I do respect our differences, as I know I'm not going to convert you, but it has been quite an enlighting discussion on a topic not frequently discussed here.

8/11/2005 4:59:39 PM

Quote :

"Well I consider poor people to be people that can barely afford a car."

According to the Census Bureau, as of the 2000 Census, nearly three-quarters of what the government considers "poor households" owned at least one car; 30 percent own two or more cars. This is before we even notice that 46% own their own home. "The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."

Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, "Understanding Poverty in America,"

Therefore, only 1/4th of what the US government considers poor are, by your definition, poor.

So, with 35 million officially classified as poor, that means 8.75 million that are Kris' poor, or 3% of the population. That is even before we eliminate people that wouldn't buy a car even if they could (New York residents, for example).

On last point: "In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week." Unemployment is the single largest determinant of poverty.

[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2005 12:29:27 AM

I think the question regarding our class structure -- and I hope it hasn't already been asked -- is, "Where has a class structure been more flexible than it is in America at the present moment?"

And one of the first answers I expect is some nonesense about a commie state that isn't supposed to have classes anyway, but still.

I would certainly say we have more social mobility than pre-revolutionary France, for instance.

As to nutsmackr's original question...I suspect that other people have hit the nail on the head: being a pedant is more functional. A person with a specialization has more opportunities than one without, excepting the cases of those very rare few who possess the brilliance to be truly great at several fields simultaneously. On the other side of things, it is easier to make someone a pedant than it is to make them a dilettante; society has to put less effort into raising the one than the other, and they get more out of that one.

Being able to speak Latin is nice and it makes you look smart, but it opens the door to...teaching Latin, and not much else. Knowing about the Smike suit makes you supremely equipped to...talk about the Smike suit and teach obscure literature classes. Neither of those things is exactly a sure road to prosperity.

8/12/2005 1:05:05 AM

hmmmm

8/12/2005 1:08:35 AM

Quote :

"So, with 35 million officially classified as poor, that means 8.75 million that are Kris' poor, or 3% of the population. That is even before we eliminate people that wouldn't buy a car even if they could (New York residents, for example)."

Now I've seen you post these statstics before, and I know they help you sleep happy at night, but it surprises me that brush off 3% so easily. The top 3% of americans own nearly half the wealth. Three percent is still a large number of americans. The wealth gap is ever also widing. The system is not nearly as fair as you like to think it is.

Quote :

"Where has a class structure been more flexible than it is in America at the present moment?"

The flexibility isn't really what makes the system fair. I'd say that europe has a much more equality.

Quote :

"And one of the first answers I expect is some nonesense about a commie state that isn't supposed to have classes anyway, but still."

That's stupid. I don't want mobility, I want equality.

8/12/2005 2:07:31 AM

Quote :

"The flexibility isn't really what makes the system fair."

While I'd love to debate the point, I was discussing social mobility and flexibility -- not fairness, as it were.

Quote :

"Even a jew in the holocaust had the potential of overthrowing hitler if he really put his mind to it."

If I didn't loathe the idea so much I'd mumble something about n approaching infinity.

8/12/2005 2:12:27 AM

1) Could you please quantify the percentage of people that displayed that depth of cultural knowledge compared to today? Right now, your anecdotal evidence isn't convincing. TR was an aristocrat that went to private schools. Not exactly a representative example. If you go to Yardale I'm sure you'll find at least one faggot that's read Dickens.

2) Your ruler of cultural literacy seems a bit outdated, since you're still defining "Dilettante" the way they did 100 years ago. Don't we have our own modern writers and thinkers? Maybe I havn't read Frost, but I've read Ginsberg. Maybe I can't relate the troubles of Chuck Dicken's 19th century brits, but I can relate to the stories of Clyde Edgerton.

Hell, you're ignoring entire mediums. Unlike 100 years ago, we have many mediums for expression and communication, mediums your Dilettantes couldn't even dream of. But you don't even seem to think they are important for "proper" cultural literacy. What the fuck is the matter with you?

3) Fuck you for being an arrogant prick. We all know you're just trying to rationalize picking a fuck up major.

[Edited on August 12, 2005 at 2:27 AM. Reason : fucking prick]

8/12/2005 2:21:20 AM

DIDN'T THE RUBIK'S GUY MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY???/











(Because CAPS LOCK makes any argument stronger and my posts won't be taken seriously anyway and my insecurities will most likely result in posts like "kiss my ass mother fucker")

(Stream of consciousness(ask a UNC guy what that means))
Let's see this is what they do now... /thread

8/12/2005 10:49:30 AM

Quote :

"If I didn't loathe the idea so much I'd mumble something about n approaching infinity."

I laughed

8/12/2005 10:54:05 AM

Quote :

"While I'd love to debate the point, I was discussing social mobility and flexibility -- not fairness, as it were."

Fairness is the very reason you defend class mobility in this system. You believe that given the oppurtunity of class mobility someone with free will can become anything they want, thus making the system in your eyes, fair. Of course all this hinges on the idea that free will exists, which is as likely as santa claus, god or the easter bunny.

Quote :

"If I didn't loathe the idea so much I'd mumble something about n approaching infinity."

You'd be close to right, but n stays constant rather than getting increasingly smaller, assuming free will. Assuming determinism n does get progressively larger thus 1/n goes to zero.

8/12/2005 1:08:12 PM

Quote :

"Fairness is the very reason you defend class mobility in this system."

Fuck no. We defend class mobility because it encourages efficiency and hard work. Because a system "works better" does not mean it is "more fair." You see, Kris, we recognize that capitalism is NOT FAIR. We don't care. We want social advancement technologically, which sometimes requires leaving some individuals behind.

Your problem is that you are too caught up in every single individual, honestly believing that we must care for them or they will die because they are not smart enough to survive without help. We take the opposite approach, they are sentient human beings, obviously capable of surviving on their own.

8/12/2005 2:19:16 PM

Quote :

"We defend class mobility because it encourages efficiency and hard work."

Unfortunately as you should realize, you don't have class mobility, you only have an illusion of class mobility.

Quote :

"We don't care. We want social advancement technologically, which sometimes requires leaving some individuals behind."

And you think a system that gives unqualitfied people an unfair advantage over more qualified people simply because of their parents and the ennvironment they were raised in would foster this advancement moreso where everyone was given an equal chance and people fulfilled the jobs they were most qualified for?

I am arguing agianst your system not for humanitarian reasons. I don't care about human suffering any more than I do animal suffering. I argue agianst it because it doesn't work as well.

Quote :

"Your problem is that you are too caught up in every single individual, honestly believing that we must care for them or they will die because they are not smart enough to survive without help."

I don't care about them, the difference between starving and dying of natural causes is meaningless to me. What does matter is that you are leaving behind more qualified people and promoting ones less qualified neopotistically. This causes the system to function less effeciently because you aren't using your human capital to it's full potential. You further waste it in pointless competition, when the desire for success could be manufactured much better artificially through conditioning and environmental control.

Taking care of the unfortunate is a by-product of advancement as it always has been. My primary motive is to further society as a whole, ensuring the welfare of the unfortunate is simply a by-product.

8/12/2005 3:44:29 PM

Really? You mean to tell me that there are poor people out there that are more qualified than the people that are currently holding the jobs? Tell their boss! Trust me, if you are right then the exchange should take no time at all. "John, you're fired. Albert, You're hired!"

Quote :

"because of their parents and the ennvironment they were raised in"

Wait, if you were raised properly to value education and hardwork, how can someone that was not raised thusly be considered "more qualified"?

We want people to want money. And if you cannot give your money to your children then it is worth that much less. Therefore, we have no choice but to allow spoiled brats to become rich. It is an unfortunate cost of liberty, but the benefits cannot be denied. Just look at all my cool stuff!

This is where I point out that it has been the capitalist free world which has disperst the artifacts of technology farthest, then you point out that correllation does not equal causation, then I point out that most every other possible factor which could explain it can be explained away with either counter examples or historical inference. Then you point out blah blah blah.

There is no point discussing it. You want to believe that your fantasy world could be constructed, I argue no way because the people are already brainwashed to fear and despise your system of brainwashing, hence it could never work.

8/12/2005 6:17:03 PM

Quote :

"Really? You mean to tell me that there are poor people out there that are more qualified than the people that are currently holding the jobs?"

Yep, they just missed the oppurtunities that we offered the wealthier people.

Quote :

"Tell their boss! Trust me, if you are right then the exchange should take no time at all. "John, you're fired. Albert, You're hired!""

It's a bit more complicated than that. It envolves the whole environments that surrounded the poor person versus the rich one.

Quote :

"Wait, if you were raised properly to value education and hardwork, how can someone that was not raised thusly be considered "more qualified"?"

Because human beings are not made physiologically equal. Person A may have had the potential to be much better at job 1 than person B. However person be was in an environment that fostered his lower potential while person A's potential never fully came to fruition.

Quote :

"We want people to want money."

We don't need money. Properly conditioning these children proper ethinc would remove it's purpose.

Quote :

"This is where I point out that it has been the capitalist free world which has disperst the artifacts of technology farthest"

You were neck and neck with the soviets a few year back. Additionally the soviets had been around for a much much shorter period of time. Who invented the first satelite (one of the most important inventions of the 20th century)?

Quote :

"I argue no way because the people are already brainwashed to fear and despise your system of brainwashing"

And yet most of the world steadily marches forward dragging conservative america kicking and screaming.

8/12/2005 7:33:16 PM

Quote :

"And yet most of the world steadily marches forward dragging conservative america kicking and screaming."

Who is dragging whom? Who wins more nobel prizes each year, the United States or the rest of the World? Last I heard, it was a close call. What exactly has the rest of the world done for me lately? I don't mean to belittle the rest of the people on the planet, far from it. It isn't their fault what system they are born into. Nevertheless, their systems produce only so far as they resemble our-own.

As socialist as much of the world wants to be, that ancient program of brainwashing some of us call "liberty" limits it marvelously. Even a Frenchman reacts with discust at the suggestion of brainwashing children against the will of the parents.

8/12/2005 11:39:39 PM

Quote :

"Being able to speak Latin is nice and it makes you look smart, but it opens the door to...teaching Latin, and not much else. Knowing about the Smike suit makes you supremely equipped to...talk about the Smike suit and teach obscure literature classes. Neither of those things is exactly a sure road to prosperity."

hmmm...last I checked, Latin is important for legal work, medical work and scienctific work. Sorry Grumpster you lose.

As for knowing a fucking Charles Dickens' story (not obscure), that just makes you apart of society.

Quote :

"1) Could you please quantify the percentage of people that displayed that depth of cultural knowledge compared to today? Right now, your anecdotal evidence isn't convincing. TR was an aristocrat that went to private schools. Not exactly a representative example. If you go to Yardale I'm sure you'll find at least one faggot that's read Dickens."

Yes, let me jump into my time machine and poll everyone in victorian england. Your argument here is rediculous. Charles Dickens' is read world-wide still to this day, it has nothing to do with artistocracy. There are many stories about commoners and the writing of dickens. One day, Dickens was waiting to buy some produce from the produceman, when he over heard someone in line talking about the serial dickens was writing (99% of novels at this time were writen as serials) and at that time, Dickens realized he hadn't written the weeks installment yet and it was going to press in the morning so he rushed home and wrote it.

Quote :

"2) Your ruler of cultural literacy seems a bit outdated, since you're still defining "Dilettante" the way they did 100 years ago. Don't we have our own modern writers and thinkers? Maybe I havn't read Frost, but I've read Ginsberg. Maybe I can't relate the troubles of Chuck Dicken's 19th century brits, but I can relate to the stories of Clyde Edgerton."

I use the terms from over 100 years ago, because the definition of dilletante hasn't changed much at all. Every period has their modern writers, that doesn't mean we need to foresake the past. No matter the period, writers from past generations and eras were always read. As for Ginsberg, Ginsberg is a hack.

Quote :

"Hell, you're ignoring entire mediums. Unlike 100 years ago, we have many mediums for expression and communication, mediums your Dilettantes couldn't even dream of. But you don't even seem to think they are important for "proper" cultural literacy. What the fuck is the matter with you?"

Sorry socksie, but I don't place hacks like Toby Keith and eminem on the same level as I place individuals like Byron, Shelly, Dickens, et. al.

Quote :

"3) Fuck you for being an arrogant prick. We all know you're just trying to rationalize picking a fuck up major."

Just like you and every post you make where you somehow try to tie economics into everything. Here's a hint, pull your head otu of your ass and read something other than Keynes or Hayek.

Quote :

"Who is dragging whom? Who wins more nobel prizes each year, the United States or the rest of the World? Last I heard, it was a close call. What exactly has the rest of the world done for me lately? I don't mean to belittle the rest of the people on the planet, far from it. It isn't their fault what system they are born into. Nevertheless, their systems produce only so far as they resemble our-own."

I didn't realize the nobel prize was the end all of advancement. Shit, can I cherry pick something too? The United STates currently leads the world in Polk awards. Come up with something worthwhile here.

Quote :

"As socialist as much of the world wants to be, that ancient program of brainwashing some of us call "liberty" limits it marvelously. Even a Frenchman reacts with discust at the suggestion of brainwashing children against the will of the parents."

you keep talking about how liberals hate liberty, yet have never shown any evidence. Last I checked, it was us liberals trying to protect your liberties from your own stupidity. And What is this brainwashing bullshit you keep bringing up.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 1:33:08 PM

Quote :

"I would certainly say we have more social mobility than pre-revolutionary France, for instance."

and you'd be certainly wrong. Pre-Revolutionary france had more class mobility than today, but at the same time as it is today, the accrument of wealth and knowledge did not automatically place someone into high society.

8/14/2005 2:29:26 PM

Quote :

"Pre-Revolutionary france had more class mobility than today"

In what possible sense? Were there droves of peasants turning into nobility and vice versa of which I was previously unaware?

Quote :

"hmmm...last I checked, Latin is important for legal work, medical work and scienctific work. Sorry Grumpster you lose."

In both of these fields you have to know the terms that are relevant to your field, which represent a very minor part of Latin's vocabulary and thus an even smaller part of the language as a whole. In political science I run into quite a few Latin phrases, and I know those phrases (and any that have common use in English or biology). To get to that point I never had to study Latin a day in my life.

Quote :

"As for knowing a fucking Charles Dickens' story (not obscure), that just makes you apart of society."

This is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever said.

The fact that I haven't read that book means I'm outside of society? The fact that I haven't read any given book does that? Absurd.

8/14/2005 3:14:02 PM

Quote :

"In what possible sense? Were there droves of peasants turning into nobility and vice versa of which I was previously unaware?"

Because we all know that there are two classe, filthy rich and dirt fucking poor. But if you must, research Salon society.

Quote :

"In both of these fields you have to know the terms that are relevant to your field, which represent a very minor part of Latin's vocabulary and thus an even smaller part of the language as a whole. In political science I run into quite a few Latin phrases, and I know those phrases (and any that have common use in English or biology). To get to that point I never had to study Latin a day in my life."

Are you just talking out of your ass again?

Quote :

"This is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. The fact that I haven't read that book means I'm outside of society? The fact that I haven't read any given book does that? Absurd."

Do you know who ebenezzar scrouge is? He comes from a fucking Dickens' tale. Dickens is completely part and parcell with our society, that if you didn't fucking know any dickens at all you'd be fucking lost. now fucking open up a book and read instead of being a fucking idiot.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 3:19:08 PM

Quote :

"Because we all know that there are two classe, filthy rich and dirt fucking poor. But if you must, research Salon society."

I know about the salons and I know about the goddamn middle class. I also know where the middle class generally came from, and it wasn't the dirt fucking poor rising up.

Quote :

"Are you just talking out of your ass again?"

Well that's an argument.

I told you that studying Latin was unecessary, that any Latin important to a field would be taught in that field

Quote :

"Dickens is completely part and parcell with our society, that if you didn't fucking know any dickens at all you'd be fucking lost."

You wouldn't be lost at all. You'd miss out on some things, but so does everybody. There isn't any-fucking-body who understands every reference thrown to him, and that's alright, because most if not all of those are hardly essential to participation in society. Ebenezzar Scro...what the fuck are you talking about? You don't think there are people running around who know who Scrooge is but who don't know he's a Dickens character? Are those people failing out of society? No, they're failing out of your made-up and useless class of arrogant pricks whose knowledge of dead material you inexplicably idolize.

8/14/2005 3:31:13 PM

Grumpy, it is times like these that make me realize that you are just hot air incapable of thought. good day sir.

8/14/2005 3:35:24 PM

Quote :

"you keep talking about how liberals hate liberty, yet have never shown any evidence"

I obviously mispoke, I meant to say Democrats hate liberty, not liberals. It is just that liberals tend to be Democrats. And I have given endless evidence of this being their stated goals.

From the North Carolina Democratic Party Website:

Quote :

"We believe that economic growth expands opportunity for everyone. The free market, regulated in the public interest, is the best engine of general prosperity. We believe government must provide a safety net covering the basic human needs of all citizens and should work to enrich their quality of life. We recognize that every person is entitled to basic health care."

http://www.ncdp.org/platform

Quote :

"I didn't realize the nobel prize was the end all of advancement."

So how do you measure something so difficult to quantify? As you did, by simply giving no evidence whatsoever?

8/14/2005 3:58:31 PM

democrat and liberal are not synonyms. Likewise neither is republican and conservative.

and read back again chump. the quote I used from you had nothing at all to do with anything I said. I just called you out on your stupidity.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 4:00:29 PM