1
0

Squares make better wheels!


 invite response                
2013 Jul 23, 12:43pm   28,184 views  136 comments

by edvard2   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

According to a conservative publication I unquestionably agree with, science has had it all wrong for untold 1000's of years: The wheel is clearly some sort of eeee-vil liberal hoax. The reality is that squares make way better wheels by far. The reason is that a bunch of liberals way back in the day complained that the ride they got from their square-wheeled ox carts was way too bumpy. Since we all know that liberals are all a bunch of whiners, of course they came up with a lame contraption shaped like a circle that gave a much smoother ride.

But of course we- the silent majority- know the truth! We all know the founding fathers rode around with horse and buggies that had square wheels because they were true patriots!

So- if any of you want to challenge me and say I'm wrong well Ha! No amount of common sense will ever convince me otherwise! So please- keep those replies comin', you liberals!

« First        Comments 116 - 136 of 136        Search these comments

116   edvard2   2013 Jul 25, 4:20am  

Reality says

Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?

Yeah. But all that really matters is that we succeed in making sure that we tell people that any and all public schools, even back in the 1600's were total failures because we of course have to preserve the narrative that any and all things supported by the gubermint is bad!

117   dublin hillz   2013 Jul 25, 4:36am  

edvard2 says

Reality says



Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?


Yeah. But all that really matters is that we succeed in making sure that we tell people that any and all public schools, even back in the 1600's were total failures because we of course have to preserve the narrative that any and all things supported by the gubermint is bad!

Next conservatives should target social workers - after all they prevent the rights of parents to "whoop that ass" as they see fit. That is an absolute encroachment on freedom!

118   Reality   2013 Jul 25, 4:41am  

control point says

Yeah, just like a few months ago you used grammatically incorrect latin terms when talking about Keynes. Similarly, wikipedia used the exact same latin terms wrongly. You were caught then - I only point it out in case anyone missed that one - Its what you do. Own it.

What are you talking about? My use was incorrect, but Wikipedia entry was correct . . . Obviously I didn't use Wikipedia. In any case, what's wrong with using Wikipedia? I use it from time to time, including reading to my kids. I just happened not to have used it on that particular occasion, or I wouldn't have made the error. heck, I should have used it.

I googled "examples of 19th century private transporation."

So you googled, good for you.

Not far, I believe, from what you googled in an attempt to come across sounding "smart."

Then your belief is wrong. This is not the first, or even 2nd or even third time I have cited James Hill and Great Northern on Patrick.net in the last half decade+. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to forget things like that.

Where they are needed the most to maximize profit. We would have 10 million miles of roads in high population areas and few roads (poorly maintained if any) in areas where population, (and therefore usage/profit) was low.

I don't know about 10 million miles, as that sounds like beyond point of diminishing return, a point that only the market process can discover. As for not building or building few roads where population density is too low to pay for it, isn't that just another way of saying avoiding building bridges to nowhere? duh! Those value points are precisely what the market place is better at discovering than political patronage.

Sorry if your farm in North Dakota needs a way to get its crop to market - the fees aren't there so build it yourself or move the farm.

I don't get what your point is. Are you saying the government should be building a railroad to the north pole to run a farm powered by nuclear heating? Just because some wise-men think that is feasible?

What is better than the market place in deciding whether a rail through a particular part of North Dakota is worth it? and where the farm is to be located? In our own history, James Hill's Great Northern did go through North Dakota on its way to the Pacific northwest, presumably because land in North Dakota was cheap. Once the rail was in place to connect the major commerce centers, some farms were probably developed close to the rail on land that was previously unused. Why is a process like that suddenly worthy of condemnation in your imaginary world? Do you think there ought to be a farm on the moon, and the government should build an escalator for you to both ship crop from the moon and water/CO2 to the moon for you? Well, in government controlled economy, that's the sort of thing that would happen, just like all those government subsidized transcontinental railroads that went bankrupt as many of them were built at too high cost going through area by political choice with politicians (including Lincoln) already bought land ahead of time and ready to unload onto the politicized railroad project.

119   Reality   2013 Jul 25, 4:51am  

dublin hillz says

Next conservatives should target social workers - after all they prevent the rights of parents to "whoop that ass" as they see fit. That is an absolute encroachment on freedom!

While I'm against physical discipline for kids, I'm not sure having DSS involved in anything less than injury is appropriate. The foster families are often no better than the birth parents in many other ways. When you have kids, you'd realize the subtle surveillence system run by schools on what parents do with kids at home is quite scary.

120   Reality   2013 Jul 25, 4:58am  

Let's not forget, one of the consequences of trans-continental railroads, and canals before them, was the bankruptcy of many New England family farms, as crops could be shipped in from the midwest and plains states/territories at much lower cost than growing them in New England.

So what's so special about having to move a farm closer to railroad in North Dakota?

Do some people think there is a constitutional right to having a railroad terminal to one's own door?

121   Reality   2013 Jul 25, 5:02am  

seeitnow says

dublin hillz says

wouldn't the weath gap between rich and middle class/lower class actually decrease since the latter 2 don't nearly hold the same percentage of assets in stocks?

No, the vast majority of the middle/lower classes net worth is tied to the present value of their future earning potential. This is the basis for usury - if the potential earning is lessened, net worth (collateral) is lessened.

In short, the wealthy will still hold property/assets that can be exchanged for labor.

The wealthy tend to be more leveraged. That's how their wealth can grow faster during boom times. Crunch time used to be the time period when the wealthy speculative leveragers can crushed. Now with central banking, the downside to leverage is transferred to everyone else.

122   bob2356   2013 Jul 25, 2:14pm  

Reality says

Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?

You should really try reading history books instead of reading about history books. Horace Mann reformed schools by secularizing and normalizing (what we now call standards) the curriculm, therefore creating what were known as "normal" schools. He also was a big advocate of the elimination of corporal punishment. Many towns in the north east and in the middle atlantic states had at least semi public schools by Mann's time.

He went to Prussia, studied the system, and wrote extensively on adapting the Prussian standards in the US. The US system never failed, it was standardized and updated where needed to contemporary (of the time) standards.

You should also learn to read what people write. I clearly stated that education was totally private and very poorly implemented in the southern states. It also depends on what you are calling colonial era. Pre printing press or post printing press. Made a big difference.

Reality says

By the 2nd half of 1700's, the predominant forms of education in the colonies were home schooling and private schools.

Depends on what colony. In the rural south and west where people isolated on farms then home schooling was the only option. In the more industrial NE it was a different story.

In 1647, Massachusetts passed the "Old Deluder Satan Law," requiring that every town of 50 households appoint and pay a teacher of reading and writing, and every town of 100 households provide a Latin grammar school. This law offered a model for other communities (read colonies) and made the establishment of schools a practical reality. Most of New England states passed similar laws.

Also depends on what you call public or private. In places schools were sort of a mix. They were funded by parents paying tuition, but were also partly funded by the towns. Is it fish or fowl?

123   Reality   2013 Jul 25, 10:37pm  

bob2356 says

Horace Mann reformed schools by secularizing and normalizing (what we now call standards) the curriculm, therefore creating what were known as "normal" schools. He also was a big advocate of the elimination of corporal punishment. Many towns in the north east and in the middle atlantic states had at least semi public schools by Mann's time.

He went to Prussia, studied the system, and wrote extensively on adapting the Prussian standards in the US. The US system never failed, it was standardized and updated where needed to contemporary (of the time) standards.

"Normal schools" were schools built for teacher training to further the system. As for what the system is, well, it was the Prussian Model: training young men to be the ready tools of a vigorous state. That's what Horace Mann imported from Prussia, the country built around the Prussian Army.

The Prussian system of centrally planned schools for the cultivation of "patriotic fervor" was far worse than old colonial American system of small town public schools. However, after over a century of public schools, just like typical bureaucratic/monopolistic system decline after 60 years, the Americans of the time must have been dispirited regarding their education system just like we do today and casting about importing foreign "standards-based" nonsense.

bob2356 says

In 1647, Massachusetts passed the "Old Deluder Satan Law," requiring that every town of 50 households appoint and pay a teacher of reading and writing, and every town of 100 households provide a Latin grammar school. This law offered a model for other communities (read colonies) and made the establishment of schools a practical reality. Most of New England states passed similar laws.

Also depends on what you call public or private. In places schools were sort of a mix. They were funded by parents paying tuition, but were also partly funded by the towns. Is it fish or fowl?

I think you just answered your own question. The existence of the old law a century and half earlier only meant the sentiment of the time, a century and half earlier. Just like Blue laws and anti-sodomy laws that existed in the books until a decade or so ago does not mean we are still against (other people practicing) homosexuality or drinking on Sundays. By the late 18th century, public schools in America were in decline and private schools were in vogue. Many of the best known "academies" were established in the 18th century.

124   edvard2   2013 Jul 26, 12:02am  

Lots and lots of over-the-top discussions back and forth just so that some people can in some lame way try and discount public schools because they want others to think that just because a school might have "Public" in front of it and oh-no- we can't have any government intervention in our schools because it interferes with a sort of narrow sighted belief that schools shouldn't be public because "gubermint" that it must be by default bad.

Let me inject some reality into the discussion. So let's be clear: The US public school system isn't perfect. Last time I checked I believe Finland was the Number one ranked country in regards to their schools ( which are public as well BTW). But the argument that "Public" schools are bad just because they are... "Public" is a stupid one. The model itself is totally fine. Its about the curriculum, the funding, and the physical schools themselves. In many states funds that were supposed to be set aside for education are constantly being used for other purposes which in turn puts a strain on the system.

But let's talk about government funding in general. For those who constantly go "Rah Rah Rah!, Government -run anything is Bad!" well... what do you think would happen if everything were instead funded by private individuals and business? You would get "Old Europe" in a bag, that's what. We would go right back to having a rather large, grossly uneducated peasantry with a very small, highly educated elite at the top lording over everything. The whole reason that government plays a role in.... well- "governing" is to in parts ensure that everyone has at least a chance at the pie. Take that power away and put it into the hands of individuals and that pie shrinks dramatically. That is what a democratic system is basically all about in a nutshell. We live in a democratic country and part of that means we pay taxes and those taxes are used to fund public and social functions. If you don't like that then too bad. That's the country we live in and how it was founded.

Lastly, I come from a very long line of teachers. I am one of the first in my family to not become a teacher myself. But all I can say is that me, my brother, and basically my entire family ALL received public school educations. We all do fairly well financially and have been successful in life. So I take issue with people who run around yacking about public schools and how they should be privatized or whatnot when its clear they lack even the basic facts to present a valid arguments and instead let ideology get in the way of reality.

125   freak80   2013 Jul 26, 12:56am  

edvard2 says

The whole reason that government plays a role in.... well- "governing" is to in
parts ensure that everyone has at least a chance at the pie. Take that power
away and put it into the hands of individuals and that pie shrinks dramatically.
That is what a democratic system is basically all about in a nutshell.

Well put sir.

126   dublin hillz   2013 Jul 26, 2:13am  

One of the main reasons that our academic system is struggling is because children don't want to learn. They don't apply themselves 100%, it's not even close. Their slacking is an abomination. They don't seem to understand that studying/writing papers/working on projects is their job and a "fair share" contribution to the family unit. And many parents are responsible for this, for not imparting this fact/belief to their offspring.

127   freak80   2013 Jul 26, 2:32am  

dublin hillz says

And many parents are responsible for this, for not imparting this fact/belief to
their offspring.

Many parents don't have the time. They're working three shitty McJobs just to provide food and shelter for their offspring.

128   dublin hillz   2013 Jul 26, 3:02am  

freak80 says

dublin hillz says



And many parents are responsible for this, for not imparting this fact/belief to
their offspring.


Many parents don't have the time. They're working three shitty McJobs just to provide food and shelter for their offspring.

I think this issue cuts across all social strata in society. There are plenty of kid/teenage slackers in the middle/upper class and those tend to have the worst snotty attitude when they refuse to apply themselves.

129   freak80   2013 Jul 26, 4:28am  

dublin hillz says

There are plenty of kid/teenage slackers in the middle/upper class and those
tend to have the worst snotty attitude when they refuse to apply themselves.

Good point.

130   Reality   2013 Jul 26, 4:34am  

edvard2 says

But all I can say is that me, my brother, and basically my entire family ALL received public school educations. We all do fairly well financially and have been successful in life.

Yet there are millions of graduates of public schools that are functionally illiterate. What does that say? Di you and your brother and your entire family get the most important aspect of education from the family, or just public schools? Don't be shy.

BTW, it is erroneous to take a static view of public schools: "ours is not perfect" and "Finland is #1" are all transient observations, just like once upon a time the Prussian System was thought of as the best as it pumped out literally soldiers for the militaristic state of Prussia. The problem with "public" is in its monopolistic nature: you pay for it regardless whether you want to buy its service or not. Over time, bureaucratic monopolies attract mediocrity and time stampers. It always happens after a few decades (typically 60 years or so, a seculum). That's when the consumers have to have the right to make an alternative choice. That's the real value in preserving private education and home schooling: alternative choice.

131   Reality   2013 Jul 26, 4:41am  

edvard2 says

what do you think would happen if everything were instead funded by private individuals and business? You would get "Old Europe" in a bag, that's what. We would go right back to having a rather large, grossly uneducated peasantry with a very small, highly educated elite at the top lording over everything. The whole reason that government plays a role in.... well- "governing" is to in parts ensure that everyone has at least a chance at the pie.

hmm, the "Old Europe" was very much governed, and over-governed. That's why many Europeans came to America, in order to escape the governments of Old Europe.

Take that power away and put it into the hands of individuals and that pie shrinks dramatically.

That is a very strange economic theory, running exactly in contrary to the very tenet of Wealth of Nations: it is the mutually willing exchanges by free individuals that create wealth, not coercion and looting. Education does involve economy of scale. The private sector is quite capable of gauging the right economy of scale, instead of letting politicians and teachers unions tell us how large the class room should be.

That is what a democratic system is basically all about in a nutshell. We live in a democratic country and part of that means we pay taxes and those taxes are used to fund public and social functions. If you don't like that then too bad. That's the country we live in and how it was founded.

This country was founded as a Republic. The most direct reason for American Revolution was a drive to avoid paying taxes levied by the British crown to fund "public and social functions." Apparently, your public school education didn't work as well as you thought.

132   dublin hillz   2013 Jul 26, 5:08am  

Reality says

The problem with "public" is in its monopolistic nature: you pay for it
regardless whether you want to buy its service or not. Over time, bureaucratic
monopolies attract mediocrity and time stampers. It always happens after a few
decades (typically 60 years or so, a seculum). That's when the consumers have to
have the right to make an alternative choice. That's the real value in
preserving private education and home schooling: alternative choice.

And yet there are plenty of examples where parents dropped tens of thousands of dollars on private school education where the return on investment turned out to be absolute zero because their precious offspring imploded during teenage hood. Talk about a kick in the stomach!

133   bob2356   2013 Jul 26, 5:56am  

Reality says

The most direct reason for American Revolution was a drive to avoid paying taxes levied by the British crown to fund "public and social functions."

The most direct reason for the American Revolution was to avoid paying taxes passed without representation in the law making process. The tax itself, which was very low, was never the main issue, it was the passing of the tax without input into the process by the American colonies that people objected to most.

Apparently, your private school education didn't work as well as you thought. They taught "No taxation without representation" in 7th grade in my public school.

134   Reality   2013 Jul 26, 6:17am  

bob2356 says

The most direct reason for the American Revolution was to avoid paying taxes passed without representation in the law making process.

The tax laws were passed with "virtual representation" as was standard practice in the British House of Commons at the time. Then after the colonists objected, real representation was offered to the colonists but rejected.

The tax itself, which was very low, was never the main issue, it was the passing of the tax without input into the process by the American colonies that people objected to most.

You are dreaming. The real issue was taxation. "Without representation" was the excuse, as the offer of representation was rejected.

Apparently, your private school education didn't work as well as you thought. They taught "No taxation without representation" in 7th grade in my public school.

Obviously your public school did not dig deeper than the sloganeering. Did you happen to know that the British government was trying to tighten money supply after the French-Indian War? In other words, the banning of colonial credit money printing and taxation were all part and parcel of an Austerity measure. That was what caused the revolt against what was essentially Bank of England's monetary policy. Read up on Bejamin Franklin's writings on the economic condition of the time.

135   edvard2   2013 Jul 26, 7:08am  

Reality says

Yet there are millions of graduates of public schools that are functionally illiterate. What does that say? Di you and your brother and your entire family get the most important aspect of education from the family, or just public schools? Don't be shy.

There are also a perhaps equally large number of students who are also illiterate who go to private schools. I can say that the same as you made your statement since you lack any data to backup that claims.Reality says

BTW, it is erroneous to take a static view of public schools: "ours is not perfect" and "Finland is #1" are all transient observations, just like once upon a time the Prussian System was thought of as the best as it pumped

You need to understand the definition of Past and Present. I wasn't talking about the past and the prussians. I was talking about present day. Hence the remainder of your response to that point is moot.Reality says

hmm, the "Old Europe" was very much governed, and over-governed. That's why many Europeans came to America, in order to escape the governments of Old Europe.

Most of " Old Europe" was not Democratic. Many of the countrys there were either still being overlorded by either monarcy, the church, or both. Hence why masses moved to the US where we ultimately adopted a representative-based democratic form of government, separated from the church. So just like your previous point, you have made none so far that have any validity since they aren't historically correct.Reality says

That is a very strange economic theory, running exactly in contrary to the very tenet of Wealth of Nations: it is the mutually willing exchanges by free individuals that create wealth, not coercion and looting

You were the one who mentioned "Looting", not I. Exactly how did you jump to that conclusion? Strange because our system uses a form of taxation. The revolution-contrary to a lot of what conservatives want everyone to believe, was not over taxes for the sake of taxes. It was over taxation without representation.

Like I said before, we are a democratic country that was founded on the principle of a shared society- meaning yes- we all pay taxes for the benefit of the whole. That's the way its always been so why this could be a surprise is confusing.

136   Reality   2013 Jul 26, 7:23am  

edvard2 says

There are also a perhaps equally large number of students who are also illiterate who go to private schools. I can say that the same as you made your statement since you lack any data to backup that claims.

A satement like that only goes to show your ignorance. Just because a statement is grammatically correct doesn't mean its content has any factual basis.

You need to understand the definition of Past and Present. I wasn't talking about the past and the prussians. I was talking about present day. hence the remainder of your response to that point is moot

Past is all the guide we have to the future. The standards we use today for measuring schools may well look as silly in the future as we today think of the "standards" that made Prussian System look great. Side note: IMHO, the penchant for standard test results that many other countries excel at may well soon prove to be highly detrimental to the molding of flexible and productive new members of society.

Most of " Old Europe" was not Democratic. Many of the countrys there were either still being overlorded by either monarcy, the church, or both. Hence why masses moved to the US where we ultimately adopted a representative-based democratic form of government, separated from the church. So just like your previous point, you have made none so far that have any validity since they aren't historically

Democracy and Tyranny of the Majority were nothing new to the Old Europe. The founding fathers explicitly warned against Democracy per se.

You were the one who mentioned "Looting", not I. Exactly how did you jump to that conclusion?

Taxation and regulation fundamentally are looting and coercion.

The revolution-contrary to a lot of what conservatives want everyone to believe, was not over taxes for the sake of taxes. It was over taxation without representation

Another string match idiot. Is that what they teach in public schools nowadays? The colonists were offered representation but rejected. "Without representation" was simply an excuse for the slogan. The real objection was to taxation.

Like I said before, we are a democratic country that was founded on the principle of a shared society- meaning yes- we all pay taxes for the benefit of the whole.

Now we are talking about a new religion here. "We all pay taxes for the benefit of the whole" sounds like something King George III would have told the colonists.

« First        Comments 116 - 136 of 136        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions