4 ms·

The same group of people trying to drag us all to the lowest common demonitator. The same people who don't want parents reading to their children because it gi

by Nadya 11y ago

The same group of people trying to drag us all to the lowest common demonitator. The same people who don't want parents reading to their children because it gives that child an advantage over children who's parents don't have time to read to the child. [0] [0] http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/parents-reading-to-kids-blasted-as-unfair/ http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/parents-reading-to-kids-blasted-a...

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The same people who don't want parents reading to their children because it gives that child an advantage over children who's parents don't have time to read to the child. Er, the WND article you cite to support the existence of such people greatly distorts the ABC source article [0] it cites, where the quote it takes out of context is not supporting an argument that parents shouldn't read to the their children as it presents it (and, in fact, is a joke -- a "quip", in the words of the source -- made by the speaker before being followed by: "We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage".) The philosopher isn't arguing against parents reading to their children, he's discussing work he and a colleague are doing to construct a principled philosophical theory in favor of the family, including the particular activity that WND wants to miscast the article as presenting him as opposed to. Its always a good idea to have some skepticism when reviewing a news report, and to follow through and check sources (especially when they are linked so it is nearly zero-effort to do so.) Perhaps particularly with a site with as strong an ideological bent as WND posting something that fits so neatly into an ideological stereotype as that article. [0] http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszon...
- Nadya 11y ago
  I seem to have been misunderstood due to the bluntness of my reply. But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. >So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families. The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time My bad for selecting a shitty source - I pay absolutely no attention to the political slants of different news agencies - but my point stands: people are making these arguments. They will argue for "equality" by dragging anyone above them down to their level: the LCD. I can easily see how my parent post could be misconstrued as arguing Swift is making this argument. My argument is that he is investigating this issue largely because people exist that are making these arguments.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. No, it does not "admit", or even indicate, or even hint, that there are people arguing that parents should not read to their children because it creates an unfair advantage. > but my point stands: people are making these arguments. Well, there's 7-ish billion people on the planet, so perhaps somewhere you can find one making the argument you refer to, but when you do, I think its going to be hard to support your claim that the group making that argument is, even approximately, coextensive with the group proposing open salaries.

by Nadya 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The same people who don't want parents reading to their children because it gives that child an advantage over children who's parents don't have time to read to the child. Er, the WND article you cite to support the existence of such people greatly distorts the ABC source article [0] it cites, where the quote it takes out of context is not supporting an argument that parents shouldn't read to the their children as it presents it (and, in fact, is a joke -- a "quip", in the words of the source -- made by the speaker before being followed by: "We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage".) The philosopher isn't arguing against parents reading to their children, he's discussing work he and a colleague are doing to construct a principled philosophical theory in favor of the family, including the particular activity that WND wants to miscast the article as presenting him as opposed to. Its always a good idea to have some skepticism when reviewing a news report, and to follow through and check sources (especially when they are linked so it is nearly zero-effort to do so.) Perhaps particularly with a site with as strong an ideological bent as WND posting something that fits so neatly into an ideological stereotype as that article. [0] http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszon...

Nadya 11y ago
I seem to have been misunderstood due to the bluntness of my reply. But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. >So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families. The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time My bad for selecting a shitty source - I pay absolutely no attention to the political slants of different news agencies - but my point stands: people are making these arguments. They will argue for "equality" by dragging anyone above them down to their level: the LCD. I can easily see how my parent post could be misconstrued as arguing Swift is making this argument. My argument is that he is investigating this issue largely because people exist that are making these arguments.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. No, it does not "admit", or even indicate, or even hint, that there are people arguing that parents should not read to their children because it creates an unfair advantage. > but my point stands: people are making these arguments. Well, there's 7-ish billion people on the planet, so perhaps somewhere you can find one making the argument you refer to, but when you do, I think its going to be hard to support your claim that the group making that argument is, even approximately, coextensive with the group proposing open salaries.