[Пятхъдесят Шест]

I'm not saying this never happens, I'm sure cities switch up their school districts all the time, but how can you justify government allowing the schools to be split up the way they have been split up? Why does there have to be three districts rather than two or even one? There has been months of build up for this, the inner city schools campaigned with the slogan 'One City, One School District' which is pretty much based on common sense, right?

The Omaha World Herald ran a week long story on how other cities around the country have dealed with issues like this, and the results were quite varied. I can't remember all the school districts they profiled, but Hartford, Conn. was one of them. Either way, I can't imagine this happening if this wasn't such a red state.

Qprogeny, obviously, you are not racist. With that being said. Your logic does not work well in this city, or other regional cities for that matter, such as Kansas City or St. Louis.

[qprogeny79]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

but as an self-described Objectivist, qprogeny79, why would you care at all? Honestly, your post sounds rather phony & hollow to me. Now I do believe one should help a drowning man unlike Ayn Rand does. However, if hypothetically, Ayn Rand herself were drowning before my very eyes I would relish the opportunity to stand by & cheer & perhaps dance a jig.

Race is determined by geographical ancestry. The part of race that is culturally instilled will always be there unless true free enterprise, representation & truly equitable justice under the law are restored. On top of that it's going to take time...lots & lots of time. Only then will there be a chance for ignorance & apathy to be overcome.

Let me make it clear that I most definitely am concerned & that what we see happening in Omaha is yet more of the same rotten fruits of puffed-up Republican pride coming to bear.

first off, rand never said that one should never help a drowning man. obviously if a baby were drowning in a puddle it would be seriously wrong to not help him out by any moral standard. to rand, such decisions should be based upon the value you place on the drowning person; it is justified to save a loved one at any cost, and it is also justified to save a total stranger, who is of potential value, provided you don't incur such enormous risk in the process that your own life would be severely jeopardized (of course, risking one's life to save a stranger would be irrational, since few people value their own life any more than that of a random stranger -- lifeguards at the beach use this principle every day when they set limits as to the risk they allow themselves to incur to save people, as well as when they post "swim at your own risk" warnings during storms). the problem with this, to my mind, is that it seems to indicate that we are justified in letting enemies drown even if we would incur no risk in saving them; the golden rule seems to apply more here than rand wishes to recognize.

i agree with the sentiments about free enterprise and equal justice. the problem with american culture in particular is that we spend too much time harping on "black culture" and "hispanic culture" and "women's studies" and the like, as though they were bona fide cultural entities. "diversity" does not consist in an "equitable" amalgam of racial/gender/ethnic groups but in a diversity of ideas. the only reason why we might actually get such diversity by throwing a bunch of eskimos, chinese women, saudis, and latinas in a mixmaster is because we teach everyone, in american society at least, that the content of their minds is actually determined by such frivolous matters as their genitalia and the region of the world from which their ancestors emigrated.

[Amaranth]

when i went to my 5 and 6th grade school, it was the biggest and best school and it was in the worst part of town. for high school there were only three choices, the largest was central and by the name i am sure you can tell it was for everyone to attend, and everyone did, from all parts of town. the third was a tech school. this was in massachusetts which is a blue state.

[atari 2600]

damn you had me laughing Patty

in the air tonight

i all this shit in the news about the white house easter egg hunt being attended by non-traditional gay & lesbian families & the coverage it's getting sickens me...
i went to desegregated schools thanks to the greatest president of my lifetime, Jimmy Carter.

i call it like i see it

culled from google (with parenthetical asides):

Rather than being extremist, Objectivism is a middle ground between doubt and certainty. (in other words, it's a pseudo-new-age philosophy; the Ayn Rand brand of secular humanism. Members understandably get mad when you call them a "cult" too...after all, they've wen throguh such extremes to banish relgion & God from their system...but that's what Objectivism is...it's a cult plain & simple.)

Objectivism is against altruism which is the sacrifice of the self and sacrifice of others. In epistemology, Objectivism upholds reason, not faith (i agree with some Objectivist points about free enterprise being the best economic system, but I highly disagree that religion can teach us nothing. In just about every case a major religion's prophet brought relavatory wisdom to the word; & in nearly every case as well, after the prophet dies the followers take a big shit all over everthing with their dogma)
In ethics, Objectivism upholds egoism which is neither sacrifice oneself or others. (this is preposterous. Upholds egoism? So basically it's satanism with some good 'ol fashion capitalist values thrown in to make it presentable...no wonder it grew to be so damn popular in the 1980s)
In politics, Objectivism upholds libertarianism government dedicated to natural rights) instead of anarchism extreme of individual action or statism (extreme of governmental action).
(I'm better than everyone else libretarianism bullshit...why not focus on campaign finance reform or a constitutional amendment to end repeat terms of office? I guess that would really accomplish change. The Objectivist is not out to make the world a better place, you see. The Objectivist cares only about themselves)


"When we insist that facts are facts, that right is right, as against the rampant subjectivism of the age, we can easily forget that facts and values must be grasped by people, each acting on his independent judgment. We run the risk of adopting the attitudes and policies of the intrinsicist. When we emphasize that the true and the good are contextual, when we oppose the imposition of dogma and duty, we can easily forget that opinions and preferences are not all on a par--that some are right and others aren’t. We run the risk of subjectivism. To be objective, we have to hold both sets of considerations in mind, both reality and personal context."
David Kelley, Truth and Toleration, p2-3.
(Yeah, that's the old "your opinion is no better than mine... after all it's only an opinion" bullshit. Einstein changed all that for good. Read a real book.)

[qprogeny79]

uuh . . . so where do you get the "egoism = satanism" parallel? egoism has been around quite a bit longer than anton lavey (aristotle, anyone?). "egoism" isn't necessarily concerned with narrow self-interest -- more with rational conduct in accord with the metaphysical requirements of human survival. to kill someone because you feel like it or to spend all your money on beer when your kids are starving is NOT "egoistic" in the objectivist sense.

regarding the cult charge -- i've said it before and i'll say it again, objectivism is not INHERENTLY a cult. it only has that reputation because there are those who accept it as the very dogmatic faith rand abhors rather than thinking about it and weighing it against alternative philosophies. it seems that EVERY philosophy that offers an integrated worldview automatically gets branded as a "cult" -- it's the ultimate smear term for those who haven't honestly thought about its tenets.

[atari 2600]

hegel kant whateva

[jheii]

I think the idea of splitting a city up into different school districts isn't inherently bad. It all depends on the funding going to these districts, and who is going to be put in charge of them. People who grow up in suburbia behave differently than people who grow up in the inner city. If yr creating a situation where people are put in charge of educating their children the way that is most appropriate for them, instead of having to make sacrifices in the name of multi-cultural compromises, then I think everyone will win. If the motivation behind this is to keep the lower classes in their proper places, both geographically and economically, then obviously its no good. I'm not so sure where I'm going with this... I think the more localized things are, the better they work. Yadda yadda yadda.

PS: If I saw Ayn Rand drowning in a lake, I'd throw rocks at her just so that I could say that I did my part.