In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said. But Swift also added that some other things parents do to give their kids the best education possible — like sending them to “an elite private school” — “cannot be justified” in this way. “Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,” he said.
”It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school,” he continued, adding that “we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.” At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field” if we did, but ultimately concluded that “it is in the child’s interest to be parented” and that “parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and well-being of adults.”
n the year 2081, amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, radios inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.
One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.
Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.
On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.
The drive of the social justice ideology is really starting to unravel. Many of us could observe the trends and know that this type of thing was inevitable and will become more widespread. Some really smart people saw this coming a long time ago. So now we are disadvantaging other kids if we read our own kids bedtime stories, because other kids might not get that? It's ridiculous, and just goes to show you how this whole farce of "privilege" is more insidious than what many admit to.
| National Review
Yawn. One clown in the UK doesn't signal much of anything 'unraveling', or anything of significance whatsoever.
Moutain, meet microscopic gnat feces ball.
You should find something of more substance to wring your hands over and worry about.
You read reports like these and you wonder where on Earth these people's heads are, up their asses or what?
Then read the post #2, yes it's fiction, and it's also so very scarily close to the current news report.
Yawn. One clown in the UK doesn't signal much of anything 'unraveling', or anything of significance whatsoever.
Moutain, meet microscopic gnat feces ball.
You should find something of more substance to wring your hands over and worry about.
‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.
‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’
It is also not an accurate representation of what he said. This is an old story, it was based on deceptive framing and taking comments out of context. Not that this should be surprising. Here is the original story, not the mutilated mess that is in the OP: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
On reading to kids at bedtime:
His theories are all in philosophy, and very theoretical kinda stuff. But ultimately, his ideas are a defense of family and family activities(from other very theoretical philosophies).
This is just the front edge of the movement. Of course this type of thing ins't want starts out of the gates because it would never have gained any ground as the ridiculousness would be readily apparent. The reality is that much of what is more "mainstream" social justice really isn't much more sound in logic and ideology.
And this "clown" is a professor so he's involved with the indoctrination of the youth, which has significant impact. He will be pushing his message to the next generation and what you call "clown" now will be met with nodding and bobbing of heads by those of you who are programmed by this type of thing.
It is also not an accurate representation of what he said. This is an old story, it was based on deceptive framing and taking comments out of context. Not that this should be surprising. Here is the original story, not the mutilated mess that is in the OP: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
On reading to kids at bedtime:
His theories are all in philosophy, and very theoretical kinda stuff. But ultimately, his ideas are a defense of family and family activities(from other very theoretical philosophies).
That didn't refute the OP. Those things were still said and while *of course* he wouldn't support banning those things *ha ha* it would level the playing field, right? *wink* *wink*
Things always start out being vocalized as "just and idea/philosophy". Then, once you've said it enough times, people get used to the idea and then you start slipping it in as a real thing.
Then why can't you prove that?
Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant here.
An iamyoda clone?Holy cow! Fishking lied?
Astounded, I am!
All one has to do is look at the majority of the makeup of Sanders supporters consisting primarily of college age socialists.Prove what? That's how ideas spread. :shrug:
Lol...it's not a paranoid fantasy to think that college professors have an impact on the lives of the youth.
Holy cow! Fishking lied?
Astounded, I am!
I'm anything but astounded to see you accuse another poster of lying, for no reason except that what he wrote makes you feel pouty. That kind of incivility is standard procedure on these forums for people who share your views.
His argument is that you should not use leveling the playing field as an reason to stop familial activities, as they are too important to the wellbeing of the children.
"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally"
"Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.'
‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life."
If you say soThe drive of the social justice ideology is really starting to unravel.
so basically...if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then you should not give your kid any cake on theirs...right?
No.so basically...if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then you should not give your kid any cake on theirs...right?
No.
You should think, for a moment, about those less fortunate than you. And maybe do a little something about it. What a kook, huh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?