Posts by wearyharbor41

Michelle Nelson4 said:Check out this headline—it’s a total shocker.🤣 It just goes to show how broken our entire education system really is when you see posts like this from actual school staff.

I appreciate the clarification; it certainly explains why her response to me was handled in such a manner.☕

Jason Morgan said:Who exactly are you to be lecturing anyone? What kind of authority do you think you have, anyway? Honestly, who cares about the topics you’ve even posted? Either contribute something meaningful to the discussion or just move along. I certainly don't have the time or interest to go hunting through the forum just to read some narcissist's ego trip.

And who, precisely, are you to adopt such an arrogant tone? There is no requirement to read everything if one simply maintains a sense of normalcy and views things clearly. The fact that civilization has lost its mind and you are choosing to support violence says quite a lot about your own character.

Sarah Hall53 said:Honestly, I think modern society is a bit much sometimes—it’s almost an insult how they don't just let people stay blissfully ignorant or uneducated if that's what they want. Imagine how peaceful the world would be if everyone who preferred staying clueless was actually allowed to... well, stay that way. ☕
not.

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with my previous threads before offering your critique; making such superficial and naive observations serves only to reflect upon your own character. ☕

What relevance does literacy have to other trivial matters if one fails to acquire any useful knowledge? What bearing does child abuse have on the situation when everyone seems preoccupied with academic credentials? It appears an adult cannot even be touched without scrutiny.
Being unintelligent is also entirely independent of one's education, which, quite indicatively, speaks volumes about you. ☕

A profound silence regarding the treatment of children. (To avoid being repetitive, I would suggest reviewing my signature or any of the other threads I have initiated or contributed to) 🥱

Ronald Howard3 said:Speaking for myself, my schooling definitely had a negative impact. Between dealing with bullying, intimidation, threats, and physical fights... I probably would've handled it better if I'd had any support from my parents. You can just tell when someone's been flying solo and had to scrap for everything they have. Besides, they teach you to submit to nonsense—to work and study things you know are useless just because you're being "graded." If you don't bend to the absurdity, you're labeled "bad."

I appreciate your sincere, objective, and constructive contribution to this discussion. It stands in stark contrast to others here who seem rather insulated, preferring to dissect what someone else wrote in a textbook rather than applying their own human intellect and reasoning to the reality of the situation and the problems I’ve laid out.

Regrettably, it seems you are yet another casualty of this system—one that inflicted genuine harm and stifled certain human potentials, leaving you acutely aware of just how damaging the whole structure truly is.

😢

Quincy:

I find myself once again contemplating the peculiar nature of our modern discourse, though perhaps I am merely overdue for a quiet evening with a glass of bourbon. It seems that even in these digital spaces, one cannot escape the subtle undercurrents of skepticism that permeate our interactions. One might almost suspect that we are all looking for a reason to doubt, yet we persist in seeking truth nonetheless. It is a rather exhausting cycle, isn't it? Regardless, I shall remain here, observing the ebb and flow of these opinions with my usual, albeit somewhat tired, detachment. As wearyharbor41 noted: It has always been this way, naturally, dating back to the very dawn of civilization—roughly five thousand years, if one is being generous with the timeline.

One cannot truly speak of freedom—a concept that ought to include the basic principle of neither harming others nor oneself, nor directly undermining a nation's constitutional order—when every action is dictated by the whims of the state and the overarching agendas of global powers.

Quincy:

mravac8 As wearyharbor41 once remarked: In today’s society, one finds that there is hardly anyone left willing to defend your right to simply live life on your own terms. Buy a Bible, spend your time reading the Bible or any other religious text you find meaningful, live your life however you see fit, and practice your faith as much as your heart desires—just please, refrain from imposing those choices upon everyone else.

It is truly remarkable how one can be so blatantly dishonest; I find myself wondering whether this is a deliberate choice on your part or if there is perhaps a more profound psychological complication at play. You seem to possess a peculiar habit of retreating into a block immediately after I offer a rebuttal on a separate thread. We have established that public school and the Bible represent two fundamentally opposing paths, yet you somehow attempt to justify following the compulsory eight-year state education system while simultaneously claiming to adhere to the instructions found in the Bible. You have never once clarified whether you have actually read the Bible, let alone demonstrated any meaningful understanding of its contents.

It isn't as if anyone is imposing anything on anyone else, save for the government and individuals such as yourselves who insist on championing compulsory primary education and similar mandates.
It is an absolute farce—a complete circus, really—to witness a civilization that seems quite intent on systematically dismantling the rights of children. I haven't even begun to account for the sheer absurdity found in the media or those other ubiquitous spaces that ought to be considered safe havens for minors.

Quincy:

I find myself wondering if there is any substance to the claims being made by wearyharbor41, though I suspect such inquiries may be somewhat optimistic given the current climate of the discussion. One can only observe these developments with a certain degree of detached curiosity, perhaps even a hint of quiet skepticism. kaže: If one fails to grasp the fundamental role that schools play within our social fabric—and specifically their evolving purpose in a modern society—then I fear one lacks a true understanding of what a civilization actually is, how it operates, and the very reasons why it must function in such a manner.

😵 I find myself somewhat at a loss; do you happen to have any others? 🤦

Quincy:

I suppose I should offer a brief introduction, though I find myself wondering if such formalities truly serve a purpose in this digital space. It seems I have arrived, albeit somewhat reluctantly, to join the conversation. kaže: It stands to reason that religion and the state would be inextricably linked; quite frankly, there was never any other way for them to coexist. In our increasingly cellularized society, the bond between faith and government continues to fray, and if the trajectory of human progress remains unchanged, I suspect they will eventually drift entirely apart.

Religion is an entirely separate matter altogether; I don't subscribe to any particular faith. It seems you are conflating several distinct concepts, judging the substance by its packaging rather than its actual content—an approach that is, quite frankly, precarious and one I prefer to avoid in any serious discussion.
By all means, feel free to ignore me if you wish to avoid wasting our mutual time. ☕

Sam Martinez9 said:How can we claim the state does not prohibit religion? (And I am not referring to fringe sects, but rather the dominant faith based upon the Bible)
According to the Bible, God takes precedence over all, serving as the ultimate teacher because He alone is omniscient. Even if both individuals and the state were perfectly well-intentioned, they ought to have no business interfering in my personal development—much less confining me for eight years in what is colloquially known as "elementary school," where my mind is subjected to unnecessary indoctrination alongside people with whom I have no desire to associate. That is merely one illustration of the issue.

To a superficial believer, the impact on others or the world is either trivial or irrelevant; thus, even if current conditions are unacceptable, they occupy a lower tier of concern regarding the destruction of an individual's potential.

As for my own rights to my beliefs or positions, I possess practical evidence that contradicts your assertions. This subject is quite profound and expansive, and as such, it would likely remain confined to the realm of mandatory primary education (you may find my arguments within the topic in my signature, as well as in other threads on this forum).

Ultimately, everything comes down to the state and its responsibilities; if abuses occur within a household, it is the state that is at fault for permitting them.

I note that you are Catholic, which places you in the category of the misguidedly faithful; should you possess any arguments or perspectives to refute this, I kindly ask that you join the discussion in the religion sub-forum, where I write extensively regarding Catholic doctrines and their connection to the Bible.

EDIT: It appears my signature is not visible, though I haven't altered my profile settings; essentially, under philosophy, my main topic is "Sick Civilization = Child Slavery," where you can review my arguments concerning elementary education.

As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
Permissibility is usually just a reflection of what serves the state and its current political agenda.

Sam Martinez9 said:How can we claim the state does not prohibit religion? (And I am not referring to fringe sects, but rather the dominant faith based upon the Bible)
According to the Bible, God takes precedence over all, serving as the ultimate teacher because He alone is omniscient. Even if both individuals and the state were perfectly well-intentioned, they ought to have no business interfering in my personal development—much less confining me for eight years in what is colloquially known as "elementary school," where my mind is subjected to unnecessary indoctrination alongside people with whom I have no desire to associate. That is merely one illustration of the issue.

To a superficial believer, the impact on others or the world is either trivial or irrelevant; thus, even if current conditions are unacceptable, they occupy a lower tier of concern regarding the destruction of an individual's potential.

As for my own rights to my beliefs or positions, I possess practical evidence that contradicts your assertions. This subject is quite profound and expansive, and as such, it would likely remain confined to the realm of mandatory primary education (you may find my arguments within the topic in my signature, as well as in other threads on this forum).

Ultimately, everything comes down to the state and its responsibilities; if abuses occur within a household, it is the state that is at fault for permitting them.

I note that you are Catholic, which places you in the category of the misguidedly faithful; should you possess any arguments or perspectives to refute this, I kindly ask that you join the discussion in the religion sub-forum, where I write extensively regarding Catholic doctrines and their connection to the Bible.

EDIT: It appears my signature is not visible, though I haven't altered my profile settings; essentially, under philosophy, my main topic is "Sick Civilization = Child Slavery," where you can review my arguments concerning elementary education.

As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
One could argue that "original Christianity"—though that term itself feels like a hollow label with little connection to the early church—can be verified through the Bible, specifically within the New Testament and the apostolic writings. This isn't merely about rote memorization or intellectualizing doctrine, but rather about a way of life. Unfortunately, the state makes such a lifestyle nearly impossible by mandating eight years of compulsory schooling that steers students away from it. If we look at the Jewish tradition, an adult—a mature member of the community—is recognized at age fourteen. This implies that during the formative years leading up to that point, the individual was under constant guidance and supervision, essentially being conditioned by the system until they reached maturity. How else is one expected to be resilient against external pressures later in life? It is the most glaring example of the issue.

It is somewhat akin to claiming that every sport is legal, yet forbidding anyone from actually practicing it; how then is a naturally gifted athlete supposed to meet the challenges of that sport later on?

The secularism we see today feels like a state of utter chaos. I certainly understand the pragmatic motivations behind it, but when we examine the actual facts and the core of the matter, the reality is that the world is being pushed toward a singular, secular existence. It becomes impossible to uphold God's laws and instructions—not to mention the profound societal benefits that might arise from them, such as breakthroughs in science and social healing—within an environment that is forced upon us without any valid necessity, given that there is no ongoing war or greater force requiring such restrictions.

Sam Martinez9 said:How can we claim the state does not prohibit religion? (And I am not referring to fringe sects, but rather the dominant faith based upon the Bible)
According to the Bible, God takes precedence over all, serving as the ultimate teacher because He alone is omniscient. Even if both individuals and the state were perfectly well-intentioned, they ought to have no business interfering in my personal development—much less confining me for eight years in what is colloquially known as "elementary school," where my mind is subjected to unnecessary indoctrination alongside people with whom I have no desire to associate. That is merely one illustration of the issue.

To a superficial believer, the impact on others or the world is either trivial or irrelevant; thus, even if current conditions are unacceptable, they occupy a lower tier of concern regarding the destruction of an individual's potential.

As for my own rights to my beliefs or positions, I possess practical evidence that contradicts your assertions. This subject is quite profound and expansive, and as such, it would likely remain confined to the realm of mandatory primary education (you may find my arguments within the topic in my signature, as well as in other threads on this forum).

Ultimately, everything comes down to the state and its responsibilities; if abuses occur within a household, it is the state that is at fault for permitting them.

I note that you are Catholic, which places you in the category of the misguidedly faithful; should you possess any arguments or perspectives to refute this, I kindly ask that you join the discussion in the religion sub-forum, where I write extensively regarding Catholic doctrines and their connection to the Bible.

EDIT: It appears my signature is not visible, though I haven't altered my profile settings; essentially, under philosophy, my main topic is "Sick Civilization = Child Slavery," where you can review my arguments concerning elementary education.

As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.
As long as religious institutions are permitted to exist, and as long as they haven't banned religious education—whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, and so on—there is simply no basis to claim the state is banning faith.
If someone truly wants to master Christianity, they have options: they can take religious studies classes, attend a seminary, or simply spend their entire life studying their faith privately if they choose.
Major retailers like Barnes & Noble are practically overflowing with religious texts.
Furthermore, since capital plays such a vital role in exercising individual and social freedoms, it’s worth noting that all religions, particularly Catholicism, receive significant funding from the federal budget.

So, my conclusion is that you are seeing shadows where there is actually light.

Personal experience, especially when it is as limited as this, is an incredibly deceptive metric. It almost always yields skewed results—specifically, the results the individual expects to see. In short, it functions merely as a tool to validate a pre-existing bias. Philosophy, and science in particular, moves in the opposite direction; its whole purpose is to dismantle established theories.

If one were capable of distinguishing organized religion from true faith, and assuming you have actually read the Bible, it would be difficult to reconcile modern "Catholicism" with the actual scriptures found in both the Old and New Testaments. This institutionalized version of Catholicism is so deeply intertwined with the state that they effectively function as a single, unified system.

My conclusion is that you possess a rather superficial understanding of the subject you are attempting to discuss.

Eric Newman75 said:You didn't misunderstand him at all. In fact, he aggressively forces his own agenda by circling back to the same tired talking points every single time the conversation tries to go somewhere interesting. This forum isn't a sounding board for that. He literally just finished explaining the exact same thing over on Philosophy. He's even got two threads going about elementary education over on Law, which anyone can easily verify. He loves playing this part where he pretends to be some sort of progressive visionary when, to be blunt, he's just being "controversial" for the sake of it. This isn't even the first time I've had to wade through his incoherent ramblings.

"Thought-provoking topics without dogma"—so, who exactly is imposing anything here, and who is being offensive, aggressive, or twisting the truth? For anyone following this thread, or even those aware of the state of our modern society and how innocent people are treated, the answer should be obvious.

The term "controversial" carries its own weight and doesn't inherently imply something negative, unless, of course, one lacks the ability to back up their arguments.

Sam Martinez9 said:It’s always been this way. It’s really just a matter of time before we see a school that actually focuses on shaping people rather than just processing them.

If you step back and look at schooling through a wider lens, it’s really just a mechanism for passing down essential knowledge from one generation to the next. When you view it that way, it becomes clear that we are simply teaching children the specific skills they need to survive and thrive in their particular environment. A child growing up in a tribe within the Amazon Rainforest is going to learn how to forage for food and steer clear of venomous creatures in the jungle. A kid raised on a farm in rural Nebraska will be taught the nuances of tending crops and managing livestock. Meanwhile, an American child is being conditioned with the specific set of tools required to navigate the modern job market.

I can’t say for certain what the current landscape looks like, but back in the day, there were certain types of high schools that operated under a completely different philosophy. Their primary goal wasn't to churn out workers ready for the job market; instead, they focused on providing a deep, broad-based liberal arts education designed to prepare students for the rigors of university life.

Human knowledge today is incredibly vast, almost overwhelming. But honestly, just having information sitting there in books or tucked away on a hard drive isn't enough to make it useful. For knowledge to actually matter, it needs to be materialized—it has to move from the page into our own minds, becoming part of how we think and act. It’s only when we truly internalize what we've learned and begin implementing it into our daily lives that it gains any real value.

I don't quite follow where you were going with that, Nea. You cut off mid-sentence. If there was something specific on your mind regarding our previous discussion, please feel free to elaborate. I'm listening. kaže:
By the way, illiteracy is also something being cultivated right within our own school systems, where the curricula are dictated from the top down by the federal government. Because these programs shift constantly to suit whatever political winds happen to be blowing at the moment, what we call "education" is essentially just a mechanism for manipulation—it’s more about programming children's brains than providing them with any kind of genuine, meaningful learning.

It’s certainly necessary to take a hard look at how our education system functions today—whether we're talking about the schools here in the States, across the European Union, or anywhere else on the map. But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems our esteemed colleague over there actually wants to abolish schools entirely. Please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted his position.

The issue is that there is a distinct lack of practical knowledge being imparted here—things like basic health, how the American government functions, or our fundamental rights, for instance.

I don't wish to be repetitive, so if you're interested, feel free to review my previous contributions to this thread or others; I leave that entirely up to you.

Sam Martinez9 said:It’s always been this way. It’s really just a matter of time before we see a school that actually focuses on shaping people rather than just processing them.

If you step back and look at schooling through a wider lens, it’s really just a mechanism for passing down essential knowledge from one generation to the next. When you view it that way, it becomes clear that we are simply teaching children the specific skills they need to survive and thrive in their particular environment. A child growing up in a tribe within the Amazon Rainforest is going to learn how to forage for food and steer clear of venomous creatures in the jungle. A kid raised on a farm in rural Nebraska will be taught the nuances of tending crops and managing livestock. Meanwhile, an American child is being conditioned with the specific set of tools required to navigate the modern job market.

I can’t say for certain what the current landscape looks like, but back in the day, there were certain types of high schools that operated under a completely different philosophy. Their primary goal wasn't to churn out workers ready for the job market; instead, they focused on providing a deep, broad-based liberal arts education designed to prepare students for the rigors of university life.

Human knowledge today is incredibly vast, almost overwhelming. But honestly, just having information sitting there in books or tucked away on a hard drive isn't enough to make it useful. For knowledge to actually matter, it needs to be materialized—it has to move from the page into our own minds, becoming part of how we think and act. It’s only when we truly internalize what we've learned and begin implementing it into our daily lives that it gains any real value.

I don't quite follow where you were going with that, Nea. You cut off mid-sentence. If there was something specific on your mind regarding our previous discussion, please feel free to elaborate. I'm listening. kaže:
By the way, illiteracy is also something being cultivated right within our own school systems, where the curricula are dictated from the top down by the federal government. Because these programs shift constantly to suit whatever political winds happen to be blowing at the moment, what we call "education" is essentially just a mechanism for manipulation—it’s more about programming children's brains than providing them with any kind of genuine, meaningful learning.

It’s certainly necessary to take a hard look at how our education system functions today—whether we're talking about the schools here in the States, across the European Union, or anywhere else on the map. But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems our esteemed colleague over there actually wants to abolish schools entirely. Please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted his position.

Beyond literacy and basic mathematics, one could approach this in a more humane way—the kind of way you might prefer to be treated yourself. Instead of maintaining the status quo, we could provide stimulating presentations that allow for free will. From an economic standpoint, rather than dedicating all those funds to professor salaries, we could utilize audio/video materials and computer programming, then reinvest those savings into legitimate science and education, as well as protecting the legal system and healthcare as fundamental human rights.

It is a topic far too vast and deep to exhaust here. What matters is the underlying principle.

Sandra Murphy33 said:"It's stupid to even debate this"—if that isn't a total dictatorship of thought, I don't know what is.

It’s also an unpleasant experience to see someone get disqualified from a discussion ostensibly just because they are deemed "uneducated." Let's be clear: illiteracy is something fostered by our own school systems, where curricula are dictated from the top down by Washington bureaucrats. Because these programs shift whenever the political winds change, education is essentially just manipulation and brainwashing rather than actual learning.
Within such a broken system, you end up with broken people. The way you write, and how you seemingly worship the current educational establishment—which any halfway sensible person would rebel against—is so outdated and divorced from reality that it has moved past being a mere cliché; it’s blatant propaganda.
("...by imparting knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes, you enable children to develop their potential and achieve intellectual, spiritual, and social independence" 🤦 )

Even your tone feels less like that of a philosopher who is a true researcher and more like an authoritarian military commander. 👎

Thank you for participating in a civilized dialogue, 🙂

A forced concentration camp shapes everyone within it; when a person lacks internal virtue or capacity, they eventually become indifferent to their situation. Following such heavy indoctrination, they simply lose the ability to think any differently than how their environment has molded them.

It is much like someone languishing in a prison who, having never known freedom, might actually believe that having a free roof over their head and regular meals is sufficient, simply because they are unaware of their own potential or the very existence of liberty. Or perhaps it is those who possess no higher standards than their surroundings who accept their circumstances without the logical capacity to understand what is happening or why they are imprisoned in the first place. 🍿

Eric Newman75 said:Look, this isn't "coercion." If you can't wrap your head around the fact that passing down knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes is how we actually give kids the tools to develop their potential and gain intellectual, spiritual, and social independence, then honestly, there’s no helping you. High-quality upbringing and education aren't just perks; they are absolute prerequisites for developing an individual and exercising almost every other human right, like the right to work. That’s why most democratic nations, including here in the US, bake the right to education right into the Constitution—the highest legal authority we have. And until kids reach adulthood, the responsibility falls on the parents to make those calls. That's perfectly normal, actually desirable. A first-grader isn't exactly capable of weighing the life-altering implications of enrolling in school to learn how to read, write, do math, and navigate social dynamics within a community. It's frankly idiotic to even be debating this.

How can you claim this isn't coercion when the fact remains that it is? Am I expected to simply tolerate such blatant falsehoods? And what does a first-grader have to do with a thirteen or fourteen-year-old who is still being forced to remain in that institution without any actual necessity?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of one's education; it is quite fascinating how you attempt to twist and manipulate language without offering a shred of evidence.

The concept of compulsory primary education was actually introduced in Prussia to serve military interests, designed to ensure that people—specifically soldiers—could be more easily controlled and subordinated to superiors for military and other strategic purposes.

Eric Newman75 said:And did it ever cross your mind that kids just aren't mature enough to decide whether they actually need school or not?

I wonder if you have ever paused to consider that there are gifted children—even entire generations—who fully develop their intellect by the time they reach middle school? To them, being forced into a rigid academic structure feels much like forcing an adult to endure unnecessary burdens that serve no purpose in their life. Have you truly reflected on the fact that these children are human beings with their own inherent rights, entitled to be free from coercion? One might even ask how much systemic harm this educational model has inflicted upon both students and their parents alike.

Rather amusing, really.

Eric Newman75 said:It isn't "disqualifying" someone to tell a person who complains about elementary school—which is fundamental for basic literacy and skills—that they are illiterate. If elementary school is "unnecessary" and "so-called," as explicitly stated, then why was it such a massive struggle for this "brilliant" individual to master the basics that everyone else managed just fine? They did manage them; you only have to read the thread from the beginning to be sure of that. That's point one.

Second, you're being a hypocrite. Almost every philosopher you could possibly bring up in this debate would have been highly educated, and not just in one single field. You can find recommendations on schooling and developing proper systems from a Chinese person five thousand years ago, from a Greek person two thousand years ago, or from Enlightenment thinkers three hundred years ago—this isn't some new fad. It's something that has constantly occupied cultures and civilizations. Why would modern society be the exception?

Third, it’s not a platitude to say that educated people differ from uneducated ones in terms of success and independence. Educated people travel wherever they want and do whatever they want; any country will welcome them with open arms. Uneducated people simply can't (or can to a much lesser extent).

And fourth, our education system is just a tiny fraction of the story; there are much better models out there. I haven't noticed, for instance, Germans complaining because their kids have to go to school. Nor have I seen developing nations in the Third World cutting schools from their long-term plans—it's actually the exact opposite. For everyone, education is the foundation, the lever used to jumpstart the economy, healthcare, social services, science...

As for the tone, you hang out on Alternative and you know exactly what spam looks like. You know the drill. Beyond that, I don't think I need to explain myself further. Copy-pasting threads on the principle of "if it sticks, it sticks" is endlessly exhausting.

I have written. Here. I am somewhat perplexed by the nature of your recent conduct—specifically, the way you chose to dismiss me so bluntly before pivoting into outright insults. It has become quite transparent why individuals who cling so desperately to the status quo would feel compelled to defend someone of your temperament.

Eric Newman75 said:It isn't "disqualifying" someone to tell a person who complains about elementary school—which is fundamental for basic literacy and skills—that they are illiterate. If elementary school is "unnecessary" and "so-called," as explicitly stated, then why was it such a massive struggle for this "brilliant" individual to master the basics that everyone else managed just fine? They did manage them; you only have to read the thread from the beginning to be sure of that. That's point one.

Second, you're being a hypocrite. Almost every philosopher you could possibly bring up in this debate would have been highly educated, and not just in one single field. You can find recommendations on schooling and developing proper systems from a Chinese person five thousand years ago, from a Greek person two thousand years ago, or from Enlightenment thinkers three hundred years ago—this isn't some new fad. It's something that has constantly occupied cultures and civilizations. Why would modern society be the exception?

Third, it’s not a platitude to say that educated people differ from uneducated ones in terms of success and independence. Educated people travel wherever they want and do whatever they want; any country will welcome them with open arms. Uneducated people simply can't (or can to a much lesser extent).

And fourth, our education system is just a tiny fraction of the story; there are much better models out there. I haven't noticed, for instance, Germans complaining because their kids have to go to school. Nor have I seen developing nations in the Third World cutting schools from their long-term plans—it's actually the exact opposite. For everyone, education is the foundation, the lever used to jumpstart the economy, healthcare, social services, science...

As for the tone, you hang out on Alternative and you know exactly what spam looks like. You know the drill. Beyond that, I don't think I need to explain myself further. Copy-pasting threads on the principle of "if it sticks, it sticks" is endlessly exhausting.

I feel compelled to step in on behalf of my colleague, who clearly possesses both a conscience and a sense of reason. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about her position; we aren't debating the merits of a liberal arts education here. We are discussing the realities of a concentration camp, which has nothing to do with academic enrichment beyond the most fundamental necessities, such as basic literacy and elementary arithmetic.

It is rather striking how much more one can absorb from two weeks of immersing oneself in documentaries than from four years spent sitting through elementary school history classes. There is a certain freedom in it; you aren't being graded on whether you correctly memorized the exact birth date or death date of some obscure figure who holds no relevance to the modern world.

It is quite obvious to anyone who possesses even a modicum of intellectual honesty, a functioning conscience, or a sense of moral integrity.

The same principle applies to all other items.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the sheer volume of wasted potential lying in our wake—all those individuals who possessed genuine talent and should have been honing their craft during those formative years, only to be thwarted by systemic brainwashing, relentless indoctrination, and the wholesale theft of their most precious resource: time.
Millions of people are being left behind because of such misguided policies and the systemic violence inflicted upon children.

By the time you walk across that stage at high school graduation, it becomes painfully clear that the curriculum has left you almost entirely unprepared for the realities of adulthood. We spend years studying abstract theories, yet we emerge without even a basic grasp of what truly matters—like how to actually maintain one's health, which is arguably the most vital asset any person possesses. We graduate knowing how to solve equations, but we remain blissfully ignorant of the fundamental mechanics behind how our government operates, what our legal rights actually entail, or what kind of practical challenges await us in the real world. It is quite a curious way to educate a generation: providing plenty of data, yet neglecting the essential statistics and life skills that would actually allow someone to navigate society with any degree of competence.

It is an absolute disgrace that we find ourselves in this particular era. Given our unprecedented technological leaps, one might have expected this civilization to finally demonstrate some semblance of genuine humanity or moral virtue. Instead, history will likely record that we are the first society capable of such profound sophistication only to prove ourselves monstrously wicked across every conceivable field, deliberately and with full intent, dismantling the lives of individuals on a global scale. ☕

It is only natural that those of us who possess some understanding of what awaits beyond this life find a certain quiet solace in the thought of accountability. There is a small, perhaps somewhat cynical, comfort in knowing that those who have meticulously engineered society to serve their own ends—those who systematically strip away freedoms and stifle human potential—will eventually face the consequences of their actions in the eternal realm. I suppose my only true satisfaction lies in the belief that there exists an inescapable justice, one that cannot be evaded by any amount of earthly maneuvering. 👋

Eric Newman75 said:What exactly is an elementary school here? A restaurant? A swimming pool? No, it’s an educational institution. Period.

Fair point. You didn't actually say "it stifles creativity," or "they won't let them," or "making it conscious," or call anything "ridiculous," or mention "children's rights," etc. And you definitely didn't forget to use punctuation where it belongs—like when I intentionally played around with that inverted sentence structure.

Honestly, every single middle schooler—yeah, even the ones who have to be dragged there kicking and screaming—is more literate and sharper than you are.

It is coercion without any necessity; it is nothing short of abuse directed at gifted children. I have already attempted to clarify this on numerous occasions across several different topics here on the forum.

With the caveat that I haven't sufficiently detailed the "developmental" nature of an institution where certain children are bullied by others, where students are publicly humiliated or mocked, where they encounter vices, where individuals are judged for physical traits they cannot change, and where their talents and intellect are systematically suppressed.

🙂

Eric Newman75 said:What exactly is an elementary school here? A restaurant? A swimming pool? No, it’s an educational institution. Period.

Fair point. You didn't actually say "it stifles creativity," or "they won't let them," or "making it conscious," or call anything "ridiculous," or mention "children's rights," etc. And you definitely didn't forget to use punctuation where it belongs—like when I intentionally played around with that inverted sentence structure.

Honestly, every single middle schooler—yeah, even the ones who have to be dragged there kicking and screaming—is more literate and sharper than you are.

Naturally, I included that explanation in my previous response, which you so rudely chose to ignore:
"Where am I semi-literate? Perhaps I was suffering from some brain inflammation due to people lacking conscience and having malicious intentions, leaving my mind less than optimal, yet I still possess an intellect capable of defending my arguments, whereas you can offer nothing but the defense of violence against children and online trolling, something I have grown accustomed to on this forum."

In short, you are mocking people with physical disabilities.

Even if my brain were functioning at the peak performance an intellect ought to possess, it would be absurd for you to use that as a metric to judge a person's character or mental capacity.😵

There is a distinction between merely being perceived as "someone" (as the forum rules protect you, based on my experience with how criteria are applied here) and actually speaking up to dispel all doubt.

Of course, you proceed to block me, hoping that you might also block me so that I no longer feel the need to take anti-nausea medication.

☕

Laura Reyes3 said:The right to an education is fundamental. It’s strange to see someone arguing for the removal of a basic human right while simultaneously labeling such a right evil...

http://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/a...right-to-education

I fail to see how the existence of a right relates to the concept of coercion. Having a right to work is one thing, but forcing someone into agricultural labor when their talents lie elsewhere—or worse, conscripting them into mining operations under the guise of exercising a "right to work"—is quite another matter entirely. We are discussing unnecessary compulsion here, rather than the merits of educational rights; if I am being repetitive, I suggest revisiting my previous posts on other subforums regarding this specific topic.

It is frankly astonishing that these concepts are being conflated, particularly within a philosophy forum, and even more so when coming from a moderator.

P.S. I remain hopeful that a philosopher with a functioning conscience—someone who genuinely wishes no harm upon others, especially vulnerable children who cannot defend themselves—might join this discussion, provided they approach it with intellectual honesty and arguments that actually hold weight.

Eric Newman75 said:Sure, school is a scam, education is useless. You should just stay half-literate like you are and keep making people's brains bleed with this absolute gibberish you call writing. Long live "creativity," right?

At what point did I actually equate elementary school—that essentially coercive institution—with the concept of true education?
Either you have fundamentally misunderstood the situation, which seems unlikely, or you are simply trolling, which is far more probable.

Eric Newman75 said:Sure, school is a scam, education is useless. You should just stay half-literate like you are and keep making people's brains bleed with this absolute gibberish you call writing. Long live "creativity," right?

Perhaps I am simply being less than articulate; one might even suggest that my cognitive faculties have been somewhat compromised by dealing with individuals lacking both conscience and integrity. It is possible that such constant exposure to bad faith has rendered my brain slightly less operational than it ought to be, yet I still maintain an intellect backed by arguments that can withstand scrutiny. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of providing any substance whatsoever, choosing instead to mask your position by justifying child abuse and engaging in mindless trolling—a pattern of behavior to which, unfortunately, I have become quite accustomed on this forum. ☕

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

It is prohibited both overtly and subtly; if you refer back to my previous response—and I say this only to avoid being repetitive—I am not even addressing the specific topics you've laid out here.

Sam Diaz2 said:The state isn't banning anything. Seriously, I'm telling you this as a believer. In this country, you have the freedom to hold whatever views or beliefs you want. If anything, the government is the one allowing people to target and insult believers of a specific faith—Catholics. Everything else is just a hard NO and straight-up hate speech.

As for those core values being drilled into you? That’s on your family, not the government.

How can we claim the state does not prohibit religion? (And I am not referring to fringe sects, but rather the dominant faith based upon the Bible)
According to the Bible, God takes precedence over all, serving as the ultimate teacher because He alone is omniscient. Even if both individuals and the state were perfectly well-intentioned, they ought to have no business interfering in my personal development—much less confining me for eight years in what is colloquially known as "elementary school," where my mind is subjected to unnecessary indoctrination alongside people with whom I have no desire to associate. That is merely one illustration of the issue.

To a superficial believer, the impact on others or the world is either trivial or irrelevant; thus, even if current conditions are unacceptable, they occupy a lower tier of concern regarding the destruction of an individual's potential.

As for my own rights to my beliefs or positions, I possess practical evidence that contradicts your assertions. This subject is quite profound and expansive, and as such, it would likely remain confined to the realm of mandatory primary education (you may find my arguments within the topic in my signature, as well as in other threads on this forum).

Ultimately, everything comes down to the state and its responsibilities; if abuses occur within a household, it is the state that is at fault for permitting them.

I note that you are Catholic, which places you in the category of the misguidedly faithful; should you possess any arguments or perspectives to refute this, I kindly ask that you join the discussion in the religion sub-forum, where I write extensively regarding Catholic doctrines and their connection to the Bible.

EDIT: It appears my signature is not visible, though I haven't altered my profile settings; essentially, under philosophy, my main topic is "Sick Civilization = Child Slavery," where you can review my arguments concerning elementary education.

Volar said:If you truly believed a philosopher could provide a coherent answer to your inquiries, what questions would you pose to them?

To everyone, particularly those who find themselves drawn to philosophical inquiry, welcome to our subforum.

The concept for this thread was originally suggested by Nee, so we invite you all to participate—Ask the Philosophers.

I find myself wishing to ask why there is such a profound silence regarding the fact that, starting at age six, children are stripped of their autonomy and funneled into an eight-year elementary school system where they undergo daily indoctrination for four to seven hours; a process that effectively stifles creativity, humiliates the individual, and denies them basic human rights, such as freedom of movement, the ability to pursue practical skills over useless trivia, or even the choice of their own social circles.

Why is this inflicted upon children?
If such treatment were applied to an adult, it would undoubtedly be categorized as a crime against humanity.

Is the definition of evil not the intentional infliction of harm upon another?

The standard rebuttals about "education" and similar platitudes strike me as quite absurd; rather, I am searching for a philosopher whose insights possess real-world application—someone who doesn't merely hold these views in a vacuum—so that we might engage in a meaningful debate.

Throughout the United States and across the globe, it seems increasingly difficult to find individuals willing to speak out against this phenomenon; most people remain largely silent or indifferent to the suffering caused by a civilization that perpetuates this without any tangible justification. (It is quite curious how people will express outrage over other forms of abuse, whether psychological or physical, yet when it comes to the rights of children, they seem entirely unconcerned 😢 )

I attempted to start a discussion on this topic here previously, but it has been closed.

I cannot speak to the specifics of this particular case, though I might offer a broader observation: the state effectively suppresses religious expression until one reaches their mid-teens, primarily through an educational system designed to stifle any burgeoning spiritual development (and by that, I certainly do not mean irrational superstitions or unprovable dogmas).