Posts by restlessridge36

jademarlin26 said:Teachers actually select their own publishers. The Department of Education maintains a list of "approved" publishers, but they generally stay out of the "local politics" within individual schools.

It’s a flawed system, but that’s how it works. As for the "slice of the pie," that is simply an inevitable byproduct of a competitive market.

For certain subjects, the Department may only offer a single author. Look into which specific textbooks have been used in elementary schools for years and see who wrote them.

(If you need help, I can send you the subject and the author via DM 😁)

steelridge58 said:That wasn't even what he was getting at, honestly... 🙂 and I truly don't think that was his intention, but rather more of a speculation regarding my own question, especially since I wasn't entirely sure whether it's the Department of Education or the individual teachers who actually call the shots on textbook selection. But still, if it's the government or some other authority making those calls and the books end up being terrible, shouldn't the teachers be the ones trying to push for better options?

Well, it feels like we're already seeing the future manifest in the present... and it doesn't look particularly bright, even though it's precisely because of this future that we ought to be making changes.

In the States, the Department of Education calls the shots. They coordinate with the authors, and decisions are largely driven by sales figures. If an author is generous enough, their book stays in print for the following year.
I once knew an author who spent years splitting royalties with a guy from the Department of Education who just kept getting greedier over time.

As I see it, educational consultants and teachers have zero influence over textbook selection. Unless, of course, they get a slice of the pie too.

edit: These books are written by professors and subject matter experts, just so no one assumes any random person can bribe a cabinet official.

Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

The journalist in your story acted morally, as she fulfilled her duties according to both professional standards and the morality of her community.

Your example illustrates the distinction between morality and ethics, and how morality itself shifts across different historical eras (time marches on, Donna Campbell6 😁 ), various nations, social groups, and professions.

What you witnessed was "journalistic ethics" at work, which is perfectly acceptable—even desirable. 😁
The masses crave this type of information, and that hunger dictates the guidelines, regulations, and codes of "journalistic ethics."
Like all other facets of social life, journalism is conditioned by the economic structure of society, its level of development, group interests, customs, and habits.

Since morality fundamentally defines a person's social orientation toward others and the shared existence of the individual and the group, we increasingly encounter violations of "medical ethics," such as indiscretions regarding the private health matters of celebrities. This causes me far greater indignation than the lying and concealment of love in your story; it is unforgivable.

"Medical ethics" should never be conflated with "journalistic ethics," as their ethical concepts are built upon opposing foundations.
That represents a much more dangerous metastasis. It is akin to a cancer attacking a vital organ, thereby making an individual's life within the community impossible.

Harold James9 said:Regarding this "high-intelligence minority" concept: if I am not mistaken, they have the "Miscellaneous" PDF at their disposal, and for any complaining, they can refer to the "Appeals and Grievances" PDF.🙂

🙂🙂🙂

They’ve practically built their entire foundation on this PDF. Now they just need to move over to Miscellaneous and everything will be set. 😁
I just finished reading a particular post, and I find it quite relevant to include here.

Some people take criticism personally. I find it equally offensive when the line between absolute conviction and utter stupidity becomes so blurred that it can no longer be dismissed as mere coincidence.

The right to express an opinion does not grant anyone the right to have that opinion treated with seriousness. Such "arguments" should be mocked out of the discussion rather than wasting time on someone else's misplaced self-confidence.

steelridge58 👍

Welcome, Taylor Swift! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

rustymaker5 said:The problem is that people have completely lost sight of Wholeness and replaced it with individualism—but I mean individualism in the worst sense of the word... we've forgotten that through our thoughts, our words, and our actions, we are actively constructing our own relative reality, yet we walk around thinking this reality is some external thing happening independently of us, as if we have no hand in it at all. It’s just this profound alienation from our true Nature, which most people aren't even aware exists...
Once we finally grasp that everything occurring—every single thing—was prompted and triggered by us, and that all events are essentially the byproduct of the combined consciousness of all people, then, and only then, do we open the door to real prosperity.
An individual can't just go out and change external events (since those things were built by all of us together, and none of us alone has grown enough in our own awareness to shift something that was collectively manufactured), so as individuals, we can only, and really we must, focus on changing our own internal experience. Only when every person works on themselves—in terms of ethics and realizing who we truly are by our very Nature—can we reach that critical mass needed for humanity as a whole to make an evolutionary leap forward...

That Wholeness is what some people describe simply: when a butterfly flaps its wings, the entire world feels the ripple effect. 🙂

🙏 I appreciate the entire post. It would free up significant energy if people directed their focus toward where it actually matters.

fadedbison17 said:Thanks for the heads-up—fixed those typos as best I could (see below)...
Alright, give it a read and tell me—why am I not even close to being right?... 🙂

Louis explained everything perfectly. There is no need for me to repeat him. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective—"without color or warmth." You need to "shift" your mindset to actually see and understand; you have to "train" yourself.😁 You are dug in, stubbornly clinging to your own narrow view.

Krešo, you aren't even remotely correct. The only reality you need to concern yourself with is your own illiteracy. 😬 😱

swiftcobra15 said:Western philosophy originally emerged from a syncretic state of consciousness, and it was from that foundation that our individual sciences eventually branched off.

These days, there's a massive push to idolize science and force philosophy to take a backseat to it. I believe intellect, acting as the purely analytical slice of our consciousness, actually destroys wholeness. It lacks the capacity to create anything meaningful; it just builds technology, which often ends up tearing our world apart because its nature is inherently destructive.

That single sentence proves nothing; all you have done is demonstrate that you are a syncretist. 😉
I also admire Plato, which is precisely why I am seeking clarification. I see nothing wrong with such a separation of sciences. To me, it functions much like a rope.
Specializations drive progress faster than ever, and we desperately need that advancement in our physical reality. It is a shame that our collective consciousness isn't evolving at the same rate; that is where the work lies, not in dismantling science.
Quincy:

Some animals possess intelligence, and machines can certainly mimic it, but true consciousness remains our exclusive domain.

You have presented intellect through the lens of a nerd, conflating intelligence with wisdom. I am not suggesting that you are a nerd.😁😁 That was a metaphor intended to point out that you are fixating on a single flaw in the science rather than looking at the big picture. Your position remains contradictory.
Quincy:

Today, most people worship science and seek to subordinate philosophy to it. Intellect, acting as the analytical component of consciousness, destroys wholeness. He is incapable of creating anything of value. Aside from technology—which is actively destroying our world—it serves as nothing more than a tool of destruction.

You Generalize. Such generalizations are characteristic of the very natural science methodology you attack.🙄

"Even the gods do not fight against what must be"—and they say that from some sort of egg. 😉

Ah, regarding intellectual development:

Reason is the primary manifestation of the axiom of hierarchy. Reason operates on this principle; it is the force that divides, organizes, and imposes order upon disordered sets...
All intellectual activity exists because of this principle. Try to imagine the alternative: thinking about any subject without partitioning it into minor and major elements. Analysis is, essentially, hierarchy. Only after that can synthesis occur... which reconnects all dissected elements into a new whole, where everything is equal simply because the whole would be inaccurate without any single part.

This is both necessary and natural. The fact that we can use this necessity and naturalness to construct whatever wholes we desire—even those that are entirely senseless or harmful to ourselves—is part of the principle of free will. How else could it work? A being without the capacity for choice is merely a puppet on strings... and freedom of choice necessitates the possibility of error. Simple as that...

Lawrence Robinson5, I appreciate your posts and your contributions to other topics. 🙂

Thought "encompasses" the Whole. Philosophy predates the intellect and cannot arise inductively.
The intellect destroys the whole. Therefore, "analytical philosophy" is a distortion of philosophy.

swiftcobra15, could you clarify the statement that philosophy is older than the intellect? Do we not create linguistic analyses specifically by using the intellect derived from the mind?

How could I not be a part of it? By going to Mars?
Even if I were to take my own life, I could not avoid being "a part of it."

swiftcobra15, hell is also a part of it; you can laugh at us from there.😬

Chris Peterson53 said:I'm not going to ramble.
To put it bluntly:
A sense of inner peace—which makes navigating life's inevitable messes much easier.
An understanding of human frailty, both in myself and others. It allows me to look at my own actions through a lens of actual truth.
Personal integrity.
It's unlikely I'll ever resort to killing, stealing, adultery, framing someone, or becoming one of those selfish types who couldn't care less about anyone else's struggles.
Neither jealousy nor envy touches me—regardless of my social status or financial situation.
A broad range of interests spanning both spiritual and secular domains.

I can manage all of this without any reliance on faith in Bog or divine intervention. My reasons aren't rooted in a fear of punishment, but rather in maintaining my own inner peace—so that I can look myself in the mirror and actually like who I see. Though, when it comes to adultery, I make no such guarantees. 😉

Donna Campbell6 said:I really hope your friend doesn't end up going through what I suspect might happen later on.
But like you, I'm not religious, so I won't sit here and analyze her reaction or debate whether religion acts as some kind of sedative.
Still, just one thought: I think, in the long run, it’s probably better to just walk straight through the fire... look the horror right in the face, cry your eyes out, shake, and scream if you have to. But man, that's almost impossible. We just can't handle it. So we find ways to cope... and sometimes, that includes religion.

😲
I made it clear that I am not religious precisely because of the rigid attitudes, superficiality, and prejudices held by people like you.
-I don't usually mention it, nor is such information necessary for anyone else.

It was wise of Arna to notice. Nualin's post went unnoticed and misunderstood by many.
Especially the part where she suggests we should all reflect on how we exercise violence in our daily lives toward others.

"Hatred too often clouds our intelligence."

casualowl1 said:She could have chosen not to push his hand away. That's a choice.

Man, you painted a pretty intense picture of that adrenaline rush and struggle. But honestly, when people are terrified, they can totally freeze up.

The priest didn't start an argument; he was just trying to comfort the family the best way he knew how. We're the ones getting into this debate. And honestly? It's pointless and a waste of time.

Furthermore, the girl's father stated in an interview that he finds solace in knowing she wasn't raped.
He was comforted by the fact that her killer didn't break her spirit, nor did he violate or humiliate her in that manner.
From that perspective, the priest's words serve merely as a balm for the grieving.
Priests understand their parishioners through confession, which functions much like psychotherapy; he knew exactly what needed to be said and what they needed to hear.

Many eulogies glorify the deceased, exaggerating life achievements and portraying everyone in the best possible light.
(Everyone was supposedly a selfless soul, a devoted parent, etc.)
But this girl hadn't even begun to make her mark on the world.
She was "simply" a fighter for herself and her principles. She refused to let her killer crush her soul.
I cannot, and will not, believe that anyone still thinks honor and dignity are living concepts today.

A slight departure from the subject:
A friend from elementary school lost her son (age 4) during a routine surgery
(appendectomy). She lives in Germany. I saw her this summer, three months after the tragedy. When I went to offer my condolences, I struggled to find the right words, so I just asked: "I heard from your mother... how are you holding up?" (I didn't even dare name the tragedy itself).
She replied with a smile: "I'm doing okay. God must have wanted him more, so He took him home."😲
I am not religious.
I haven't quite recovered from her statement, but if that belief helps her survive, then it is wonderful.

The same applies to this girl's family. Someone has to support the conviction that her struggle wasn't in vain and that she departed with dignity.

Brandon Castillo4 said:The guy is an absolute idiot, plain and simple. What kind of "honor" is he even talking about? If she had been "unvirtuous," would he have just let some creep assault her because he "doesn't give a damn about honor"? I honestly thought maybe someone misquoted him or he was just exaggerating, but this is completely nonsensical.

This isn't about logic or common sense. The poor girl... it's devastating, especially since that animal beat her so badly she died in agony. But honor? What kind of defense of honor is this? He wanted to rape her. 🙄

🤮

😢

It's a matter of terminology. 🤔
Honor equals self-respect.

unknown,
Your message to women is fundamentally flawed and serves only to embolden attackers and rapists.
According to your logic, an attacked woman should simply submit and allow herself to be violated by anyone using force,
just because
she might otherwise face a bullet or a blow that could kill her?

How can anyone—including yourself—possibly argue that she was merely defending her hymen?

In the heat of an attack, a person reacts unknown, just as they react when fighting for their life. One does not selectively choose to protect an ear, an eye, or a kidney over a hymen.

We cannot predict how we would react in such a situation, nor can we teach anyone else to do so, because instinct operates independently of reason.

Instinctive actions stem from the amygdala, the brain's "shortcut" center,
rather than through the conscious, deliberative pathways we use when we aren't in immediate danger.

Even if an attacked individual managed to compose themselves and choose submission over resistance,
who is to guarantee they would be left alive?
An attacker knows that afterward comes trial, social condemnation, prison, or perhaps a bullet—a swift and entirely just 😉 act of retribution from the victim, her brothers, or her father.

No one here is suggesting that survivors do not deserve respect; rather, we are stating that being violated destroys one's self-respect.
That is a massive distinction.
The victim loses her sense of self-worth. She is blamed. Despised. Judged mentally;
told things like she should have fought harder, run sooner, been more cautious, trained in martial arts, built more muscle, stayed indoors, or avoided being out at noon.

She is left feeling pathetic and weak.

casualowl1 said:Some people spend their entire lives trying and still fail. That’s on you.

If someone kidnapped you, forced you into sex work, and sold you as a slave—forcing you into drugs, abortions, or even those horrific hymen surgeries—would you really say you haven't lost your dignity and honor? Just because it was someone else pulling the strings?
Maybe you wouldn't "lose" it, but it would be violently stripped away from you. It's exactly what that guy was attempting to do to her.

His statement implies that you have to fight back.
Your take implies that it's better to just give in the moment someone looks at you wrong. At least you stay alive that way. That's a pathetic way to live.

Also, the statement strongly emphasizes that dignity and honor depend entirely on a person's own actions. And she chose to fight for herself. She fought for her dignity, her honor, her human rights, and ultimately, her life.

He's saying we should fight against assault.
You're implying we shouldn't resist because if we fail, we might lose our lives.

There is immense honor in dying while fighting for your ideals, for freedom, and for your basic human dignity. But what do you actually know about honor and respect? You seem to think they're just handed to you by God and don't need to be earned or fought for.

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the man who said this knew her personally and understood her values, whereas you don't have a clue.

That was my interpretation of the remark as well.🙂

Pleasant and comfortable

William Williams27 said:We usually group hope with the good stuff, unlike anger or sadness... but doesn't hope actually trigger those negative feelings in the first place?
Isn't hope just what keeps us constantly looking toward the future instead of staying put?
Sure, there are those rough patches where hope feels like your only lifeline, but maybe that's a trap. Shouldn't we be focusing on living in the moment?
I honestly think a single genuine smile right now is worth way more than any amount of hope. We tend to miss all the little blessings because we’re too busy chasing "what if."
So, where does hope even come from? Is it just pure desire?

If we look at those four fundamental truths about suffering, wouldn't it make more sense to just let go of hope entirely?

Hope doesn't lead to negative emotions; rather, it alleviates and dilutes them.😉
Once hope emerges, tension decreases.

silentpanther15 said:Elvis Presley is such a joke. We all saw it coming...

but... I’m way more interested in that idiot wife of his who actually reported him!

look. she got hit.
she said enough was enough and called the cops.
that's her right.

but what the hell was she thinking going back home to him after that!??
if I were him, I would've turned down that $10k allowance.
because she's an idiot.
she basically drained the household budget by at least $10k.
especially since she didn't even get anything out of it herself.

Who knows how much of the family savings she burned through before making that report?? 😉
And she is definitely an idiot. What sane woman would marry a lowlife like that?

Lawrence Wells said:And what else...? Bentley, you totally missed the most important part!😁

😕 Speak up. 😁 Are you referring to the hormones that would be prohibited?
In my opinion, being emotionally dead is worse than being in a coma. 😬 😍