Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As if liberals in the US don't have the same opinion that helping your own children is the same thing as putting others at a disadvantage. That's the entire liberal argument against "the rich" (aka anyone not on government assistance).
Well that is a false idea about liberals....there is nothing wrong with good parenting, and it should be encouraged regardless of one's income level or political views.
Neither is a degree taught by an idiot who thinks you disadvantage others by helping your kids.
Do you think this isn't true?
He's not influencing policy or making suggestions about conduct, he's trying to solve a philosophical problem. Everything he is saying is tongue-in-cheek and/or hypothetical.
Getting upset about this is like getting upset about the guy who knocks the fat man off the bridge to stop the train from killing the 6 people tied to the track.
Unfortunately, there are idiots like this all over. Your best bet is to be sure you educate your children at home regarding life, values, morals, ethics and anything else other that "reading, writing and arithmetic".
After actually taking the time to read the ABC article that your article linked it indicated that the author was actually FOR parents reading bedtime stories and indicated that it was one of several indicators of a solid family relationship.
The National Review article spun this to indicate that parents should "feel guilty" about reading to their children. In the ABC article it was evident that he made the comments facetiously.
After actually taking the time to read the ABC article that your article linked it indicated that the author was actually FOR parents reading bedtime stories and indicated that it was one of several indicators of a solid family relationship.
The National Review article spun this to indicate that parents should "feel guilty" about reading to their children. In the ABC article it was evident that he made the comments facetiously.
Stop that, we all know right wingers only read the title and not the actual article. How else are they gonna get upset over something if they know what the title is actually about.
This thread is clearly about stupid liberals thinking it is bad to read to your children because it puts them at a disadvantage because it basically says so in the title.
Stop that, we all know right wingers only read the title and not the actual article. How else are they gonna get upset over something if they know what the title is actually about.
This thread is clearly about stupid liberals thinking it is bad to read to your children because it puts them at a disadvantage because it basically says so in the title.
If my son looks like he's going to be tall, I'm going to force him to start smoking so his growth will be stunted and short people won't feel disadvantaged. GO LIBERALS.
If my son looks like he's going to be tall, I'm going to force him to start smoking so his growth will be stunted and short people won't feel disadvantaged. GO LIBERALS.
Also, take away his carrots if it seems like his vision is really good. Don't want people with poor vision to feel disadvantaged.
"If you’re an egalitarian, how come you help your kids with their homework?"
by Jonathan Derbyshire,
November 24, 2014
Actually Adam Swift (AS) did say that. In the referenced article, I quote:
Interviewer: "But it’s not the case, is it, that there’s no connection between parents reading their children bedtime stories and their children enjoying advantages over children who are not read to?"
AS: "That's right. In the society we live in, things like bedtime stories generate more inequalities overall than the simple bequest of property. There used to be something known as the “family piano” model of advantage in which parents had this stuff and it got handed down to the kids. But in fact it’s informal interactions like the reading of bedtime stories that are the ones that generate the real inequalities. At the moment, quite a lot of inequality is generated through the kinds of intra-familial interactions that we say we need to protect. On the other hand, quite a lot of the things we allow parents to do shouldn’t be protected in our view—we currently allow parents to do more for their kids than our theory says can be justified by an appeal to the family. And, in addition to that, we could, quite compatibly with respecting the family, radically change the extent of inequality between families, rather than seeing the family as a reason to resist attempts to change inequalities."
I read the above referenced article, but I don't understand it and am not interested in Liberal Egalitarianism enough to try to understand it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
