Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 244 245 [246] 247 248 ... 759

Author Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread  (Read 1247420 times)

KaelGotDwarves

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CREATURE:FIRE_ELF]
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3675 on: October 15, 2012, 01:40:49 pm »

Stop telling us to stop bullying you! You're bullying us!

AFA might as well take up the 'god hates fags' banner.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3676 on: October 15, 2012, 01:46:10 pm »

I'd just counter with a "Fags love you" banner. See who really promotes peace and love, eh?
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3677 on: October 15, 2012, 01:53:52 pm »

I can imagine them running away. :p
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3678 on: October 15, 2012, 02:24:59 pm »

Outside national borders? Where? There is no place in the world not claimed by a state of some kind or else protected by international treaties. Even in Somalia, which was nominally anarchist for a while, the UN has been rabidly attempting to impose a state for the past 20 years. Also, again, you often get taxed if you leave a country with your assets, so this isn't a solution.
Are you actually of the opinion that Somalia is better off without a government and the UN trying to make a government there is a bad thing?

Certainly, it was significantly better off than it was back when it had a government in '91. A lot of Somalia's problems can be traced to the UN funding (secular) warlords in support of a state, which caused (rival or Islamist) warlords to band together against them. At least some areas of even southern Somalia were quite improved in between the fights between those two groups.

Wow, you have an example of propping up a government monopoly from 1851. Got anything more relevant to the world we live in today?

Got any example of proper competitors to the US postal service? FedEx, etc are not postal companies by the way, so they wouldn't count.

But since, you asked, there's always the monopoly on the creation of currency. Keep in mind, none of these "Liberty Dollars" at all resembled US Dollars, so its not like they could practically be considered counterfeit.
Quote

A big part of "Letter Mail Co"'s success was that it only offered services in the most lucrative of markets - a few large cities on the East Coast, whereas US Post is obliged to offer delivery for the same stamp price throughout the country. Letter Mail Co driving US Post out of business in those big cities would drive prices up everywhere else. See how they'd go if they were forced to build and staff their own post offices in every village, town and city across the country.

So the government isn't a monopoly, except when it has to compete with more efficient rivals? You're actually incorrect as to the effects of competition on cost, by the way; prior to the ALMC, the cost of stamps had been rising steadily. After it became a competitor, the cost of stamps actually dropped. Not to mention the fact that the USPS should have at least been capable of matching the ALMC's service and cost in the big cities since it's funded by tax dollars and doesn't actually need to make a profit.
Quote
And of course, any profit by a publicly owned company replaces taxes. A drop in revenue could lead to taxes rising, a hidden cost in privatizing a service. Look at Singapore, 14% tax, 60% Government ownership. They could privatize everything, but taxes would have to rise to compensate.

Only if the government is unable to even compete with the private companies in the first place. If the USPS actually makes a profit of, say, 10%, then in a normal company this would mean they already covered operating costs. For the USPS, that means that the tax rate for mail should be 0%, because the cost of mailing already covers the expenses and the surplus is deposited in the treasury. If the USPS is actually running a deficit, that means that they need to improve efficiency in some way, just like a company that's in the red.

Yes, you could argue that the government is held back by its having to do somewhat unprofitable things to cover everyone, but there isn't much evidence that that's the case.

Quote
People being educated pays dividends for more than just the person with kids. Business's take for granted that they'll have literate 18 year olds to hire for minimum wage.
If you think literacy is bad in the United States, one of the countries with the highest literacy in the world, due in no small part to public education, think about living in a country with poor public school access, where literacy is 49% rather than 99%

Everyone benefits from education, even if you're not the direct person being educated.

Funny enough, literacy today is actually lower then it was before public schooling. Countries with poor public school access also usually have poor public schools, so it isn't like increasing access to the public schools in those places would significantly improve literacy.

Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3679 on: October 15, 2012, 02:35:42 pm »

Actually, the USPS is supposed to fund itself. AFAIK, it doesn't get tax dollars. And since it has a mandate to serve every American for the same price, it cannot compete with a private company in more lucrative markets (like big cities), because it needs higher profit margin from those markets to subsidy the other parts of the country. Inneficient? Maybe in some sense, but if left to private markets, large part of flyover America would no longer have postal service.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3680 on: October 15, 2012, 02:39:23 pm »

That article, uh, actually states that the literacy rate has dropped since the 1950s, yes, but that todays numbers are still higher than back then before the 1900s. It gave an average literacy of somewhere in the 70s in the states that led - so, basically best case scenario. Edit: In the 17th century, anyway. Supposedly higher in the 18th, no numbers though. Regardless, 1950s still seem to be the highest.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a lack of public education, I would think. After all, according to the link, literacy peaked in the 1950s, which just so happens to have been a period of high public education.

And haven't literacy standards (how much you have to do to be able to be considered literate) increased significantly since then?

Edit:
Realized the article doesn't actually have numbers for the 1700s - still seems to indicate the 1950s
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 02:55:35 pm by GlyphGryph »
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3681 on: October 15, 2012, 02:48:49 pm »

No, it does not.

Quote
Best-selling historian David McCulloch, whose most recent book is 1776, is another knowledgeable source who said that the literacy rate in Massachusetts was higher in 1798 than it is today.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3682 on: October 15, 2012, 02:50:03 pm »

Then it makes contradictory claims. Often by mixing non-matching statistics, obviously.

I'm not seeing where it's pulling the numbers for that statement - I was going from the literacy rates listed. But I was going by the pre-1800 and thus pre-public-school numbers. I just realized he doesn't actually offer any numbers for the 1700s - it's 1640 to 1700 that was in the 70% range.

So I guess I'll have to check that source for numbers there.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 02:53:49 pm by GlyphGryph »
Logged

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3684 on: October 15, 2012, 02:59:23 pm »

Actually, can anyone actually find any decent sources for those literacy numbers? I'm finding stuff that varies wildly - from the low 20s to the high 90s for the 1700-1800 period.

The David McCulloch seems to be a pop historian with an agenda - although I can't actually find how where or how he came to that conclusion. (I don't have his book, it might just be in there and not on the web)

I'll keep looking though.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3685 on: October 15, 2012, 03:07:55 pm »

I ifind it hard to believe we're supposed to reject most studies of modern literacy due to "methodological issues", yet we're meant to take 18th and 19th century near-universal literacy for granted.

Quote
As public schooling was getting underway after 1834, literacy in Massachusetts was as high as 98%. That compares to 91% in that state today, which still may be the highest in the nation. Nor was West alone. Neil Postman, who has written widely on education, in his Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, 1999, said the literacy rate in Massachusetts and Connecticut from 1640-1700 was as high as 95% for men, ands 62% for women, even though the latter received little formal education at the time.

If you average male+female from the historic data, the overall rate is lower than today's figure which is both sexes. That's assuming those historic estimates were of unbiased samples of the male population.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 03:12:08 pm by Reelya »
Logged

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3686 on: October 15, 2012, 03:11:29 pm »

From what I can, at the VERY least US literacy was significantly higher than Britain- no matter how it's counted. Hypothesis are basically "anyone who could afford to bring their kids overseas was more likely to be literate, and thus value literacy in the children" - a cultural divide, if you will, created by a general uptick in the number of people from middle class backgrounds.

Still, something doesn't add up here - I've read a lot of history from this period, and running themes seem to be relatively important people still not knowing how to read. Is it just better hidden nowadays? It seems like it would be almost impossible, what with it being far more vital a skill in so many ways.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3687 on: October 15, 2012, 03:14:19 pm »

A lot of that article seems like comparing apples and oranges (literacy for males in the old times highlighted against both-sex literacy today), casting reasonable doubts on recent studies, yet blind faith in centuries-old census data.

" In 1900 only 10.7% of Americans were functionally illiterate. That is, they could not read or write a simple message in any language."

This is playing semantics. That definition is of strict illiteracy.

Quote
Functional illiteracy is imprecisely defined, with different criteria from nation to nation, and study to study. However, a useful distinction can be made between pure illiteracy and functional illiteracy. Purely illiterate persons cannot read or write in any capacity, for all practical purposes. In contrast, functionally illiterate persons can read and possibly write simple sentences with a limited vocabulary, but cannot read or write well enough to deal with the everyday requirements of life in their own society.

The 1900 study is clearly referring to that stronger sense of illiteracy. It would seem they're playing semantics here with different definitions of illiteracy.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 03:22:12 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3688 on: October 15, 2012, 03:29:12 pm »

Quote
Best-selling historian David McCulloch, whose most recent book is 1776, is another knowledgeable source who said that the literacy rate in Massachusetts was higher in 1798 than it is today. One reason why, he adds, was nearly everybody read the Bible.
So "Kindof knew the contents of the Bible" = literacy back then I guess.
Logged

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3689 on: October 15, 2012, 03:33:23 pm »

A lot of that article seems like comparing apples and oranges (literacy for males in the old times highlighted against both-sex literacy today), casting reasonable doubts on recent studies, yet blind faith in centuries-old census data.

" In 1900 only 10.7% of Americans were functionally illiterate. That is, they could not read or write a simple message in any language."

This is playing semantics. That definition is of strict illiteracy.

Quote
Functional illiteracy is imprecisely defined, with different criteria from nation to nation, and study to study. However, a useful distinction can be made between pure illiteracy and functional illiteracy. Purely illiterate persons cannot read or write in any capacity, for all practical purposes. In contrast, functionally illiterate persons can read and possibly write simple sentences with a limited vocabulary, but cannot read or write well enough to deal with the everyday requirements of life in their own society.

The 1900 study is clearly referring to that stronger sense of illiteracy. It would seem they're playing semantics here with different definitions of illiteracy.

I would also point out that prior to the 20th century, it is unlikely that non-white males were accounted for by the listed literacy rate for "males".
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.
Pages: 1 ... 244 245 [246] 247 248 ... 759