tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post8371566095781126742..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: The 8th undercover video with transcript, plus some hopeLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11804663483180816282015-09-07T22:45:15.694-07:002015-09-07T22:45:15.694-07:00Sorry, I'm still not caught up! Been away with...Sorry, I'm still not caught up! Been away with the grandbabies and daughters and one son-in-law and am so far behind (but for a good reason). :)<br /><br />I will be caught up soon, but in the meantime, thanks for keeping the conversation going. I see that it's taken a turn to new subjects, but I don't mind that! <br /><br />Hugs and kisses to all! :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13017975479859933462015-09-07T14:22:50.838-07:002015-09-07T14:22:50.838-07:00?
Chris.
For your example of English majors, the o...?<br />Chris.<br />For your example of English majors, the opposite can be said about the other 91%.<br />If 91% are employed then no one is failing and no degree is failing. One who wants to know about the 9% unemployment rate should ask the 91% who are employed how to be successful, because they figured it out. <br /><br />I mean, those stats are there to show you a picture, “Hey, if you get an English degree, you can expect this…(employment rate of this, unemployment rate of this, initial pay of this, median pay of this).” Every job has an unemployment rate.<br /><br />You want the weaker degrees to reflect what? The accurate picture is there with the stats.<br /><br />Chris, All degrees will never be equally valid based on supply and demand of the job market. We're wandering off the logical path. What are you looking for? <br /><br />There are only a select number of jobs. Maybe 99% of the people with a given degree are brilliant and not lazy, but the corp's that would hire them are being taxed too high and don't have job openings. You can't capture "undesirable employee" with an unemployment rate. That number just shows you a snapshot of the job market when people are out of work, but actively looking for work, with that particular degree.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25058710827039713842015-09-07T14:07:48.339-07:002015-09-07T14:07:48.339-07:00To clarify, I use "lazy" to mean "n...To clarify, I use "lazy" to mean "not the sort of person you'd want to employ," not "not trying to get work."Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63597352847395261682015-09-07T14:04:35.394-07:002015-09-07T14:04:35.394-07:00It's sort of a third-variable issue. Is the as...It's sort of a third-variable issue. Is the assumption that those pursuing all degrees are equally industrious a valid one? Statistically, might there be many more lazy gender studies majors than lazy computer engineering majors?Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56313564315316307732015-09-07T13:43:45.685-07:002015-09-07T13:43:45.685-07:00There aren't set-aside "English major job...There aren't set-aside "English major jobs." So if 9% of English majors are unemployed, that might mean that English degrees are failing many students--OR it might mean that many students with English degrees are failing under their own power.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35088250674273907982015-09-07T13:19:01.904-07:002015-09-07T13:19:01.904-07:00What the numbers can't show: Who's actuall...<i>What the numbers can't show: Who's actually getting the jobs? Are brilliant students missing out on jobs because of their less useful degrees? Or are the best liberal arts majors all employed with decent paying jobs while the lazy ones are still scratching their heads about why the cisheteropatriarchy is keeping them from their six figure incomes?</i><br /><br />What? The employment data of those numbers is based on the particular degree earned <i> not </i> on open jobs in that area. <br /><br />In other words, they canvas: “You got a sociology degree, what are you doing? What do you make? What field are you in? Oh, not sociology? So then …” <br /><br />It’s about tracking numbers, getting the stats. Because if all sociology degreed people got better jobs, then the salary data would be higher. It would reflect that for sure. <br /><br />Stats are for people considering getting that degree. What should I expect to make and what is the job availability or employment rate?<br /><br />As to the “scratching your head” comment, salary stats are based on people working who are earning salaries - hence the term, right? <br />The unemployment numbers are based on the unemployed as a total population of those who have that degree, so those are very good stats. <br /><br />That’s all in the Bureau of Labor stats, Chris. We can most certainly tell all of what you’re looking for. Go peruse their page. It’s overwhelming data, actually. All the stats you need to see for national, state-wide, and metropolitan regions. We can see all of it.<br /><br />And to your “bad degree” comment, go find the stat that suits what you’re looking for and we can talk about it. Expected salary and employment rate are the two biggies to look at. Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54720450218942788742015-09-07T12:58:32.927-07:002015-09-07T12:58:32.927-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-47233058984860069162015-09-07T12:58:04.804-07:002015-09-07T12:58:04.804-07:00What the numbers can't show: Who's actuall...What the numbers can't show: Who's actually getting the jobs? Are brilliant students missing out on jobs because of their less useful degrees? Or are the best liberal arts majors all employed with decent paying jobs while the lazy ones are still scratching their heads about why the cisheteropatriarchy is keeping them from their six figure incomes?<br /><br />Also, I take "bad degree" lists with a grain of salt because many of them ignore grad school and only calculate the degree's "worth" on its own. For example, is psychology a "bad major?" Actual psychologists, with their fancier degrees, are doubtless doing a lot better than folks who took the basic degree and left.<br /><br />I have the fortune of not worrying about debt due to a mixture of my college fund and a good scholarship that lopped off 75% of my tuition. Though of course it would be rather disrespectful to my parents if I didn't get much out of my degree.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61063757377729439732015-09-07T12:34:33.165-07:002015-09-07T12:34:33.165-07:00* There are no jobs for these degrees* There are no jobs for these degreesNubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36716742490686450802015-09-07T12:31:02.265-07:002015-09-07T12:31:02.265-07:00I would definitely call some useless, even though ...I would definitely call some useless, even though it's wiser to have than not, that's only because Bureau of Labor stats reflect that reality.<br /><br />Liberal Arts majors was just listed as one of the most useless degrees of 2015, with an unemployment rate of 9.2% Wooowww.<br />The article described these majors as the laughing stock of college degree programs. No specialization, like I mentioned. <br /><br />Other worst majors listed were: Anthropology, Communications, Criminal Justice, English, Fine arts, Family Studies, History. That's not exhaustive. There are either no jobs for these degrees, low initial earnings and low median earnings.<br /><br />If college isn't just about lining up jobs/careers then what is it for these days? Learning about stuff for the sake of learning? Not anymore. <br /><br />College life is about a whole experience, sure. But when you exit at the end of the day (or the 4 yr stint), you'd be wise to leave with that higher education specialized enough (a competitive degree) to get a better job right out of the gate. Otherwise, your ROI (return on investment) will be horrible and you (the student) will probably be strapped with debt for many years. <br /><br />Make your schooling work for you. Practicality is the way to go.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63678590822252578692015-09-07T12:10:36.287-07:002015-09-07T12:10:36.287-07:00Didn't mean to break Leila's reply rule; I...Didn't mean to break Leila's reply rule; I clicked it by mistake.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64643565587235256752015-09-07T12:09:49.530-07:002015-09-07T12:09:49.530-07:00I wouldn't call any degree "useless."...I wouldn't call any degree "useless." Thinking ahead towards one's career is important, but so is gaining knowledge in general. Neither of my parents ended up using their undergrad degrees (my mom is in academia but never teaches any classes relating to her undergrad major of archaeology; my dad went to seminary after college and has since then worked only as a preacher and in hospice care). Employability is important and practicality is important, but everyone I trust has emphasized to me that college is not just about lining up specific jobs.<br /><br />Regardless, if I do pursue a degree with few specific applications, I'll want to combine it with something more practical. Many of my friends are double majoring, and I even know one poor soul who's triple majoring in English, Math and Physics while somehow keeping time to practice for choral recitals.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42022698607197522052015-09-07T11:45:32.321-07:002015-09-07T11:45:32.321-07:00It's certainly true that the Declaration of In...<i>It's certainly true that the Declaration of Independence suggests the existence of rights beyond the whims of the state. I don't think it proves anything in itself, but it shows the prevailing mindset among those who founded this country.</i><br /><br />What were you looking for it to explicitly prove? It proves that it follows the mindset of several philosophers and/or scholastics before our country was even born (see Suarez and Locke’s 2 treatises on Gov’t). It proves that rights are not always legal constructs. Doesn’t need to prove anything beyond that.<br /><br /><i>The particular discipline I've studied the most of is economics, as of right now (even the history class I mentioned focuses on this area). I've also had and enjoyed a good amount of liberal arts classes. I might consider some kind of science as well, though the only really "hard" science I've enjoyed is biology.</i><br /><br />My two cents from the post-college, post-corporate real world: If a person is going to go the route of an economics major, he or she should couple that with business finance. There are way more job op’s with business tied to that than a person would have than with an economics degree alone. So much more choice in various roles: economic trend analysis, corporate analysis, corporate finance, accounting, strategic management (mergers and restructures, etc.), etc.<br /><br />Liberal arts degrees (if anyone goes that route) are useless. They probably won’t get a person hired for anything that pays. It’s too broad without any specialized skill set. Unemployable, not truly marketable. <br /><br />I suggest to my college-bound family members: You want to make your degree do half of the work for you, before you even submit copies of your resumes. Give yourself advantage and get into business finance or the harder sciences. These offer the best career op. You want to hit the post-graduation era of your life with a competitive degree. Just my two cents.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38451987417690599142015-09-07T10:59:42.086-07:002015-09-07T10:59:42.086-07:00It's certainly true that the Declaration of In...It's certainly true that the Declaration of Independence suggests the existence of rights beyond the whims of the state. I don't think it proves anything in itself, but it shows the prevailing mindset among those who founded this country.<br /><br />I'm still taking a variety of classes (general requirements and so on--it's only the start of sophomore year for me). The particular discipline I've studied the most of is economics, as of right now (even the history class I mentioned focuses on this area). I've also had and enjoyed a good amount of liberal arts classes. I might consider some kind of science as well, though the only really "hard" science I've enjoyed is biology. My school is pretty good about helping students with internships and finding work. I'm also actively looking for work now in order to earn some money and bolster my resume.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64599654509503819382015-09-07T09:14:33.098-07:002015-09-07T09:14:33.098-07:00I didn't really set out to answer, "Why d...<i>I didn't really set out to answer, "Why do the rights we have exist in our political system?" but rather "What are rights in general?" and "How are rights established?" </i><br /><br />Yes. Leila asked you, “What is a right?” And I think she asked, “Where do they come from?” I asked you to go a bit deeper with that line because it’s intellectually appropriate to examine where our declared and extrinsic rights come from, and consider the purpose of those rights, in order to tie into the larger idea that rights exist for a reason, for all people. Some are declared. Some are voted upon.<br /><br />And for reference of purpose, I pointed to the Bill of Rights (these rights exist in our Const. to protect US citizens from abuse of the US govt). And to our unalienable rights in the Declaration. That was the path I took for illustration, that’s all.<br /><br /><i>My answers were "legal constructs" and then "by society/government"</i><br /><br />Rights are only legal constructs when they exist via positive laws (see the Constitution). Those are voted upon by a judiciary.<br /><br />Rights are not merely legal constructs in the Declaration of Independence. They are rights that are above any man-made voting body. They’re acknowledged as already existing for the flourishing of mankind. See? There’s nothing ‘legally constructed’ about the rights contained here, but they exist outside of anything constructed by man.<br /><br />That is the salient reason the two documents are separate to begin with. Tell your history prof that, if this subject comes up. Very important, and many people walk away from history courses not even understanding this basic point. Push your profs to teach to detail. Take advantage of their office hours and email. They should be accessible to you.<br /><br />I’m curious, you don’t have to answer, of course:<br />Have you declared your major yet? <br />If you are into your major courses, are the professors counseling you on career paths or suggesting options for when you graduate? <br /><br />Are they giving help as far as internship placement? <br /><br />They should be lining you up to help you for the real world, because what is learned within the insulated four walls of a classroom is not at all the real world. <br /><br />Universities are set up to reach out to businesses to get students placed upon graduation. Make sure you take advantage of this kind of help.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56652672459865174972015-09-07T08:13:53.533-07:002015-09-07T08:13:53.533-07:00I'm currently taking a class about a specific ...I'm currently taking a class about a specific aspect of US history, but I haven't had a general American history class since coming here. I did score pretty well on the SAT US History subject test, though. I'm also taking an intro philosophy course, and some of our first readings have concerned justifying political systems. We've looked at some from Aristotle and Hobbes so far.<br /><br />You know, I considered just linking to a page on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about some definition or justification of rights and saying "Yeah, pretty much that." But I don't think that would have made for good discussion.<br /><br />I didn't really set out to answer, "Why do the rights we have exist in our political system?" but rather "What are rights in general?" and "How are rights established?" My answers were "legal constructs" and then "by society/government" but that was kind of a flat answer, so I gave my own reason for why we <i>should</i> have certain rights, irrespective of any government's choice. If we lived in a horrible totalitarian state with no access to outside history and philosophy, we could still potentially come to the conclusion that the way it treated us was wrong, and should be fought against.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46010872540184923742015-09-07T05:37:59.823-07:002015-09-07T05:37:59.823-07:00However, I was trying to capture what it is about ...<i>However, I was trying to capture what it is about humanity that makes us worthy of rights we won't afford to cows or shrubs or whatever. What would you say makes humans unique? Why does a living human have rights that a living nonhuman doesn't? It must be more than life itself, because many things are alive.</i><br /><br />What makes us unique is our humanity. We’re not cows or shrubs- that’s it exactly. <b>We have the ability to reason and to love.</b> The idea of a God-given human dignity goes all the back to Suarez to Locke all the way to Jefferson.<br /><br />These men fleshed out the similar idea that humans had dignity and rights that were not given by a vote of a majority. They put this idea into words and governments acknowledged these rights. Our Declaration of Independence lists them as the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. None of which can ever be untied from the common good of all. <br /><br />They recognized the image of the Creator reflected in man because the capacity of man is very different from plant or animal, and they were doing a noble, just, and even holy thing, by protecting this observation of truth in legal documentation.<br /><br />That’s why I asked you for your reference to your own philosophy. It’s not enough to speak of thoughts as authority for rights. You have to reference history or another philosophy to some degree in order to get some context and detail to the thoughts, so to speak. Are you learning about US history in college?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85019096876163978902015-09-06T20:18:45.918-07:002015-09-06T20:18:45.918-07:00People are absolutely equal under the law. If we p...People are absolutely equal under the law. If we put "society" before people in general, lots of bad things can happen. But guaranteeing basic human rights is still a positive for society. <br /><br />Fundamental rights absolutely need protection under the law. Laws can be unjust; "rights" can be unjust, and proper rights can go unprotected. Roe v. Wade is an injustice, but it's also something the government can do. It's wrong, and that's why we have to oppose it.<br /><br />I'm absolutely open to the idea that being alive alone is what makes us worthy of rights. Certainly, I say that simply being human makes us worthy of rights, respect, dignity--and that these things must apply to all humans, regardless of all external factors. So we might even be saying the same thing in different ways. However, I was trying to capture what it is about humanity that makes us worthy of rights we won't afford to cows or shrubs or whatever. What would you say makes humans unique? Why does a living human have rights that a living nonhuman doesn't? It must be more than life itself, because many things are alive.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-33096363267396892682015-09-06T18:47:06.609-07:002015-09-06T18:47:06.609-07:00Chris P-
Take your idea, Not every right has to b...Chris P-<br /><br />Take your idea, <i>Not every right has to benefit society as a whole. Rights ultimately protect individual people, though they should be applied equally.</i><br /><br />Are people are equal under the law or not? Do rights exist for all or not?<br /><br />You have to back up a step to answer the question, “What is the purpose of a right?”<br />Rights are afforded to all. To all. To serve and benefit society as a whole. Indeed.<br />This is why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, after much deliberation and active pushing for it – to limit government power and to limit potential abuse of citizens by the gov’t. So rights serve <i>all</i> people.<br /><br /><i>We have thought because we have life. But our lives are important because we have thought. That's why killing plants is okay and killing people isn't. So I put thought first, and use it to justify the right to life.</i> - you say.<br /><br />Our lives are important not because we have freedom of thought, but because we exist (life). See, you’ve elevated thoughts above being. You’re exalting freedom of thought over the fundamental right to be born, to breathe air, to exist outside of a womb. We can only have liberty if we first have life. No liberty of thought without Life first. For thoughts to have or give meaning, there first must be “being” to even apprehend or imagine thoughts. <br /><br /><i>Let me be clear: My basic premise is that each person has a mind that is free, important, and distinct. Each person is equally important because our importance comes from <b>the manner in which we exist</b>, and no one exists "more" than another. </i> - you say.<br /><br />Not the manner, but the <i>fact</i> that we exist. Human dignity. Fundamental rights. These are not given by “thought” or “freedom of thought”. <br /><br /><i>My answer consists of the ideas I had upon pondering her question for a little while. It doesn't have a particular historical basis or belong to a particular philosophical tradition.</i> - you say.<br /><br />But you’ll need a reference at some point, because your philosophy is one of “freedom of thought leads us to self-determination”. So what does that look like in the way rights are voted upon or declared? <br /><br />Thoughts shift, does that make it okay if a judiciary has a “group thought shift” and declares that you’re not a person if you’re not 6’2”, with curly dark hair and hazel eyes? Fundamental rights need protection under the law, right?<br /><br />What do you make of shifting criteria used by judiciaries to hand down such powerful decisions such as RvW? Are these kinds of laws just or unjust, as they infringe on rights of those without the microphone?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23775807488794286742015-09-06T17:31:30.883-07:002015-09-06T17:31:30.883-07:00How do you logically tie this to the notion that t...<i>How do you logically tie this to the notion that this benefits society?</i><br /><br />Not every right has to benefit society as a whole. Rights ultimately protect individual people, though they should be applied equally. Society is not an end in itself.<br /><br /><i>Do we need to “respect the mind” of serial killers and allow them “agency over their actions”, simply because they have thoughts</i><br /><br />If people are equal, rights must only exist to the extent that they don't interfere with those of others. If someone commits murder they are depriving the other person of life, which I said must be protected.<br /><br /><i>What about the fact that we have thoughts because we first have life? We can’t think if we’re dead. Is life not natural? Not a natural right?</i><br /><br />We have thought because we have life. But our lives are important because we have thought. That's why killing plants is okay and killing people isn't. So I put thought first, and use it to justify the right to life.<br /><br /><i>How does the right to life as a “true natural right” (or unalienable right, as per the Decl. of Ind.) not come before the right to freedom of conscience, in your philosophy?</i><br /><br />The right to freedom of conscience necessitates a right to life, if we're to agree that all people are equally worthy. I may be using one right to derive the other, but the result is that they are equal and inseparable.<br /><br /><i>And how does this all tie together with your basic premise that “thoughts are the only true freedom”?</i><br /><br />I use "true" in the sense that the right to think as one wishes exists independent of the state. Can you say that for most "natural rights?" How natural are they if a simple court decision or constitutional amendment could strip them away? The government could declare that I be killed, and it would happen. But the government could not declare that I think circles are square, because my mind is my own.<br /><br />Let me be clear: My basic premise is that each person has a mind that is free, important, and distinct. Each person is equally important because our importance comes from the manner in which we exist, and no one exists "more" than another. I believe that to respect these facts is to guarantee the right to self-determination, which encompasses rights to life, property, etc. Nothing in nature guarantees these rights, but if we want to respect the basic facts about the human person then we are obligated to protect these rights for all people.<br /><br />Nothing about my argument guarantees good results, when the rubber meets the road. But it does disallow many bad results, and I believe it ultimately respects the human person, which should be the goal of human rights.<br /><br />I don't want to get sidetracked with the doctor comment, but I don't see a logical difference between requiring that the seriously ill receive treatment and requiring that children be fed, clothed, etc.<br /><br />And lastly: I'm not convinced that I'm correct about this! Leila asked me what I thought a right was, and where they came from. This isn't something I'd spent much time thinking about before. My answer consists of the ideas I had upon pondering her question for a little while. It doesn't have a particular historical basis or belong to a particular philosophical tradition. It might have some great big holes in it.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55432716918989879352015-09-06T13:32:11.285-07:002015-09-06T13:32:11.285-07:00Chris P-
2) You say “freedom of thought is the on...Chris P-<br /><br />2) You say “freedom of thought is the only true natural right”, then you say, “I tend to think of rights as separate from morality.” That’s the start of your idea or your philosophy. Then you kind of wandered off the reservation of logic since you did not actually illustrate your point with your comments that followed. <br /><br />Concretely test the coherence of your opinion:<br /><br />I can have free thoughts about curing diseases and apply those thoughts to medicine. Fine, I have proved those thoughts. I have done a moral good. <br /><br />I can have free thoughts about stealing a car. If I steal the car, those actions prove those thoughts to be immoral. <br /><br />There is a need to move from thought (theory) to test in real conditions (practice). <br />Laws are just or unjust based on whether they allow or deny <i>a deeper morality to be realized</i> for the benefit of all of society- not just for an individual.<br /><br />If you’re talking about having morally neutral thoughts, that’s neither here nor there. They’re just thoughts and we don’t base laws on neutrality.<br /><br />3) <i>this is why doctors must be obligated to save the lives of even patients who cannot afford treatment</i> - you say.<br /><br />How does this take care of itself in the long run? What if no one can afford it? <br />How do you afford to treat the next person? It’s not a self-sustaining thought that goes on forever.<br /><br />And how does this all tie together with your basic premise that “thoughts are the only true freedom”? Thoughts need to be tested. <br /><br />We need to see the conclusion of the thought. We need to see what happens when the rubber meets the road.<br /><br />We see it in legislation, and we can determine whether it’s just or unjust. <br />We always eventually need to see it in practice, not just theory. <br /><br />How do you tie your belief here into the Declaration of Independence and the purposeful ordering of those rights? Or how do you tie it to the thinking of the notion of unalienable rights that go as far back as 1620 (Suarez)?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-30400596605691192162015-09-06T13:29:56.729-07:002015-09-06T13:29:56.729-07:00Chris P-
1) I believe the only true natural right...Chris P-<br /><br />1) <i>I believe the only true natural right is freedom of thought, that ultimately our minds are our own, because this is basically impossible to take away.</i><br /><br />You said this above to drive into this:<br /><br /><i>… then to respect people’s minds we must allow them agency over their bodies and actions.</i><br /><br />How do you logically tie this to the notion that this benefits society?<br /><br />Do we need to “respect the mind” of serial killers and allow them “agency over their actions”, simply because they have thoughts (which, according to you, is “the only true natural right”) and then act on them? Are all minds coherent? All thoughts correct, valid, or sound? All opinions, when not grounded, worthy of respect?<br /><br />Freedom of conscience goes only so far. At some point it has to translate concretely. It requires testing. <br /><br />Do disembodied thoughts (or the “right” to those thoughts) ground anything? <br />What about the fact that we have thoughts because we first have life? We can’t think if we’re dead. Is life not natural? Not a natural right?<br /><br />How does the right to life as a “true natural right” (or unalienable right, as per the Decl. of Ind.) not come before the right to freedom of conscience, in your philosophy? <br /><br />From where are you getting your notion of properly ordered rights? <br /><br />Your idea touches on why the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment both came into existence. But you’re not speaking to those, obviously, nor to the Declaration of Independence. What’s the reference here?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-3206559478483569072015-09-05T09:52:05.760-07:002015-09-05T09:52:05.760-07:00Leila, the abortion lobby has latched onto pretty ...Leila, the abortion lobby has latched onto pretty much the whole left side of the aisle. It's like a tumor. There's a bit of sense behind it, in that many abortion rights supporters hold their position out of compassion for women, just like liberals tend to focus on compassion in other areas. But of course this only work due to the dehumanization of the unborn child. At its best, American liberalism is about watching out for the little guy, those who can't always fend for themselves, which is consistent with opposing abortion as well.<br /><br />Rights are entitlements or freedoms granted to citizens by their government. I tend to think of rights as separate from morality. Rights can in fact be created or destroyed by the government, but we're under no obligation to agree, and we may fight one way or the other. I believe the only true natural right is freedom of thought, that ultimately our minds are our own, because this is basically impossible to take away.<br /><br />Now, certainly, we can make good arguments on why certain rights might be acceptable and others not. It's not random. Here's my attempt at justifying basic human rights:<br /><br />I think that from the natural right to freedom of thought, we can derive the right to self-determination--if people's minds are free (which they are), important (certainly we have the power to reason and to perceive the world around us), and distinct from those of others (obviously true), then to respect people's minds we must allow them agency over their bodies and actions. This encompasses a right to life (the mind must continue), and a right to act as we wish (without compromising the ability of others to do the same, because there's no logical way to declare some people worthy of more rights than others). Furthermore, the right to life must exist realistically--therefore, no one should be placed in a situation where they cannot sustain themself. This means there must be freedom <i>from</i> as well as freedom <i>to.</i> This is why neglect of a child is unacceptable, this is why doctors must be obligated to save the lives of even patients who cannot afford treatment, this is why clean water must be made available, and so on. To enforce these sorts of rights, we must rely on social organization (at a lower scale) or government (at a higher scale).<br /><br />Beyond this, society should be free to determine additional rights as long as they don't interfere with the basics. Of course, a society can take the basics away, too. But it shouldn't.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83187952048716060812015-09-05T06:44:53.027-07:002015-09-05T06:44:53.027-07:00I know we ultimately agree. It's not a requir...I know we ultimately agree. It's not a requirement for everyone, to be sure. Looking at the numbers gives the best overall picture, though. I think it’s always an important conversation to have, anyway. Too many 20-something's seem lost in terms of their education decisions.<br /><br />Just a few more thoughts to share and then I’ll bow out: <br /><br />I see Prager’s fallacy in that article is in asking, basically, “Do you know what university this person or that attended?” And then he says, “No, you don’t. And it doesn’t matter.” <br /><br />Of course it matters not to <i>me</i>. But it sure matters to the prospective employers. I say that as someone who knows a person who was, for a time, part of the interview panel/team responsible for interviewing prospective employees for both entry level and high level positions within a privately held company. <br /><br />It matters what school a person attended. It matters to get your foot in the door, even if it doesn’t keep you in the room. It matters as far as the simple logic goes: that the (more) prestigious school’s name on the resume will afford a person more and better job opportunity and placement, and therefore will probably mean better pay and chance at career success right off the bat. It matters especially if the person is applying for a technical position with nothing more than a clown college or useless degree on her resume.<br /><br />When we think of Ivy League careers we have to think law, medicine, and business. Those degrees from those places afford more opportunity and more chance at success. Is the cost justifiable? It depends on the ROI over a lifetime of work. That’s where we can actually look at the numbers.<br /><br />And I agree with Prager and you, that it doesn’t need to cost so much for a degree. One can attend a smaller school and get a worthy degree. Worthy=marketable. If you’re attending MIT for a geology degree that is just a very dumb decision. One doesn’t attend MIT for that. You do not want to leave the university unemployable.<br /><br />To the younger ones I know, I suggest:<br />Get yourself a degree with <i>specialized technical instruction</i>. You want to get a degree that is specialized enough to bring a highly desired skill set into the competitive job market, yet broad enough that your degree overlaps several possible job capacities in several industries. Too much specialization paints you into a corner with little job opp. Not enough specialization means you don’t possess enough focused knowledge.<br /><br />Picture a Venn diagram using numerous sets. There’s your major in the center, and you have how many overlapping circles or ellipses of opportunity within various industries intersecting your major as a logical relation? Compare several. You do not want to leave college unemployable.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63765331417040758652015-09-04T21:23:56.221-07:002015-09-04T21:23:56.221-07:00Nubby, I agree. And I know we have talked pros and...Nubby, I agree. And I know we have talked pros and cons before. I am still "pro-education" and pro-university degree and post-graduate degrees (if it's all legit and useful and truthful and helpful). But I'm not nearly as militant or insistent about it as I was ten or twenty years ago (growing up and into my young adult years, it was <i>unthinkable</i> that a college degree was not a <i>requirement for life</i> in my eyes). <br /><br />Chris, have you ever wondered about the alliance between the gay lobby and the abortion lobby? It's a sort of unholy alliance and it's weird unless you realize that they both have the same "goals" so to speak. You should check out Planned Parenthood's Facebook page and such on the day of the gay "marriage" decision by SCOTUS. You would have thought that they were a gay "marriage" organization, that's how much that sick and evil organization identifies with the gay "rights" movement.<br /><br />Speaking of, what is a "right"? I'm seriously asking. You are thoughtful, so tell me your thoughts on what a "right" is and where they come from.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com