The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #81
In depth answers:
1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show and are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.
But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "well make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.
2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."
Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.
Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'
Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.
3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).
We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."
So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"
Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.
Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "
First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.
In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):
However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.
So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.
If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.
Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.
Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.
Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.
Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.
Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"
This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.
2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.
Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.
Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?
Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?
No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.
No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.
1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show and are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.
But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "well make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.
2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the
Cause
of the problem. She says in Line 1:"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."
Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.
Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'
Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.
3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).
We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."
So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"
Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.
Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "
First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.
In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):
However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.
So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.
If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.
Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.
Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.
Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.
Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.
Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"
This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.
2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.
Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.
Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?
Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?
No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.
No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.
