Proving once again, liberals hate achievment...

Jan 2014
17,269
4,791
California
#91
The only thing you're telling anyone, is that you can't defend your own contentions and statements, so you have to come up with lame excuses for dodging, doing so.....

"A Department of Education spokesman said the process will allow all kids an opportunity without the pressure of auditioning at such a young age."
"The department says audition-based admissions were blocking underprivileged kids from getting in."
"With an enrollment of roughly 600 kids, New Voices is 52 percent white, 33 percent Hispanic, 7 percent black and 5 percent Asian, according to DOE figures."
"The new system will now reserve 52 percent of the school’s seats for kids who come from low-income families, are homeless or are English-language learners."

https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/brooklyn-performing-arts-school-drops-auditions-in-diversity-push/



"San Francisco’s Lowell High School, ranked among the best public schools in the nation, has long admitted high academic achievers to secure its elite status, a practice that has not only led to racial inequities but also could be illegal."

"For decades, parents and politicians have debated the school’s selection process, which is largely based on grade-point average and test scores, saying it has created an institution that is both a feather in the city’s cap and an embarrassment in terms of racial equity."

"There were 413 Asian American students in Lowell’s class of 2018 and eight African American students."

"But only recently have some district officials acknowledged that using grades and test scores to select students could also violate a state law that prohibits the use of academic achievement for admission to regular public schools."

“What I understand is that we probably are in violation,” said Board of Education member Mark Sanchez.
Lowell High School's competitive selection process may violate state law






"Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege,........"

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."
Liberalism - Wikipedia




Mr. Knot,

So you are repeating lines from the articles showing that liberals hate achievement because you agree with me?
 
Jan 2014
17,269
4,791
California
#92
How do you know they have no talent if they’ve had no opportunity?
Ms. Labrea,

They have to opportunity to prove their talent in an audition. Or at least that was what used to occur. Now the liberal bozos are saying "they no longer have to prove they are talented to get in."
 
Jun 2013
17,742
15,327
Here
#95
Mr. Knot,

So you are repeating lines from the articles showing that liberals hate achievement because you agree with me?
What are you SMOKIN'? As has been evidenced here, NUMEROUS TIMES, "liberals do NOT "hate achievement" as YOU contend. They support EVERYONE being able to ACHIEVE/having a shot at ACHIEVING!!

You have done NOTHING to show that to NOT be true, 200 years ago or NOW.

YOU highly contradict yourself when you support a man for POTUS who suggests elitism is bad, even as his life describes a life of elitism. He then suggests that "liberalism" is bad because "liberals" are "elites", but somehow at the same time, you're trying to say here, liberals, attack elitism? That, like so many other things coming out of our current POTUS and his supporters, makes NO SENSE as it contradicts itself.
 
Last edited:
Likes: labrea

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
12,694
14,159
Work
#96
I'm willing to accept a person will never get to the level of a Mozart without starting with a huge capacity for greatness. But if we're not talking a once-per-century type talent, or even a one-in-a-million kind of talent, but rather the one-in-ten-thousand types who make up the majority of pro artists at any given time, I think the majority of people could get to that level with enough effort.
It's a very interesting idea.

On the one hand, you have people like Kallie, who are just fine believing that rich families just happen to naturally be more talented. They are just more likely to have "true talent" that they were born with, and that's just the curse they have to live with. The fact that they went to good schools, lived in good neighborhoods, never had to worry about crime or food insecurity or anything like that, is just a product of their parents genetic superiority that they inherited (and is the reason for their higher incidence of "true talent"). Taking into consideration the fact that they had every advantage in their education, and also had time and resources to practice music or ballet or whatever as an extracurricular pursuit for hours every day, is not fair. Because they had natural talent.

Then on the other hand there is the conception that talent is cultivated and is built on top of a very general predilection or physical attribute that makes some skills easier to acquire than others. I tend to be more in this camp. I don't think it was just the luck of the draw that dozens of Rennaisance masters all were born and rose to be masters in their fields within a 100 year period in Florence, Italy. I think there was something about the situation of Florence, economically, culturally, and socially that fostered such an explosion of artistic acheivement. This extends to the Rennaisance in general, and the titanic discoveries in mathematics, philosophy, astronomy. It's just too much of a coincidence that so many titanic achievements and masters could have just happened to be born in roughly the same time period, often in the same city. Something had to have fostered their genius to have been given an expression. I blame culture.
 
Jun 2013
17,742
15,327
Here
#97
FOSTERING ACHIEVEMENT, including, the highest achievers (elites)

It Takes a Village
It Takes a Village - Wikipedia

There are reasonable (reasonable meaning, to have a reason) limitations, upper and lower for equal opportunity, which is NOT to be confused with mediocrity for mediocrities sake or the removal of any motivation. People do not stop becoming millionaires and billionaires because the "will of the people" says beyond a certain income, it is absurd to assume that one "needs" that income to be comfortable, (with reasonable exceptions, of course, such as someone who may have massive medical bills simply to maintain), thus a higher rate of tax is imposed. The contention has been no one will be motivated to do anything unless they can become massively and gluttonously wealthy by doing so, is NOT proven as many people do things with NO return for their deeds, much less a gazillion dollar return. Many do not even take their freely given deeds as a "donation in kind" for their itemized tax returns to reduce their taxable income.

The greedy and gluttonous have gotten onto a PR campaign to spin the idea that greed and gluttony really are not, greed and gluttony (the same with adultery, being a sin), but are indications that someone who makes massive amounts of money is by proxy, a good person. Meanwhile in the real world where people with functioning brains dwell, wealth is not in of itself a sign of any sort of blanket sort of character, but it is a sign that someone is somehow wealthy. How they gained that wealth and what they do with it, further defines the wealthy individual's (not all the wealthy) character as it is related to wealth. There are some incredibly generous, kind, humble and good wealthy people and some terribly Scroogelike (pre-his visits by the spirits) selfish, narcissistic, greedy and gluttonous wealthy people. The same with the poor and all people in between, but for the gluttonous part.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
#98
It's a very interesting idea.

On the one hand, you have people like Kallie, who are just fine believing that rich families just happen to naturally be more talented. They are just more likely to have "true talent" that they were born with, and that's just the curse they have to live with. The fact that they went to good schools, lived in good neighborhoods, never had to worry about crime or food insecurity or anything like that, is just a product of their parents genetic superiority that they inherited (and is the reason for their higher incidence of "true talent"). Taking into consideration the fact that they had every advantage in their education, and also had time and resources to practice music or ballet or whatever as an extracurricular pursuit for hours every day, is not fair. Because they had natural talent.

Then on the other hand there is the conception that talent is cultivated and is built on top of a very general predilection or physical attribute that makes some skills easier to acquire than others. I tend to be more in this camp. I don't think it was just the luck of the draw that dozens of Rennaisance masters all were born and rose to be masters in their fields within a 100 year period in Florence, Italy. I think there was something about the situation of Florence, economically, culturally, and socially that fostered such an explosion of artistic acheivement. This extends to the Rennaisance in general, and the titanic discoveries in mathematics, philosophy, astronomy. It's just too much of a coincidence that so many titanic achievements and masters could have just happened to be born in roughly the same time period, often in the same city. Something had to have fostered their genius to have been given an expression. I blame culture.
Yes, I think culture is by far the more important reason, and Renaissance Florence is a good example.... or Elizabethan London, for another example, or Periclean Greece.

The Axial Age is another one. For thousands of years, humankind had made precious little intellectual progress. The world had produces countless millions of people, but no philosophers worth the name, only a smattering of literature that stands up to modern scrutiny, and only very intellectually primitive religious teachers. Then within about a generation of each other, you've got the birth of Zoroaster (founder of Zoroastrianism), Cyrus the Great (the Messiah, according to the Bible), Laozi (founder of Taoism), Kung Fuzi (founder of Confucianism), Siddartha (founder of Buddhism), Thales of Miletus (the first of a three-generation-long line of great Greek philosophers), Aeschylus (first in a line of great Greek playwrights), Pythagoras (a founding figure of geometry and mathematics), the writers of the Upanishads, and a few key Hebrew prophets (e.g., Ezekiel and Jeremiah). Arguably, as much intellectual progress was made in about 100 years than had been made in the preceding 3000 years combined. You can't explain that with genetics. The people of the Axial Age, as a whole, were effectively genetically identical to the people of prior and subsequent ages, taken as a whole. But there was something culturally brewing that made it so a much higher percent of those with great potential arose to greatness.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
12,694
14,159
Work
#99
Yes, I think culture is by far the more important reason, and Renaissance Florence is a good example.... or Elizabethan London, for another example, or Periclean Greece.

The Axial Age is another one. For thousands of years, humankind had made precious little intellectual progress. The world had produces countless millions of people, but no philosophers worth the name, only a smattering of literature that stands up to modern scrutiny, and only very intellectually primitive religious teachers. Then within about a generation of each other, you've got the birth of Zoroaster (founder of Zoroastrianism), Cyrus the Great (the Messiah, according to the Bible), Laozi (founder of Taoism), Kung Fuzi (founder of Confucianism), Siddartha (founder of Buddhism), Thales of Miletus (the first of a three-generation-long line of great Greek philosophers), Aeschylus (first in a line of great Greek playwrights), Pythagoras (a founding figure of geometry and mathematics), the writers of the Upanishads, and a few key Hebrew prophets (e.g., Ezekiel and Jeremiah). Arguably, as much intellectual progress was made in about 100 years than had been made in the preceding 3000 years combined. You can't explain that with genetics. The people of the Axial Age, as a whole, were effectively genetically identical to the people of prior and subsequent ages, taken as a whole. But there was something culturally brewing that made it so a much higher percent of those with great potential arose to greatness.
The Axial Age is a fascinating example, but also one which suggests there was some kind of climatic golden period during which people around the world experienced a agricultural abundance enough that it spawned an early age of trade, and afforded societies something they had never experienced before. Liesure time for a large portion of people.

Another factor that I find kind of interesting is the Flynn Effect. Developed countries that have a long history of IQ testing show that over time, everyone's scores have risen. Tests get updated periodically and the average score is reset to 100, but people who take older tests using the previous scoring tend to do better than they do on the more current test. Also, it seems that since 1990 this effect has been in decline; that is to say that people who take the newest test tend to do slightly worse when they take a test created in the 1980s. Granted, intelligence tests have problems of their own, but surely just measuring within the set of IQ test takers, this represents something social. It just seems too absurd to consider that people across the developed world were spontaneously being endowed with more natural intelligence, and now seem to be born with less.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
8,483
9,330
U.S.A.
Flame Baiting
Mr. Stan,

Why do you keep covering up that you are a blatant racist? I mean, understandable, because you are a proven liar.

True, I said "black" in quoting the racist liberals who wrote the article. You, being closet racist, and dishonest debater attributed that to me.

Doesn't negate the fact I said "gang banger" and you said that all blacks are gang bangers.
You're full of shit.
Your username is a well known racist, and so are you.