But really- it comes down to giving back. That’s where it gets sticky. We can say that education benefits the entire population- but 1. Not directly. 2. Not equally (some benefit more from others being educated than others do..) and 3. It’s pretty abstract. I mean- people being happy also benefits society- but I don’t see the state buying me a sports car or a gaming rig any time soon. What is important there- is that society has an expectation that there be amore tangible return on investments in education than helping someone else buy a boat and charge them to use the skills society helped pay for- without a discount.

Even if we reduced the amount the school ends up with- there’s a relatively minuscule return per student- and we get into strange questions. A science program generally needs more funding and gadgets than an accounting program- but the students generally pay the same tuition don’t they? Many schools DO have attendance fees for certain programs however. Where they don’t- students are subsidizing other students- which I can’t see how anyone against “free” education can be upset at such a subsidy by those who don’t directly benefit to those who do.

I’d certainly say a public school is different- or should be. Public schools exist to provide education at a higher level to the public. They should not look to compete with private schools directly- but just in how to provide the best quality education they can while remaining accessible. Rising tuition is now and has been a problem for half a century give or take. They do seem to be rolling in the dough- and by you or I’s standards they have a lot. I won’t bore you (for once..) when we break down the numbers, they aren’t really that well off- and quality education takes quality educators... so there’s a balance between how to maintain a staff and administrative culture and benefits to attract quality educators and administrators.

No need to derail. The world isn’t made of absolutes. We can spend hours, days, weeks, years educating and discussing and exploring, then diving up the finer nuances of every scenario and every example. Or if we speak in short sentences which are comprehensible and suit the attention span of most people we can be somewhat imprecise but still convey the necessary information that is relevant to most people: “wear a mask to help stop Covid spreading.”

lol. I appreciate your kind words. I also enjoy and appreciate the games and memes you post, as well as your comments.

Lmao. Well said.

* this isn’t serious. With much of the talk lately, I felt left out because I don’t have any conspiracy theories or extreme views to toot about on the present situation of the world- so I figured I’d give it a go as it seeks many others are enjoying adding ridiculousness to the current climate.

Now.... I don’t want to sound sarcastic or anything. Good attention to detail, solid use of critical thinking- I would say, most definitely, the two guys in suits and one in a top hat, are not contractors who showed up for a day of manual labor building a giant statue. Supervisors, donors, but they are certainly styled in the manner of politicians of the day- so I will back your deduction that they aren’t workers, and say that there is a good chance they are politicians or at least people of social/financial importance.

We took my grandma, she had schizophrenia and some other issues- we took her for an in clinic observation and treatment- and she looked around and said: “you can’t leave me with these people, they’re crazy!” Well... she’d told me when I picked her up that the windows had talked to her and my grandpa was going to die if she didn’t call him. Too bad he’s already dead. But- the point there is- who’s crazy? It’s all just about the reality we perceive right? We aren’t privy to the internal dialog of others so even if they don’t seem educated on a subject- that doesn’t mean they didn’t put thought into it, the fact is that some people’s thoughts just can do more with less than other people’s thoughts using all they have.

I guess that’s where the crux of of lies. I mean- our own perception of others opinions and their validity hinges on our perceptions of reality right? And if we perceived reality the same way they did- we would t have different opinions would we? We can agree on all the facts of a matter but have different opinions about it- and that just kinda shows that the default is that we are dealing with cognitive and perceptive differences- and as such we are just as suspect as they are.

But... I suppose the question is that- how ignorant does a person have to be before we no longer count them as being able to form their own opinion? Would that qualify as a mental deficiency- like... can we or should we even hold a person accountable for what they say or how they act if they lack the cognitive ability to form an opinion?

Some things are wired in to humans on some level that we can see them across groups- even isolated ones- as common human behaviors. We have certain mechanisms for grouping and identifying people for example- and those often express themselves in people’s opinions.

An opinion doesn’t require one to be even objectively right. You could be of the opinion that sticking a hand in molten lava is safe and people are just easily frightened and fooled by “big lava.” That IS an opinion- a foolish one at the least in my mind- but it is an opinion. People who have never read the constitution, the Koran- they have opinion on those things... are they parroting others? Maybe not.

We could define parroting as simply repeating words without understanding the meaning- but that’s a VERY narrow line of people- most people understand the meaning of the words they say unless it’s something like you get protestors to join you chanting against the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide. Then they’re probably just parroting... but where do we separate understanding words or understanding concepts from having an opinion?

When do we declare an opinion your own? If a guy in the subway says: “This store sucks- I always have to stand in line...” and you think: “I hate lines. I’ve shopped there. There was a line. He’s right..” and you say “yeah! That store does suck...” are you parroting? You certainly thought about the issue- just maybe not in detail.

So then- what is the difference- at what point do we get to look at someone and say that the amount of effort they put in to consideration and self exploration is sufficient to be called thought and not just parroting?

If we define to parrot as to mindlessly repeat... even that is a touch less clear than we’d think. My example of 20 years of pontification was hyperbole. Most people don’t take that time and effort to come to every single opinion do they? So then- there IS some tolerance there isn’t there? I’ve rarely debated a person who was holistically and completely informed on a complex issue and every facet surrounding it and effected or contributing to it- or as much so as one could be without being omnipotent anyway. So most people form opinions without extensive research and consideration.

Regardless though- the point is moot. If you come to the same conclusion in opinion as another person after 20 years of deep thought.... once you were exposed to that opinion, regardless of how you came to agree- we can’t say that you came upon it yourself.

But at the end of the day- you are in large part a reflection of your environment in one way or another, and so are your thoughts. Even original thought is rarely spurred internally but is inspired by some external force that causes consideration.

It’s far more complex of course- everything from genetics to conditions in the womb to every single moment that you take in any sensory information or your body takes in chemicals like nutrients etc- everything from the mothers blood to the temperature and even possibly phenomenon like radiation and other waves in nature- are a variable in your development that influence the shape of your brain- so actually proving the theory concretely with “identical” humans would be essentially impossible as we know it.

It’s sitting g hairs really- most modern models of the human brain hold that it doesn’t work like a computer- “memories” and the experiences we use to make decisions aren’t software, information located in some readable form- the information is coded into the actual structure of the brain. Every name or face or day at the beach you remember is a collection of tissue structures that when stimulated produce what you perceive as a a memory. The same is true of personality and such. These tissues structure are interlinked so that a process requiring one “cluster” often recruits conceptually unrelated but anatomically related pathways which can change the end result of the process. A complex machine- but a machine that in theory, were we able to quantify the variables of existence and have the storage and processing power to assign them values and relations- would be almost as predictable in input and output as a lightbulb.

We can at the same time say everyone is special and no one is. Everyone is important and insignificant. So forth and so on. It all doesn’t really matter. To most people- they will be the, of not one of the most significant people in their own lives. Why we are alive or why the universe is however it is and so forth- good questions. Not worth getting too caught up over. We are. Like it or not. So I mean- whatever will help a person enjoy their life or find their grounding I guess- so long as they aren’t causing harm.

But- it’s also inaccurate or senseless in context to say we are all made of Star dust. Before it was stardust it was just... matter. After it was star dust it was dog poop or glitter or a dinosaurs intestines or whatever. The “stardust” thing is romantic- but skips all the steps before and after, and as you point out- the coals on a BBQ are made of the same stuff. So were ancient lifeforms and now we distill their remains to make fursuits and packaging for erectile disfunction pills. That’s less romantic.