human values

[RainbowUnicorn]

Rainbow Unicorn, that was a different stream of thought than what I expected.   What happens to your thoughts if they have nothing to do with power and politics, but are just ideas about how we should treat one another and the qualities of a good life?   While there is a political component to our consideration, when we are speaking of liberty the discussion is more about how we live together without government.  It is when we don't have such agreement that people demand strong government and liberty is threatened.  


 
It is especially the idea that it is possible to improve humans and human society that interests me most.

i am not going to read the quote you added so it does not distract me from answering your direct question.

i am very much in the treat others as you wish to be treated and treat all people with respect and common courtosey until they assert their desire to disengage with polite discoarse at which point i tend to conserve my energy for those or things that are positive.
Mybent on politics is simply the collective association of group dynamics in a collective community setting that i ellude to as a working example of the common level of hypocrisy people tend to normalise in general day to day life.

"Liberty" is an interesting word,  i think it is very americanised.
you will need to give me an idea of what you define as liberty t allow me a better grasp on what you mean by it.
"Freedom" & "Liberty" are most often thrown together not long followed by an expected right to carry loaded weapons around in common society whch i am somewhat opposed to generally speaking.

so my impingement on an americans liberty is my opposition to them wanting to carry loaded weapons around in civilian areas allowing society to be a-wash with weapons and have no governing body to manage that.
queue "constitutional right"
thus is your constitutional right beholden to your freedom and liberty and Visa Versa ?
and abortion and sexual consent/orientation/same sex marriage etc... ?

---

Rainbow Unicorn, that was a different stream of thought than what I expected.   What happens to your thoughts if they have nothing to do with power and politics, but are just ideas about how we should treat one another and the qualities of a good life?   While there is a political component to our consideration, when we are speaking of liberty the discussion is more about how we live together without government.  It is when we don't have such agreement that people demand strong government and liberty is threatened.  

http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20...nt_(1).htm

Three important concepts are at the core of Enlightenment thinking:

Methods of natural science should be used to examine and understand life in all its many aspects. Enlightenment thinkers referred to this as reason, often called ration. This became the by-word of Enlightenment thinkers. Everything was to be examined in the "cold light of reason," in which nothing was to be accepted on faith alone.

The laws of human society could be discovered by application of the scientific method, much like the laws of nature. The end result was the birth of "social science." (Psychology, History, Sociology, etc. are members of the Social Sciences).

Progress. Enlightenment thinkers believed that it was possible to improve humans and human society. This was in marked contrast to Medieval thinking in which human beings were considered corrupt, sinful, and of little value. The influence of humanism is readily apparent. However, Humanist thinkers had looked backward to the ancients and classical sources rather than forward to rational thinking based on logic and reason. The humanists believed it might be possible to match the accomplishments of the ancient scholars, but did not expect to surpass them.

 
It is especially the idea that it is possible to improve humans and human society that interests me most.

now to answer your infered question related to the definition of Enlightenment thinking.
i beleive humans can be improved and think people and society have a duty to the species to seek to evolve.
methods are science and religion(also philosophy as i define philosophy as a science)
sceince for scientific process and rational
religion for etherial process to assert concepts of understanding where science has no ability to quantify the reported phenomina in true scientific terms.
although i am not defined as a specified religion i accept that a majority of the species think religion is a quantifiable truth...
where as i challenge that truth just as equally as i would challenge a law of physics to theorise concepts of fact around the human mind in its experiential priocessess.

i think humans have the potential to evolve substantially past the current average person on the street;
evolutionarily as a facet of civilisational group/social paradigms and intellectualy


We have a need to be educating children to become scientists.
a scientist is the basic level of achievement that we should expect the modern day schooling system to produce.
however as you will be well aware there is a vast number who wish to deny not only girls from education completely and or seriousely limit their ability to develop but also those who would seek to do the same to the entire species.
religous extremeists are those who seek to down grade human intellectual norms and standards.
NOTE religous extremists often call themselves religous conservatives.
they are effectively in express terms one in the same most of the time.
i.e asserting your will over a young girl forcing her not to have an abortion so she misses out on schooling and
additionally forcing her to live with another male child creating a mentally abusive ntellectually regresive environment where the baby the mother and the father are all dragged back into a stereo typed hand t mouth thespianised puppet show just to satisfy the egos of adultswho report to have the childs interests at heart(yet quite obviousely their ego is most important to them).

and... i.e assertions like arguements of reason to explain that co-ed schooling doesnt work is a prime example of direct attempted retardation of intellectual development pretendng to quantify an unbridgable level of human capability and development in defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child that can socially co-exist with the opposite sex in an educational format/community.

[Carol]

Rainbow Unicorn said:

i am very much in the treat others as you wish to be treated and treat all people with respect and common courtosey until they assert their desire to disengage with polite discourse at which point i tend to conserve my energy for those or things that are positive.

Now that is what I had in mind.  Who wants to be insulted and disrespected?  It is pretty simply isn't it, but some people just don't get it.  

My bent on politics is simply the collective association of group dynamics in a collective community setting that i ellude to as a working example of the common level of hypocrisy people tend to normalise in general day to day life. 

Instead of politics, think culture.  There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people.  Only with culture is there liberty.
If there is a culture of good manners, people are much more likely to be self-controlled and well mannered.  A problem comes up in forums and society at large, when people do not realize the importance of good manners, and they get careless and start engaging in putdowns and disrespect.  Just today a gentleman in the workshop I facilitate, said he regretted calling a good friend a liar because that ended their friendship.  He thought buddies talk to each other that way.  His friend, on the other hand, does not want to engage with someone who is disrespectful.  Trashing someone is being trashy, it pulls people down. This is not just between two people, but it is a matter of culture.  We can go to the bar and engage with drunks, or we go to meetings where intelligent people work together to get things done.  Which cultural group do you want to be in?  

"Liberty" is an interesting word,  i think it is very americanised.
you will need to give me an idea of what you define as liberty t allow me a better grasp on what you mean by it.
"Freedom" & "Liberty" are most often thrown together not long followed by an expected right to carry loaded weapons around in common society whch i am somewhat opposed to generally speaking.

I am so glad you asked!  We do not allow little children freedom because they do not have good judgment.  We make policies and laws based on age, assuming at that a child or adult who reaches that age will have a degree of good judgment.  Our technological society has lost that wisdom, and I think this has everything to do with education for technology that left moral training to the church.  A huge mistake!!!
Our liberty did not mean the freedom to do anything we please because obviously, that would be immoral.  Self-government begins with governing oneself, and our liberty depends on how well we govern ourselves.  In the past, we taught all children that we must defend our liberty by obeying the law, respecting our elders and having good manners.  Good manners included things like replying to letters, and when our representatives did this, they could actually represent us.  I don't care why they sometimes ignore our letters.  They can not represent us if we do not have communication with them.  Hum, it is hard to avoid politics isn't it?  
Closer to home, despite what some people think, we do have the right to draw boundaries and refuse to engage with people who insist on crossing those boundaries.  That is part of our liberty.  If someone wants to engage with us, his/her liberty to do so, depends on his/her self-control and ability behave a person we want to engage with.  No one has the freedom to disrespect or insult me because I am not going to give someone that liberty.

so my impingement on an americans liberty is my opposition to them wanting to carry loaded weapons around in civilian areas allowing society to be a-wash with weapons and have no governing body to manage that.
queue "constitutional right"

You have given a perfect example of why we lose our liberty. It is when people are immoral and lack good self-governing that we demand authority over the people. Most forums are authoritarian with a few moderators to search for problems and punish people. This is done arbitrarily with no trial and no defense, and it is justified by the bad behavior of the people who use the forums.

I am not ignoring the rest of you post, but I am stopping here because long posts are less apt to be read. I look forward to addressing the rest of what you said when that can be a separate post.

[Carol]

Rainbow Unicorn said:  now to answer your infered question related to the definition of Enlightenment thinking.
i beleive humans can be improved and think people and society have a duty to the species to seek to evolve.
methods are science and religion(also philosophy as i define philosophy as a science)
sceince for scientific process and rational

religion for etherial process to assert concepts of understanding where science has no ability to quantify the reported phenomina in true scientific terms.

Well yeah, I think that is a good life purpose.

However, I would not divide things as you do.  If you are interested in this subject, you might enjoy reading the "Science of Good and Evil".   As came up in the thread about language, we share a lot in common with other animals.  I am so glad this science is continuing and hopefully, it will change our notions of about why we do bad things.  When we understand the cause of something, then we can prevent the problem.  Unfortunately religion is standing in the way of this development.  


]quote]although i am not defined as a specified religion i accept that a majority of the species think religion is a quantifiable truth...
where as i challenge that truth just as equally as i would challenge a law of physics to theorise concepts of fact around the human mind in its experiential priocessess. [/qoute] 

It would be great if the majority thought the study of religion meant the study of all religions and prereligious ideas and they realized God spoke to everyone, it is just that different people in different environments, and at different times in history, understand this knowledge differently.       

i think humans have the potential to evolve substantially past the current average person on the street;
evolutionarily as a facet of civilisational group/social paradigms and intellectualy

Can you be more specific?  What would an improvement be?   I can think of one basic one.  If we all agreed to these rules, there would be an immediate and huge improvement.

1.  We respect everyone.
2.  We protect the dignity of others.
3.  We do everything with integrity.

We have a need to be educating children to become scientists.
a scientist is the basic level of achievement that we should expect the modern day schooling system to produce.

Why?  

however as you will be well aware there is a vast number who wish to deny not only girls from education completely and or seriousely limit their ability to develop but also those who would seek to do the same to the entire species.
religous extremeists are those who seek to down grade human intellectual norms and standards.
NOTE religous extremists often call themselves religous conservatives.
they are effectively in express terms one in the same most of the time.
i.e asserting your will over a young girl forcing her not to have an abortion so she misses out on schooling and
additionally forcing her to live with another male child creating a mentally abusive ntellectually regresive environment where the baby the mother and the father are all dragged back into a stereo typed hand t mouth thespianised puppet show just to satisfy the egos of adultswho report to have the childs interests at heart(yet quite obviousely their ego is most important to them).

 
I think we have plenty to discuss without finding fault with others.  Finding fault with others is a huge distraction that does not advance discussion of human values.  Can you reframe what you said in positive terms, such as, equal opportunity is important and it begins with having physical and emotional safety, and then education for developing individual interest and talents, and good citizenship.   

and... i.e assertions like arguements of reason to explain that co-ed schooling doesnt work is a prime example of direct attempted retardation of intellectual development pretendng to quantify an unbridgable level of human capability and development in defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child that can socially co-exist with the opposite sex in an educational format/community. 

Separating girls and boys has some advantages, but so does mixing them.  

What do you mean by this?

 defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child 

[RainbowUnicorn]

You have given a perfect example of why we lose our liberty. It is when people are immoral and lack good self-governing that we demand authority over the people. Most forums are authoritarian with a few moderators to search for problems and punish people. This is done arbitrarily with no trial and no defense, and it is justified by the bad behavior of the people who use the forums.

just wanted to mention, i love this comment you have made.

---

However, I would not divide things as you do...  Unfortunately religion is standing in the way of this development. 

just to clarify, i beleive we should have secular schools and religion should not be taught to children as a form of schooling like bible class or religous studys until the child is around 14 years old.
no different to teaching a child about sex.
if you think it absurd to teach a small child about sex, then it is no less absurd to teach a small child about religion.
the only difference is the adult trying to assert its own ego on to the child as a form of slavery to make the child echo back to the adult what makes the adult feel safe and comfortable...
and that is not the childs job. that is the adults job.


Carol replied...

It would be great if the majority thought the study of religion meant the study of all religions and prereligious ideas and they realized God spoke to everyone, it is just that different people in different environments, and at different times in history, understand this knowledge differently.  

    indeed. the insular construct of mind control to feed the ego of the self dictates that only 1 religion should be taught, because power and control over people and their minds is the primary goal rather than enlightenment and free will.


RainbowUnicorn wrote...

i think humans have the potential to evolve substantially past the current average person on the street;
evolutionarily as a facet of civilisational group/social paradigms and intellectualy

Carol Replied...
Can you be more specific?  What would an improvement be?   I can think of one basic one.  If we all agreed to these rules, there would be an immediate and huge improvement.
1.  We respect everyone.
2.  We protect the dignity of others.
3.  We do everything with integrity.


......this is somewhat 2 fold. like trying to explain a computer system to a person of the 17th century is much the same as trying to explain the potential evolution of hmans to the average 21st century person.
there are quite obviousely people and groups who are capable of understanding such things while the majority have no ability to cognate such ideas and a smaller majority are venomousely opposed to the idea of evolution(most conservative religions)
people can climbinto their fantasy mind disengagement mode and become a spectator and muse words sentences and even scenes, however to actually think realise and quantify is a completely different level of awareness and intellect.(yes i am ignoring many peoples fragile egos at this point)

RainbowUnicorn wrote...

We have a need to be educating children to become scientists.
a scientist is the basic level of achievement that we should expect the modern day schooling system to produce.

Carol replied
Why?  

you could equally apply the same "why" to asking about a caveman "why" anything...
the purpose in the seeking is as much the definition of the self in intellectual awareness.
failure to educate the child is a desire to have the child less aware than yourself and thus asserting slavery on tot he child rather than free-will.
conversly soo most conservative religions define free-will more a-tune to ignorance which is part of their brainwashing of little children for their own personal ego satisfaction and power and control(aka slavery).

specifically in reply to your why... if you do not evolve you become extinct.
current education systems are still formed around the 16th century intellect and assert to abandon children as teens to define them as sexually availible for predation.
-note to "some" readers: age of consent, legal marriage age, dowreys etc etc.(feel free to fall on the word culture in some religous sacrificial manner of proxy anti fruedian epitaph)

technalogically speaking society has crippled the mind of people around the age of 12 to 14 years old.
the intellectual gap between 12 and 20 is terribly disfiguring to the intelligent mind.
developmentally, intellectually & socially society at large is failing people terribly here and has been for several generations.
by the time people get to university entranceage they could already hold the knowledge level of a 3 year degree at university, however all the pathetic animalistic egos that manipulate and play puppet with this age group of society refuse to stop holding them back and asserting their lust and ego over.
oh well...
much is the frailty of the flesh to the addict

RainbowUnicorn
however as you will be well aware there is a vast number who wish to deny not only girls from education completely and or seriousely limit their ability to develop but also those who would seek to do the same to the entire species.
religous extremeists are those who seek to down grade human intellectual norms and standards.
NOTE religous extremists often call themselves religous conservatives.
they are effectively in express terms one in the same most of the time.
i.e asserting your will over a young girl forcing her not to have an abortion so she misses out on schooling and
additionally forcing her to live with another male child creating a mentally abusive ntellectually regresive environment where the baby the mother and the father are all dragged back into a stereo typed hand t mouth thespianised puppet show just to satisfy the egos of adultswho report to have the childs interests at heart(yet quite obviousely their ego is most important to them).

Carol Replied...
I think we have plenty to discuss without finding fault with others.  Finding fault with others is a huge distraction that does not advance discussion of human values.  Can you reframe what you said in positive terms, such as, equal opportunity is important and it begins with having physical and emotional safety, and then education for developing individual interest and talents, and good citizenship.   

i like what your saying.
extremely positive. excellent for developing minds, children and teens.(and excellent ethos for general discoarse)
however... where as i am addressing causation and asserting an opinion to resolution.
should you wish me to make a cheer leading speach i think we might be in a different thread.
lest i mention "fault" be not loaded as much as clinical and definiativeto the process of change by subjectivity.

RainbowUnicorn
and... i.e assertions like arguements of reason to explain that co-ed schooling doesnt work is a prime example of direct attempted retardation of intellectual development pretendng to quantify an unbridgable level of human capability and development in defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child that can socially co-exist with the opposite sex in an educational format/community. 

Carol Replied...
Separating girls and boys has some advantages, but so does mixing them.  

- as much as slavery also has some advantages. is the not-mixing done to make lazines and selfishness more acceptable to the parents and adults ?
if you wish to reply/respond to this i would ask you to define exact reasons for why seperating the genders is benificial to children in expres exclusion to the welfare and mental capacity of the adults and teachers.

Carol Replied...
What do you mean by this?

 defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child 

what do i mean by this ?
admittedly taken out of context to anyone who has not read and understood the paragraph...(im being inclusive to the skim readers)

absolutism ... much as your comment about not finding fault and asserting positive affirmational process as a doctrine of ideological premise.
much the same in labellng and identifying the parent as being incapable of raising a child properly.
once you label the parent as being incapable you remove their rights by authority of asserted need..
rather than responding to the process of the actual event of the self, in which case is the child learning.


still trying to figure out how to effectively edit the quote boxes without doing a clone copy n paste construction to the thread
appologies for the mess

[Carol]

You have given a perfect example of why we lose our liberty. It is when people are immoral and lack good self-governing that we demand authority over the people. Most forums are authoritarian with a few moderators to search for problems and punish people. This is done arbitrarily with no trial and no defense, and it is justified by the bad behavior of the people who use the forums.

just wanted to mention, i love this comment you have made.

I hope this works to distinguish my reply from your words.

---

However, I would not divide things as you do...  Unfortunately religion is standing in the way of this development. 

just to clarify, i beleive we should have secular schools and religion should not be taught to children as a form of schooling like bible class or religous studys until the child is around 14 years old.
no different to teaching a child about sex.
if you think it absurd to teach a small child about sex, then it is no less absurd to teach a small child about religion.
the only difference is the adult trying to assert its own ego on to the child as a form of slavery to make the child echo back to the adult what makes the adult feel safe and comfortable...
and that is not the childs job. that is the adults job.

For your own good, you might want to practice assuming people are acting on good intentions.  In the case of religion it is the best intention to prepare a child for a safe and successful life here and in the after world. People who believe their religion does achieve this are sincere, and do not have bad intentions.  I am assuming you are not a parent yet and that your perspective on parents wanting children to be slaves for their own ego's sake might change when we are parent.

If your prespective does not change early you may regret your failure to discipline your children when they face problems because of not having good boundaries.  Religion is one way of understanding good boundaries, but maybe not the best because of all the baggage that goes with it.  However, our huge social problem is we do not understand the importance of culture, do not have good agreements, and we are totally failing to transmit a healthy culture to our young.  

Carol replied...

It would be great if the majority thought the study of religion meant the study of all religions and prereligious ideas and they realized God spoke to everyone, it is just that different people in different environments, and at different times in history, understand this knowledge differently.  

    indeed. the insular construct of mind control to feed the ego of the self dictates that only 1 religion should be taught, because power and control over people and their minds is the primary goal rather than enlightenment and free will.

You do not seem to be writing from the perspective of a parent?  Long ago I took a adolcent pyschology class from a professor teaching from the point of view of a rebellious teenager.  I was horrified!  His point of view was not what his young students needed to know.  My teenagers taught me the error of failing to teach them good boundaries and self-discipline, and I was wanting to correct that problem, and the professor was not talking about how to correct the problem!  

Our egos can be a problem but they are not the only problem!  Raising children in an amoral society with few social agreements and destroyed natural support systems, and a media that lost all moral judgment, is a very serious problem and that is why I started this thread.   

RainbowUnicorn wrote...

i think humans have the potential to evolve substantially past the current average person on the street;
evolutionarily as a facet of civilisational group/social paradigms and intellectualy

Carol Replied...
Can you be more specific?  What would an improvement be?   I can think of one basic one.  If we all agreed to these rules, there would be an immediate and huge improvement.
1.  We respect everyone.
2.  We protect the dignity of others.
3.  We do everything with integrity.


......this is somewhat 2 fold. like trying to explain a computer system to a person of the 17th century is much the same as trying to explain the potential evolution of hmans to the average 21st century person.
there are quite obviousely people and groups who are capable of understanding such things while the majority have no ability to cognate such ideas and a smaller majority are venomousely opposed to the idea of evolution(most conservative religions)
people can climb into their fantasy mind disengagement mode and become a spectator and muse words sentences and even scenes, however to actually think realise and quantify is a completely different level of awareness and intellect.(yes i am ignoring many peoples fragile egos at this point)

The reason those 3 rules work so well is their simplisty.  What else do we need to know?  With these rules, racism is not a problem.  Not knowing each other is not a problem.  No matter where we are those are good rules, in any culture or any level of the economy.  And those rules are not about our own egos, but good relationships with all people.  

RainbowUnicorn wrote...

We have a need to be educating children to become scientists.
a scientist is the basic level of achievement that we should expect the modern day schooling system to produce.

Carol replied
Why?  

you could equally apply the same "why" to asking about a caveman "why" anything...
the purpose in the seeking is as much the definition of the self in intellectual awareness.
failure to educate the child is a desire to have the child less aware than yourself and thus asserting slavery on tot he child rather than free-will.
conversly soo most conservative religions define free-will more a-tune to ignorance which is part of their brainwashing of little children for their own personal ego satisfaction and power and control(aka slavery).

I suppose what you said may be true for some people.  It is perhaps more true for religious people who believe Satan is a deceiving us, and they do have a point.  Science without wisdom is a dangerous thing.  Thinking we are the greatest power on earth and not having good judgment or sense of reverence, and lacking the qualities of culture that make us civilized, is not a good thing.  Religion corrects some of these problems, but we agree it also is a problem.  

specifically in reply to your why... if you do not evolve you become extinct.
current education systems are still formed around the 16th century intellect and assert to abandon children as teens to define them as sexually availible for predation.
-note to "some" readers: age of consent, legal marriage age, dowreys etc etc.(feel free to fall on the word culture in some religous sacrificial manner of proxy anti fruedian epitaph)

I am not understanding what sexual education has to do with the benefits of education for science?  However, sexual and moral information are extremely important.  In fact, we might start a new thread just for this topic?  I am horrified as today very young children have been made criminals for kissing someone of the opposite sex on the playground!  And what we doing to young men who do something that today is considered inappropriate is insane!  Maybe I don't even want to go here?  My daughter works in a facility that incarcerates young men for their criminal behavior.  These are often young men who do have good boundaries and did not have good parenting, and now here the religious reaction to evil, really gets my back up.  Treating them as criminals and labeling them for the rest of their lives, restricting them from housing and employment for the rest of their lives is just wrong.  Look at our media and our flaunting of the rules, and then at how we treat young people who do not understand the rules.  

technalogically speaking society has crippled the mind of people around the age of 12 to 14 years old.
the intellectual gap between 12 and 20 is terribly disfiguring to the intelligent mind.
developmentally, intellectually & socially society at large is failing people terribly here and has been for several generations.
by the time people get to university entranceage they could already hold the knowledge level of a 3 year degree at university, however all the pathetic animalistic egos that manipulate and play puppet with this age group of society refuse to stop holding them back and asserting their lust and ego over.
oh well...
much is the frailty of the flesh to the addict

I am not sure your evaluation of this is accurate?  Again this is another subject that perhaps should have its own thread.  How do our brains develop and when are we ready to more advanced education?  In at least one Scandinavian country, the young are protected with the status of children until age 25 and I believe that is as things should be.  As early as Socrates, it was noted what a young child could learn and be expected to understand, is limited.  I am horrified by our technological society, treating young people like adult criminals.  This totally flies in the face of science.  

RainbowUnicorn
however as you will be well aware there is a vast number who wish to deny not only girls from education completely and or seriousely limit their ability to develop but also those who would seek to do the same to the entire species.
religous extremeists are those who seek to down grade human intellectual norms and standards.
NOTE religous extremists often call themselves religous conservatives.
they are effectively in express terms one in the same most of the time.
i.e asserting your will over a young girl forcing her not to have an abortion so she misses out on schooling and
additionally forcing her to live with another male child creating a mentally abusive ntellectually regresive environment where the baby the mother and the father are all dragged back into a stereo typed hand t mouth thespianised puppet show just to satisfy the egos of adults who report to have the childs interests at heart(yet quite obviousely their ego is most important to them).

Carol Replied...
I think we have plenty to discuss without finding fault with others.  Finding fault with others is a huge distraction that does not advance discussion of human values.  Can you reframe what you said in positive terms, such as, equal opportunity is important and it begins with having physical and emotional safety, and then education for developing individual interest and talents, and good citizenship?   

i like what your saying.
extremely positive. excellent for developing minds, children and teens.(and excellent ethos for general discoarse)
however... where as i am addressing causation and asserting an opinion to resolution.
should you wish me to make a cheer leading speach i think we might be in a different thread.
lest i mention "fault" be not loaded as much as clinical and definiativeto the process of change by subjectivity.

Yes, it is so hard to discuss anything without bringing in several other possible topics because it is all interrelated.  We need a board view but we also need a narrow view.  I am afraid we haven't even begun to address the question of what are good human values?  

RainbowUnicorn
and... i.e assertions like arguements of reason to explain that co-ed schooling doesnt work is a prime example of direct attempted retardation of intellectual development pretendng to quantify an unbridgable level of human capability and development in defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child that can socially co-exist with the opposite sex in an educational format/community. 

Carol Replied...
Separating girls and boys has some advantages, but so does mixing them.  

- as much as slavery also has some advantages. is the not-mixing done to make lazines and selfishness more acceptable to the parents and adults ?
if you wish to reply/respond to this i would ask you to define exact reasons for why seperating the genders is benificial to children in expres exclusion to the welfare and mental capacity of the adults and teachers.

But girls and boys learn differently and at different rates and putting them together can repress their natures, rather then separating them, and giving them the best education for their gender, at the right time for their gender.  As mentioned already, a thread about how brains develop would be appropriate, and this subject is preventing us from addressing what our values should be.  
Carol Replied...
What do you mean by this?

 defining the human parent as being incapable of rasing a child 

what do i mean by this ?
admittedly taken out of context to anyone who has not read and understood the paragraph...(im being inclusive to the skim readers)

absolutism ... much as your comment about not finding fault and asserting positive affirmational process as a doctrine of ideological premise.
much the same in labellng and identifying the parent as being incapable of raising a child properly.
once you label the parent as being incapable you remove their rights by authority of asserted need..
rather than responding to the process of the actual event of the self, in which case is the child learning.

Now I think we are near identifying a human value, but can you hone in on this?  What is the value of a parent?  What is the value of a teacher?  What are some of our human goals?

still trying to figure out how to effectively edit the quote boxes without doing a clone copy n paste construction to the thread
appologies for the mess

I totally agree! I noticed sometimes CC uses red to separate her thoughts from someone else's thoughts.  I have struggled terribly with trying to keep the words of the post I am replying to in quote boxes and my words outside of the box.  I think part of the problem is the program does not make it easy to disappear the box when we wish it would go away.  Hopefully, using different colors with help.

[C C]

I totally agree! I noticed sometimes CC uses red to separate her thoughts from someone else's thoughts.

I usually try to reserve the quote tag (or the highlighted box it creates) specifically for the person I'm replying to. I then use a red or green color to indicate an excerpt or quote from whatever interview, paper, book, article when that need arises in the course of writing a reply. There are other ways to do it, too, like changing the font or using bold slash italics. But I just find color tags to be quicker, which still leaves the bold or italics options available to emphasize any text therein.

I have struggled terribly with trying to keep the words of the post I am replying to in quote boxes and my words outside of the box.  I think part of the problem is the program does not make it easy to disappear the box when we wish it would go away.

It can be a hassle to keep the hierarchy straight of all the nested {quote} {/quote} tags in a late-stage reply post which can contain many quotes within quotes. We might initially feel that our words are safely outside a closing tag but then realize after a preview test that they are still within yet another closing {/quote} tag nested outside of the former one. Also, any accidental deletion or misplacement of a closing {/quote} tag will mess things up.

Hopefully, using different colors will help.

Yes, my choice above in what I use colored text for doesn't have to be what you employ such for. Red, green, etc can be used to make distinct your own words in a reply. I avoid blue because it could be mistaken as a link -- or more likely, obscure a real link.

[Carol]

Thank you for that explanation CC. I considered using blue instead of red, but now I am glad I didn't.

Rainbow Unicorn and I have been exchanging complex post, that makes the color system the easiest to use. I just hope no one is offended by the red.

Do you have any thoughts on human values or how they are determined?

[C C]

Thank you for that explanation CC. I considered using blue instead of red, but now I am glad I didn't. Rainbow Unicorn and I have been exchanging complex post, that makes the color system the easiest to use. I just hope no one is offended by the red.

Do you have any thoughts on human values or how they are determined?

It's curious that Shalom Schwartz's model of ten global values that are supposedly substantiated across all cultures seems to be the only one kicked around much today. Perhaps because the theory offers a measurement system [PDF]: "It presents the two major methods developed to measure the basic values, the Schwartz Value Survey and the Portrait Values Questionnaire."

EXCERPT: "Typically, people adapt their values to their life circumstances. They upgrade the importance they attribute to values they can readily attain and downgrade the importance of values whose pursuit is blocked.

"For example, people in jobs that afford freedom of choice increase the importance of self-direction values at the expense of conformity values. Upgrading attainable values and downgrading thwarted values applies to most, but not to all values.

"The reverse occurs with values that concern material well-being (power) and security. When such values are blocked, their importance increases; when they are easily attained their importance drops. For example, people who suffer economic hardship and social upheaval attribute more importance to power and security values than those who live in relative comfort and safety.

"People’s age, education, gender, and other characteristics largely determine the life circumstances to which they are exposed. These include their socialization and learning experiences, the social roles they play, the expectations and sanctions they encounter, and the abilities they develop. Thus, differences in background characteristics represent differences in the life circumstances that affect value priorities." PDF: http://www.yourmorals.org/schwartz.2006....values.pdf

---

O. Hilrich has an offering of universal human values. But as to who the devil Hilrich is... That's apparently a challenging inquiry in the Anglophone world.

~translated~ http://www.levenskwaliteit.nl/O__Hilrich...lrich.html

O. Hilrich

Publications

"From prevention to criminal law" (1996) - www.preventierecht.nl

"Quality of life, the most important thing in life" (2001) - www.levenskwaliteit.nl

"Universal Civilization" (2003) - www.universele-beschaving.nl

"Other Life" (2003) - www.mensinwereld.nl

"Wraaknemen.nl" (2004) - www.wraaknemen.nl

[Syne]

It's curious that Shalom Schwartz's model of ten global values that are supposedly substantiated across all cultures seems to be the only one kicked around much today. Perhaps because the theory offers a measurement system [PDF]: "It presents the two major methods developed to measure the basic values, the Schwartz Value Survey and the Portrait Values Questionnaire."

Moral foundation theory is a more modern formulation that was influenced, in part, by the earlier work of Schwartz.

[Carol]

Well, perhaps we need a universal language.  I can not read those links.


This came from the first link

Life itself   Common individual value, most basic universal core value.  

Happiness   Common individual value, most basic universal core value.  

Love   Common individual value and social value, most basic universal core value.  

Peace   Common individual and social value, circumstantial value.

Freedom   Common individual and social value, circumstantial value.

Safety   Common individual and social value, circumstantial value.

Intelligence   Common individual and social value, a virtual value.  

Respect   Social value of the moral standard of respect.  

Equality   Social value of the moral standard of equality.

Justice   Social value of the moral standard of justice.  

Nature   Common value, physical value.

Human health   Common individual value, physical and mental value.
 

I am not sure that is a helpful list?   However, I see "safety" and "respect" are on that list and I understand those things and very much wish we shared a good understanding of them.  Because I understand safety and respect it seems very possible to give these to each other.  I understand safety to mean physical, mental and emotional safety and believe forum rules to protect the safety of others are necessary.  

In the past, we stressed virtuous and dignity. Social Security benefits depend on age not need, to protect the dignity of elderly people who need to retire. Our social and economic positions depended on our virtues.

Where would we even begin to start a discussion on love as a universal human need?  What kind of education and laws can be based on that need?  this may be possible and may be very good, but where do we begin?  And nature?  Personally, I love nature and live very close to natural areas, however, many people chose to live in New York, and many people in India and China do not have a choice to live with nature because the populations of those countries are so large.  If we declare nature as a human value, surely the world needs population control.  That might be a very good idea?

In general, the terms used in that list are too vague to be helpful.  Like social justice- Muslims may believe this is Sharia law and is essential to the good life, and non-Muslims are horrified by such an idea, and there are areas of primitive people where our laws and Sharia laws are a bits nuts.   We might all want justice but what is it?  An eye for an eye, or forgiveness, and what is just when someone is a serial killer or a male who gets many females pregnants and walks away, never supporting his offspring in any way?  
  
How about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs?  Might we arrange life so everyone has the opportunity of fulfilling these needs?   Is there a better list? 

https://www.learning-theories.com/maslow...needs.html

MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has often been represented in a hierarchical pyramid with five levels. The four levels (lower-order needs) are considered physiological needs, while the top level of the pyramid is considered growth needs. The lower level needs must be satisfied before higher-order needs can influence behavior. The levels are as follows (see pyramid in Figure 1 below).

• Self-actualization – includes morality, creativity, problem solving, etc.
  
  
• Esteem – includes confidence, self-esteem, achievement, respect, etc.
  
  
• Belongingness – includes love, friendship, intimacy, family, etc.
  
  
• Safety – includes security of environment, employment, resources, health, property, etc.
  
  
• Physiological – includes air, food, water, sex, sleep, other factors towards homeostasis, etc.