Faith Based Social Welfare

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Dead languages and the carcasses of dead cultures to keep our society thriving.

Methinks the Duchess has missed something....perhaps, a clue.

Maybe you think that houses can survive without foundations, but generally they don't for very long. In this case latin and the cultural imprint of Rome left on our society is the foundation for every good thing that we enjoy as citizens of modern liberal republics.

[Keevan_Colton]

You want to teach latin for fucks sake yet decry art as a waste of time.

She's right, quite frankly. A person with a working knowledge of Latin can learn any of the Romance languages far more easily than otherwise. Its a key that opens many doors that way.

A dead language opens many doors...excuse me for thinking the ones in use are of infinitely more value.

You want to create useful adults to feed a machinery of commerce.

You survive in this world by making a living and providing for yourself. Seeing the number of people who can do this marginally at best, its a more pressing concern than creating utopian leftist Star Trek wonderland.

No, I just dont much like the notion of a world where you are simply an economic value in some system and nothing more.

That is all you are concerned with, I've heard you described as an ultra-facist before, but it's things like this that really bring it home.

Defining proper forms of art doesnt strike you in the least as the makings of a totaletarian facist...

Why is latin important to creating your happy little workers...or is it just you like latin?...you have your own agenda which often crops up, it's just one that makes no sense.

Latin makes understanding of legal terminology simple, it makes biology taxonomy clear, and most importantly by far, its a window to every one of the European Romance languages, which are increasingly vital in our modern global economy and an excellent first step in breaking the isolationist and insular attitudes of the common American.

LMAO

Dead languages will open you up to the world around you?

English, German and French will do you much more good and have the added advantage of being of actual practical use in the world out there.

Legal terminology and biology taxomony are niche areas to be honest, and they are mostly jargon terms. Will you advocate a good grounding in C++ and assembler for everyone so they can better understand error codes and computing jargon too?

I ask you now, why teach a dead language over creative arts?

To ram-rod creative arts through when they have little objective, quantificable benefit to our society and when such classes benefit a comparatively very tiny portion of the populace, it is greatly wasteful and unfair. You're allocating a grossly disproportionate amount of time and funds to a small, select group with dubious gain in the end.

And to call them a waste when compared to a DEAD language which will also benifit in real terms only a very tiny portion of the populace is nonsense. Who said how much time and funds I'd be allocating you little weasle?

You frankly are one of the most frightening people I have heard when it comes to any kind of social agenda.

Every thread I see you in you lash first and argue the substance later. Try just for a moment imagining someone besides Marina typing the above.

I have a great deal of difficulty envisaging most people typing that.
Then again, perhaps I give most people too much credit.

[Keevan_Colton]

Dead languages and the carcasses of dead cultures to keep our society thriving.

Methinks the Duchess has missed something....perhaps, a clue.

Maybe you think that houses can survive without foundations, but generally they don't for very long. In this case latin and the cultural imprint of Rome left on our society is the foundation for every good thing that we enjoy as citizens of modern liberal republics.

And you love to look ~2000 to 3000 years in the past forthe solution to any modern problem.

While those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those that live in it are already dead.

[Keevan_Colton]

Because that dead language has countless uses. You may be able to say some are irrelevant, but combined they justify the teaching of latin because of its wide applicability. It's an excellent subject to teach because you get a lot of value out of the time and money spent teaching it.

Except, it's almost entirely irrelevant and all the marginal benifits would be best covered for real returns in other classes.
The benifits in learning other languages...when you could simply learn those languages instead, and even there it is of limited scope only connecting at all with european languages.
In the jargon of other subjects...suprise, you'd do far better learning the jargon in the subject in context.
For the study of old documents...again, of almost total irrelevance to managing in the world.

[Keevan_Colton]

Music should be an elective in addition to required courses and taken at the additional time of the student above and beyond normal classes.

I thought music and art were a waste of time.

Will Latin be an elective too?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And logical thinking as well - memorizing facts and formulas is a useless exercise unless you can use them.

To me a classical education involves logical/rational thinking by definition, since these concepts were invented/discovered by the Greeks and Romans to begin with, and they are indeed one of the fundamental components of their outlook on the universe. To teach the classics is to teach these skills, the two are completely interlinked.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have children on the beginning end of the process join in appropriate quarters, instead of once a year? The current system can result in a full year's difference between some children in the class, and at the age of 5 or 6 a year is an enormous chunk of development. Funneling children into the system in quarters may be beneficial, allowing children to enter when they are at the appropriate stage instead of forcing them in early (and they then struggle to catch up) or forcing them to wait.

That is an excellent suggestion and perfectly applicable.

First of all, English is niether a Greek nor a Latin language. The benefits of studying the grammer of those two languages could be obtained by studying the grammar of any modern language.

And truly, I think studying modern languages would be more useful over the long haul, with Greek and Latin being an option either towards the end of high school or in college. I'd prefer to see children gaining some proficiency in languages that will allow them to better communicate with and understand other people in the world.

Oh, I certainly think that people should learn at least one language, preferably an East Asian one. We need good programmes in Chinese and Japanese from the elementary level on, certainly. But many of the European languages--the Romance languages--are in truth litle more than bastardized Latin, and the teaching of Latin, and the connections between English and Latin, in turn provide for the connections between English and those languages, and teaching students Latin so that they can grasp how all these languages are interconnected will make them much easier to learn. I believe it would not be impossible to easily learn every single Romance language--even for someone not gifted in language--if you had a firm knowledge of Latin combined with one's English skills first of all.

And what, exactly, are children of 12 or 14 supposed to get out of this? Does any child that age have the intelluctual maturity to truly understand and appreciate some of these works? Too heavy an approach will turn kids off to reading - certainly they need to be challenged, but if you set the bar too high no one will reach it.

It was expected of children of that age some time, and there is no reason to think that we have gotten dumber over the years; in fact development happens faster thanks to better nutrition these days. It was very common two hundred years ago for those sorts of works to be introduced in the immediately pre-teen years, albeit starting with the more simple ones and working one's way up to the more complex ones. Our society really babies children, and doesn't realize how much a young child can learn if that knowledge is properly presented to them. We shouldn't underestimate the ability of twelve and thirteen year olds if they have good teachers and a good teaching method to pick up altogether very vital concepts.

Is this a ridgidly assigned curriculum, or at some point are the children allowed some input into what they take?

I would lean towards a fixed number of classes per year of certain types, with a certain degree of variation in types. However, generally, the curriculum would be fixed: The goal in that is to provide everyone with a certain degree of basic knowledge sufficient so that they can immediately speciailize once they get to college instead of dragging through two years of basic and generalized classes there before they get onto the subject that they are actually going to pursue.

I have two concerns with that question. First, people are not cookies, and should not be subjected to a cookie-cutter process. Second, children need to learn decision making skills, and that should start as early as possible so they make mistakes when young enough to recover from them, and learn also how to deal with the consequences of their decisions. That requires real choices, real decisions, and real consequences. Of course, one should scale these things to something age-and-development appropriate, but it is an important skill that is sadly lacking in today's society.

I think that critical thinking skills as taught through a study of philosophy and the development of logic and rational evaluation as a method of evaluating philosophical and scientific claims are sufficient for this.

I agree with the idea that one should learn to perform mental tasks without machines - however, in higher mathmetics and science one should be allowed calculators. By that time, under your system, students would have mastered the basic grunt-work of mathmatics and should be introduced to labor-saving tools. Emphasis would be on properly structuring calculations and problem-solving skills. One would have to earn the right to use a calculator by passing the preliminary classes for the advanced work.

That's reasonable enough, though I don't see calculators being necessary until first quarter calculus at the earliest.

And why do you discard every language in Europe outside of Spanish and Portugese? Portuguese? Is German so totally useless? What about Russian?[/qoute]

Portuguese is spoke in the Americas by a large number of people, and in other parts of the world. Same with Spanish. German is perhaps to be considered because of the technical uses of the language, though mostly not the others. Russia is no longer a superpower and hardly an economic titan; though they do have good scientific research yet. I just think that we ignore the east asian languages to our national detriment, however, and that needs to be rectified immediately.

And who decides what is "proper" art? You?

Proper art is based around mathematical principles and logical forms.

Music, like language, is best learned young. I could see an argument that perhaps school is not the best forum for teaching it. But then I am biased, I admit - I taught myself to read music and play piano when I was about 6 years old.

An excellent achievement, but the fact that you taught yourself essentially proves my point I daresay.

Art is also best learned young - but perhaps your objection is to the make-work busy-work crap that passes for arts education in the public schools? (Where it still exists at all...) Basic drawing skills can be incorporated into other classes - see below for my "practical arts" contribution to your curriculum.

I think you ARE missing a large chunk of stuff -- namely practical life knowledge. I'm not sure what to call this, but it covers "manual arts" or "practical arts" or just "handy stuff to know". It would also incorporate your firearms classes.

Adult humans - that is, those who are in the 17-18 year old range - should be able to perform a variety of mundane tasks. Your firearms class covers just one task. Young adults should also know how to handle basic tools, and use them safely. They should be able to perform routine car maintenance - tire changes, check the oil, basic safety checks, know the maintenance schedules for oil changes, brake checks, and so forth - as well as be able to safely operate a car. They should be able to balance a checkbook, know when to seek professional accouting or law services and how to choose such a professional. They should know basic medical concepts, the routine medical checks adults should recieve, and warning signs of trouble. They should know basic first aid and CPR. They should know how to diaper and feed a baby - even if they don't plan to reproduce for a decade. They should know a variety of birth control methods and their usage. Adult humans should know how to perform basic cooking beyond heating a pre-prepared meal in a microwave.

And YES, this could be integrated into your curriculum. Firearms, for instance, would dovetail nicely with trigonometry. Approach it from the aspect of "and THIS is where trig meets the real world". Cooking is chemistry. The study of biology should include the study of human biology, including care and maintenance of the human body. Sewing garments includes both mathematics and reading of instructions/diagrams - and this is where drawing comes into the picture.

I guess my largest criticism is that your curiculum is too heavy on abstracts and acadmeics. Pre-adults - hell, even FULL adults - usually require a connection to the real world. NOT as make-work, or as an add-on, but a demonstration of WHY we need trig and pre-calc and foreign languages and the ability to communicate in writing. Well, there you go - teach trig AND it's application in ballistics, then take the kids to the firing range to put the knowledge into practice. Teaching basic chemistry? Teach them cooking (and the link between chemistry and biology) - and make that their lunch for a quarter. Teach them how to make soap as well as the difference between an acid and a base - I never made anything useful in chemistry, not even once - and why not? Aren't we surronded by useful chemicals? TRULY integrate the practical as well the abstract. Chemistry and algebra can combine nicely into a class on dyes - when I took a class in textile dyes in college it was alegebra we used to work out the mixing formulas to control the results, which were dependant in part on the chemical interactions between the fibers, dyes, and mordants - then make the kids use the resulting material to make clothes which they are required to wear for awhile - show them WHY they need to learn things, why this knowledge is useful. (Honestly, what we did, while somewhat tedious and intricate, was within the capability of 14 or 15 year old) While a great deal of it they will only use once, they will gain a better practical understanding of the world and a better appreciation for the processes required to make their material civilization. They will come to understand how to solve a problem, and the difficulty of putting theory into practice.

That is an excellent critique I shall admit, though I would contend that we do regular understimate the ability of children to understand the abstract. The problem is that abstract knowledge is applicable to everything--learning a single skill is just that, learning a single skill. It should be confined to some really vital things are necessary for basic success in life and equally vital things which deal with survival (for instance my inclusion of firearms safety could actually save lives, which makes me wonder why people are fighting its inclusion!).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And you love to look ~2000 to 3000 years in the past forthe solution to any modern problem.

HARDLY--it's just that the Greeks and Latins were the people who discovered how to solve problems rationally in the first place. Teaching those basics of their culture that produced such minds is critically important in our day and age so we don't forget where our knowledge came from in the first place.

While those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those that live in it are already dead.

This is not about living in history, it's about retaining a grip on the cultural values and concepts which have built western civilization.

[Broomstick]

Plus, I wouldn't bother with latin and greek. With proper instruction in English, instruction in Latin and Greek really doesn't add all that much. Languages like Spanish, German, Chinese, and Japanese are far more useful, since there is a high chance that that will help them in their professional lives once they get out.

No. Latin and Greek are the languages in which all of the foundations of our culture were laid.

They are also DEAD languages. My vote is still for the living languages. Get a child fluent while young in a second, living language and acquiring other languages later on will be much easier.

Then save artistic instruction for later on. At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time. What is the point of paying a teacher to instruct children in finger-painting?

GAH!

Finger-painting is to art as calculators are to math!

Instruction in art - how to draw realistically, how to render, how to plan a shape and create it out of clay or wood - builds hand-eye coordination, if nothing else. What next - forbid children to learn to write by hand and start them immediately on typing? I suppose you could argue it's more practical...

As I said - incorporate some of this into other disciplines.

But it is rare indeed that a professional artist or muscian takes up the task in early adulthood - the best of these folks learn when children.

As for practical skill -- the same sort of fine discrimination in pitch developed by early musical training can have very practical uses. Such as the time my ability to discern pitch enabled me to determine the tachometer on my airplane was not functioning properly - the sound of the engine wasn't proper for what the instrumentation indicated. And when I stated that, in exactly those terms, to the mechanic, his reaction was "Huh - I'll check it out. By the way, what instrument do you play?" Because that is an area where music and the "practical" overlap. On the airplanes I fly frequently I can set the engine RPM's based on the sound of the engine, accurately to within 50 rpms or better (50 rpm's being the limit of resultions of the instrumentation - but not my ears). So I caught a problem before it became expensive or resulted in an accident.

This used to be more critical when airliners were prop-planes and the multiple engines has to put into synch with each other through human skill - you do it by matching the pitch of the props and engines. That is, a muscial skill. The fine discriminations in sound music teaches is still useful for perceiving changes in engine sounds - which can apply to airplanes, trucks, boats, cars...

A LOT of engineers and mechanics have either perfect pitch or very good pitch. But you only develop that sort of ability if you are exposed early and often to music, preferably to playing music of your own. You do NOT get it from "art appreciation" classes taken as an elective in college!

A lot of proper music and proper art is based heavily on mathematics, and so teaching someone an extensive base of knowledge in practical geometry is going to set them up as well for an art or music career as any actual classes in those subjects, Gil.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

YES, music and art have a mathematical basis - BUT mathematics DOES NOT TEACH ART!!! Or music. That's the flip of saying you don't have to teach mathematics - just teach 'em perspective drawing, they'll pick up the math on their own.

And I speak as someone who has earned money - that is, have been a professional - artist and musician. I also currently work with medical researchers, meaning I need to know my science and math as well. (I was fortunate to have an extraordinarially well-rounded education) I also have a hobby where math errors can lead to genuine disasters. I think I have some basis on which to speak.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except, it's almost entirely irrelevant and all the marginal benifits would be best covered for real returns in other classes.
The benifits in learning other languages...when you could simply learn those languages instead, and even there it is of limited scope only connecting at all with european languages.
In the jargon of other subjects...suprise, you'd do far better learning the jargon in the subject in context.
For the study of old documents...again, of almost total irrelevance to managing in the world.

No, it is not. It is much harder to learn Romance languages if you don't know Latin since they're all based on Latin. Knowing Latin you can easily understand the foundations for all the Romance languages and it also provides connections between them and English, making it easier for a native English speaker to grasp them. With Latin firmly understood it would be possible to easily teach people every single Romance language; without it, learning the languages separately and out of context, they could barely struggle through one or two.

Moreover, learning Jargon "in context" is idiotic, because that just means rote memorization. Someone who is fluent in Latin can look at medical, biological classification, or legal documents and immediately understand the meanings of latin words there, which at least gives them an idea of what the subject is about even if they are completely clueless about the rest of it. Thus, when it is taught, they at least have some basic knowledge preexisting to begin with that they can use to more easily understand the subject.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Music should be an elective in addition to required courses and taken at the additional time of the student above and beyond normal classes.

I thought music and art were a waste of time.

Thank you for proving my point, since after all I specifically stated that Music would be voluntary and in addition to your normal course load, fucktard.

Will Latin be an elective too? :roll:

Of course not.

[Keevan_Colton]

And you love to look ~2000 to 3000 years in the past forthe solution to any modern problem.

HARDLY--it's just that the Greeks and Latins were the people who discovered how to solve problems rationally in the first place. Teaching those basics of their culture that produced such minds is critically important in our day and age so we don't forget where our knowledge came from in the first place.

History does not outweigh practical concerns, which is what your nonsesne with teaching latin is all about. Teach logic and reason certainly, but dont make your personal nonsensical love for latin the foundation of fucking education. Hell, make it an elective like you want to with art, that way people like you can go talk in dead languages about dead people from dead empires.

While those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those that live in it are already dead.

This is not about living in history, it's about retaining a grip on the cultural values and concepts which have built western civilization.

[/quote]

It's about pushing your favourite little part of history and making it the central part of all education so everyone gets to enjoy your hard on for the dead languages, cultures and empires.

[Keevan_Colton]

Will Latin be an elective too?

Of course not.

Why not?
It is of marginal use, of no practical value in communication and only offers the most superficial insights into the jargon of various areas. It is frankly, on an equal footing with music in terms of its value...and that is being generous to it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They are also DEAD languages. My vote is still for the living languages. Get a child fluent while young in a second, living language and acquiring other languages later on will be much easier.

But they're very vital for learning things that are useful to us, and also for making learning the Romance languages vastly easier--the later of which cannot be overstated in its usefulness.

GAH!

Finger-painting is to art as calculators are to math!

Instruction in art - how to draw realistically, how to render, how to plan a shape and create it out of clay or wood - builds hand-eye coordination, if nothing else. What next - forbid children to learn to write by hand and start them immediately on typing? I suppose you could argue it's more practical...

Oh, hand-writing is important, I'm not denying that; though typing is increasingly more important than it in our society. But basic art skills for children--in the later years of elementary school--should focus heavily on the practical and logical elements of art, those things which can be quantified about art (there are many) and can be graded and brought up to appropriate levels as necessary. Subjective areas of the arts should be ignored.

But it is rare indeed that a professional artist or muscian takes up the task in early adulthood - the best of these folks learn when children.

Yes, but most people who do good pursue those skills naturally, and frankly, encouraging most people to go into the arts is just encouraging them to be broke menial labourers for most of their lives. People who are successful in the arts are born with a certain degree of talent and art instruction, if it exists, should serve only to firm up the talent of those who have it while simultaneously proving useful in more practical fields, which means training only in the objective principles that exist in certain forms of art.

A LOT of engineers and mechanics have either perfect pitch or very good pitch. But you only develop that sort of ability if you are exposed early and often to music, preferably to playing music of your own. You do NOT get it from "art appreciation" classes taken as an elective in college!

Art appreciation in this case would be taught earlier, and would focus on proper forms of art and how to distinguish them, rather than just staring at pretty pictures--so it would develop a rational skill in critiquing quality.

YES, music and art have a mathematical basis - BUT mathematics DOES NOT TEACH ART!!! Or music. That's the flip of saying you don't have to teach mathematics - just teach 'em perspective drawing, they'll pick up the math on their own.

A lot of art is subjective. That cannot be reliably taught so it should be ignored. The basic grounding of all good forms of art is in mathematics; if people learn the basic skills the successful ones will go on to art careers through their natural talents and everyone else will be able to make the technical drawings and such that are required sometimes in scientific fields.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

History does not outweigh practical concerns, which is what your nonsesne with teaching latin is all about. Teach logic and reason certainly, but dont make your personal nonsensical love for latin the foundation of fucking education. Hell, make it an elective like you want to with art, that way people like you can go talk in dead languages about dead people from dead empires.

It is fundamental for the understanding and easy comprehension of many languages, and it is fundamental for quick instruction of the basics of at least three major fields in modern life. It is hardly irrelevant and my love for it is hardly "nonsensical"; it appears that you are the one who, in fact, has an irrational aversion to latin for some reason.

It's about pushing your favourite little part of history and making it the central part of all education so everyone gets to enjoy your hard on for the dead languages, cultures and empires.

Ah, yes, so the people are invented democracy are irrelevant to modern democratic states. Who is being irrational here, again?

[Keevan_Colton]

Moreover, learning Jargon "in context" is idiotic, because that just means rote memorization. Someone who is fluent in Latin can look at medical, biological classification, or legal documents and immediately understand the meanings of latin words there, which at least gives them an idea of what the subject is about even if they are completely clueless about the rest of it. Thus, when it is taught, they at least have some basic knowledge preexisting to begin with that they can use to more easily understand the subject.

Except, the use of latin in these things is often in a highly esoteric or unrelated meaning. Therefor without learning it in context, it still gives them no understanding, only the false impression they have some understanding...which really...is worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why not?
It is of marginal use, of no practical value in communication and only offers the most superficial insights into the jargon of various areas. It is frankly, on an equal footing with music in terms of its value...and that is being generous to it.

Insights are not superficial. They provide, in this case, a critical key to understanding the meaning of the often complex phraseology of certain fields of science and also of law. Beyond that it is the foundation from which many living languages can be learned.

Your aversion to latin is frankly irrational, bizarre, and somewhat insane, seeming to hate it for absolutely no reason, and being unable to acknowledge the vast practical uses that it has.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except, the use of latin in these things is often in a highly esoteric or unrelated meaning. Therefor without learning it in context, it still gives them no understanding, only the false impression they have some understanding...which really...is worse.

No, it is not. It is perfectly in context--if you understand latin. You are walking proof of my point. You almost certainly have an ignorance of latin to make the claims that you do, and with it probably comes an ignorance in important fields that could bring you a great deal of success in life. Or in otherwords, you're an idiot and you're attacking something that could be beneficial to you because you don't like being revealed as an idiot.

[Keevan_Colton]

Insights are not superficial. They provide, in this case, a critical key to understanding the meaning of the often complex phraseology of certain fields of science and also of law. Beyond that it is the foundation from which many living languages can be learned.

You want to teach a dead language on the grounds it will make learning living languages easier and will help you understand jargon of a given field. The reason I put insight in italics is that these barely qualify as insights. Without an understanding of a term in context the term is totally meaningless.

Protons and atoms for example, if you simply knew the root meanings for the names they would be totally misleading.

Your aversion to latin is frankly irrational, bizarre, and somewhat insane, seeming to hate it for absolutely no reason, and being unable to acknowledge the vast practical uses that it has.

It's practical use is virtually nil. Any modern language is of far more use than Latin will ever be for the simple fact it can allow communication.
Your hard-on for latin is even more irrational bizzare and insane, but, when it comes to such things I know you would never fail to achieve.

[Mayabird]

There's quite a big difference between "arts appreciation" and actual musical training. I've never been too fond of most of what I call the visual arts (arts excepting music) but music is an entirely different field. Good musicians do have to go through a lot of practice and work and training AND THEY STILL DO. Paintings and those kinds of arts seem to have lost people who still have some sort of rigor in their work, but musicians have a LOT of rigor. I know; I've done a hell of a lot of playing and practicing on my clarinet and on the saxophone during my jazz days.

Granted, there are a lot of talentless hacks in music, but its not as inherent in music as it is in other arts. In the ones you decry (painting for instance) the talentless hacks have taken over and are the mainstream of the "intellectuals" and mover and shaker types of the artform. Not so with music. Pop "artists" who can't sing are quickly forgotten, and they do not represent the real intellectual basis of the musical arts.

There's a reason why you hear a lot about kids going to band camp and not drawing camp or sculpting camp or anything else of that nature.

[Keevan_Colton]

Except, the use of latin in these things is often in a highly esoteric or unrelated meaning. Therefor without learning it in context, it still gives them no understanding, only the false impression they have some understanding...which really...is worse.

No, it is not. It is perfectly in context--if you understand latin. You are walking proof of my point. You almost certainly have an ignorance of latin to make the claims that you do, and with it probably comes an ignorance in important fields that could bring you a great deal of success in life. Or in otherwords, you're an idiot and you're attacking something that could be beneficial to you because you don't like being revealed as an idiot.

Bullshit you silly bint. The fact is we name things in science using latin and then leave the bloody name even when we discover that they are no longer appropriate.

Just take atoms for example.

And, dont even pretend the legal meanings of words have little relation to the ordinary meaning of them because we all know that is exactly the reason for the problem with legalese in the first place.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You want to teach a dead language on the grounds it will make learning living languages easier and will help you understand jargon of a given field. The reason I put insight in italics is that these barely qualify as insights. Without an understanding of a term in context the term is totally meaningless.

We already said hard science would be taught.

It's practical use is virtually nil. Any modern language is of far more use than Latin will ever be for the simple fact it can allow communication.
Your hard-on for latin is even more irrational bizzare and insane, but, when it comes to such things I know you would never fail to achieve.

Because there are plenty of useful European languages, Spanish, French, etc., which are very closely related, yet we need an East Asian language.

As I see it she proposes to nail down the East Asian language and promote Latin as a bedrock for the selection of any one of several Romance languages by the student for further study later due to the fact that it is impractical to both teach all of them and dangerous to single one out at the exclusion of the others.

I'm still not sold on the idea entirely, but I do respect the reasoning. (For example I think Mandarin or Japanese with Spanish would be sufficient).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You want to teach a dead language on the grounds it will make learning living languages easier and will help you understand jargon of a given field. The reason I put insight in italics is that these barely qualify as insights. Without an understanding of a term in context the term is totally meaningless.

Protons and atoms for example, if you simply knew the root meanings for the names they would be totally misleading.

A questionable assertion at best (not just root meanings are relevant but also how to translate the word), and anyway the fields I brought up were classification, medicine, and law.

[quote
It's practical use is virtually nil. Any modern language is of far more use than Latin will ever be for the simple fact it can allow communication.[/quote]

No it is not, because in addition to the critical fundamental knowledge in the fields I have repeatedly mentioned, Latin allows you to easily understand and learn up to six or more languages still in use throughout the world by hundreds of millons of people. Learning Latin is much easier than learning six languages, and yet can make learning those languages very easy in turn, saving vast amounts of time for the average person, particularly English speakers, since our own language relies heavily enough on Latin that it can be used to interconnect with the Romance languages, Latin serving as a bridge.

Your hard-on for latin is even more irrational bizzare and insane, but, when it comes to such things I know you would never fail to achieve.

Nothing like irrelevant slander to cover the paucity of one's argument, is there, eh?

[SirNitram]

As someone who does know Latin, it's practical use hovers around zero. No one speaks in it, so that's useless. The vaunted ease of earning other languages is.. Largely replaced by teaching one people are actually using. So nix that. The idea that it somehow helps in law or science is utterly ridiculous.

Latin was a fun language to learn, and I have enjoyed viewing those trying to modernize it, but Marina, you're letting your pet crusades obscure any sense of logic in this argument.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bullshit you silly bint. The fact is we name things in science using latin and then leave the bloody name even when we discover that they are no longer appropriate.

Just take atoms for example.

Actually the philosophical conception of an atom is not all that different from what an atom actually is and what it does, even though the science behind it is very different.

And, dont even pretend the legal meanings of words have little relation to the ordinary meaning of them because we all know that is exactly the reason for the problem with legalese in the first place.

You're simply dead wrong here. Legal words come through very nicely from latin into their literal meanings in the modern sense. flagrante delicto, for example, is blatantly obvious when translated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's quite a big difference between "arts appreciation" and actual musical training. I've never been too fond of most of what I call the visual arts (arts excepting music) but music is an entirely different field. Good musicians do have to go through a lot of practice and work and training AND THEY STILL DO. Paintings and those kinds of arts seem to have lost people who still have some sort of rigor in their work, but musicians have a LOT of rigor. I know; I've done a hell of a lot of playing and practicing on my clarinet and on the saxophone during my jazz days.

Granted, there are a lot of talentless hacks in music, but its not as inherent in music as it is in other arts. In the ones you decry (painting for instance) the talentless hacks have taken over and are the mainstream of the "intellectuals" and mover and shaker types of the artform. Not so with music. Pop "artists" who can't sing are quickly forgotten, and they do not represent the real intellectual basis of the musical arts.

There's a reason why you hear a lot about kids going to band camp and not drawing camp or sculpting camp or anything else of that nature.

Still, music is a skill that should not be taught except as an elective in addition to one's preexisting course burden. I am not against funding it in that sense, mind you, but I think that only people who are motivated to take it up in addition to their normal course load should apply themselves to it. There's no point in requiring it.