INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: garmonbozia on December 11, 2008, 07:57:46 PM
-
While visiting my parents a few weeks ago, I learned something about the teacher I had back in first and second grades. (Back in the late 1970's, that is. Remember that bad teacher rant I had shortly after I joined I2 a year and a half ago?)
My parents both taught at that school at the same time I was attending. (Mother taught kindergarten and Dad taught science.) The principal had been their band director when they were in high school some years before that. (That's where my parents met, in their high school band.) So, my parents had the inside track on the school's faculty politics.
Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other.
Fast-forward to a dozen years later, to when I'm college. I'm majoring in engineering. I'm taking a Calculus II mid-term and having a horrible time with it, and then I have a flashback. A stunned, silent flashback, mind you, but still it comes to show you the negative effect. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like if I hadn't been stuck there with that asshole at such a young and vulnerable age. Maybe I'd be a successful engineer now instead of a government drone.
As for the old private school. It's been reduced greatly in size. Its campus has been sold off. One of the old buildings, originally a hospital, is now offices and restaurants. The building where Dipshit held class is now a Montessouri school. Every sign of hell-on-earth is gone. Last I heard, the principal teaches a dozen students at his house, and calls that his school, but still... good riddance.
Mind you, I don't waste my time thinking about this shit. It's just that finding out that bit of info, serves as explanation, but I had to have a moment of renewed anger at how the situation could have so easily been avoided.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
-
One of my worst teachers died a couple of years ago. :evillaugh:
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
-
Wow. How come you didn't take her out during the school year? Would the school not transfer your daughter? I heard you can't attend another school if you are already enrolled in the other so they have to transfer you.
Did you file a complaint against the school or take it to court?
-
Wow. How come you didn't take her out during the school year? Would the school not transfer your daughter? I heard you can't attend another school if you are already enrolled in the other so they have to transfer you.
Did you file a complaint against the school or take it to court?
It was a few weeks away from the end of the year and the soonest meeting we could get with the people who needed to attend was after the school year ended. I told the people in the meeting what had happened, but we did not go to court because it would have been my daughter's word against the teacher's word and my daughter would not have made a good witness since she is autistic and most people could not understand her speech at that age.
-
It probably would have ended up on the news anyway in your area if you took further action. I wonder if people can request something to not go on the news. Like if they filed a lawsuit, can they say they do not want it to be reported on the news because they don't want the whole city to know their business.
-
It probably would have ended up on the news anyway in your area if you took further action. I wonder if people can request something to not go on the news. Like if they filed a lawsuit, can they say they do not want it to be reported on the news because they don't want the whole city to know their business.
It would go on the news but her daughter would not be named. Still not very desirable.
-
That 5 year old boy who was voted out of kindergarten, they said his name. :o
-
That was cowardly. :grrr:
-
That 5 year old boy who was voted out of kindergarten, they said his name. :o
Only because his parents decided to go public.
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Not sure. If anything goes badly wrong in my life then I can become Mr Loser - and get away with it. No one wants to teach my subject in schools.
-
No-one wants to teach Mediaeval German and theoretical philosophy, well almost no-one. :(
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Not sure. If anything goes badly wrong in my life then I can become Mr Loser - and get away with it. No one wants to teach my subject in schools.
What subject?
I think that there's nothing wrong with being a teacher, just with using the position to abuse children.
If you become a teacher, then you won't humiliate students in front of each other like garmonbozia's teacher did or physically abuse students like my daughter's special education teacher did, so you won't become a Mr. Loser.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Not sure. If anything goes badly wrong in my life then I can become Mr Loser - and get away with it. No one wants to teach my subject in schools.
What subject?
I think that there's nothing wrong with being a teacher, just with using the position to abuse children.
If you become a teacher, then you won't humiliate students in front of each other like garmonbozia's teacher did or physically abuse students like my daughter's special education teacher did, so you won't become a Mr. Loser.
Same subject as Mr. Loser - Maths. Though I might get to teach A-level or GCSE politics too.
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
I've heard that a lot of teachers only ended up in that position because they failed everything else at university and teaching has the lowest requirements. Therefore they hate themselves and they hate their job and take it out on the kids.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
I know. We pointed out that our daughter did not lie, but going to court would have been very difficult for her and the teacher almost definitely would still have gotten away with it. Sometimes I wonder whether we did the right thing not to pursue that course of action, but I think that is a big part of the reason my daughter is attending an expensive private school for autistic children rather than the public school with more ignorant people who are incapable of handling her. That special education teacher knew next to nothing about autistic children and her experience was from the Juvenile Justice system. She did pursue a little training after we got our daughter away from her, so I hope she did not abuse any more autistic children. I did warn the principal and other parents of autistic children who dealt with her to keep a close watch on her.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
I know. We pointed out that our daughter did not lie, but going to court would have been very difficult for her and the teacher almost definitely would still have gotten away with it. Sometimes I wonder whether we did the right thing not to pursue that course of action, but I think that is a big part of the reason my daughter is attending an expensive private school for autistic children rather than the public school with more ignorant people who are incapable of handling her. That special education teacher knew next to nothing about autistic children and her experience was from the Juvenile Justice system. She did pursue a little training after we got our daughter away from her, so I hope she did not abuse any more autistic children. I did warn the principal and other parents of autistic children who dealt with her to keep a close watch on her.
Yeah, I think at the end of the day you really have to pick your battles and focus on the one important thing, what is right for your child. And that includes making sure their parent(s) are too stressed out fighting long and painful battles that might end up going nowhere. I would be nice to be able to protect everyone elses kids from these monsters, but never at the expense of your own.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
I've heard that a lot of teachers only ended up in that position because they failed everything else at university and teaching has the lowest requirements. Therefore they hate themselves and they hate their job and take it out on the kids.
Sadly, I think that theory is quite correct.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
I've heard that a lot of teachers only ended up in that position because they failed everything else at university and teaching has the lowest requirements. Therefore they hate themselves and they hate their job and take it out on the kids.
Sadly, I think that theory is quite correct.
Its correct in some cases - though a few of my old teachers had very good degrees. I am sure that I am going to graduate with a good degree - teaching I would be doing because its easy. Especially to be a maths teacher.
-
i had a blast from the past the other day. i met an old student of mine (she was 10-11 when i taught her), who had severe behavioural problems. she recognised me, and was really enthusiastic about talking to me, which my ex-students always seem to be.
she'd been kicked out of home and was living rough, or sleeping on the floor of various friends. (she's 18 now). anyway, i chatted to her for a bit, and bought her breakfast as she had no money.
it unsettled me a little, though - i wondered if i was being taken for a ride. sometimes, i can be too trusting. typical aspie, i s'pose. :-\
-
I don't see that buying breakfast could do much harm, even if she was just in it for the free food.
-
true.
thanks, pyraxis.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
I know. We pointed out that our daughter did not lie, but going to court would have been very difficult for her and the teacher almost definitely would still have gotten away with it. Sometimes I wonder whether we did the right thing not to pursue that course of action, but I think that is a big part of the reason my daughter is attending an expensive private school for autistic children rather than the public school with more ignorant people who are incapable of handling her. That special education teacher knew next to nothing about autistic children and her experience was from the Juvenile Justice system. She did pursue a little training after we got our daughter away from her, so I hope she did not abuse any more autistic children. I did warn the principal and other parents of autistic children who dealt with her to keep a close watch on her.
I wonder how you are affording it? Financial aid, scholarship, or your family helps pay for it?
-
I wonder how you are affording it? Financial aid, scholarship, or your family helps pay for it?
We could not have afforded it. The school district is paying the whole bill for the school including transportation from our home to the school and back because it's in her IEP that this school is what she needs.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
I've heard that a lot of teachers only ended up in that position because they failed everything else at university and teaching has the lowest requirements. Therefore they hate themselves and they hate their job and take it out on the kids.
Sadly, I think that theory is quite correct.
Not all some like working with kids. Also in CT you have to have a B or better average and get a Masters degree within 5 years of starting and then there is the extra tests. Not to say there are some bitter nasty stupid one who should quit out there
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
-
i had a blast from the past the other day. i met an old student of mine (she was 10-11 when i taught her), who had severe behavioural problems. she recognised me, and was really enthusiastic about talking to me, which my ex-students always seem to be.
she'd been kicked out of home and was living rough, or sleeping on the floor of various friends. (she's 18 now). anyway, i chatted to her for a bit, and bought her breakfast as she had no money.
it unsettled me a little, though - i wondered if i was being taken for a ride. sometimes, i can be too trusting. typical aspie, i s'pose. :-\
Vivi - my old teachers would do well more than that for me - if anything they owe my a drink!
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
That teacher is a fucking nazi. Sick in the head.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
I know. We pointed out that our daughter did not lie, but going to court would have been very difficult for her and the teacher almost definitely would still have gotten away with it. Sometimes I wonder whether we did the right thing not to pursue that course of action, but I think that is a big part of the reason my daughter is attending an expensive private school for autistic children rather than the public school with more ignorant people who are incapable of handling her. That special education teacher knew next to nothing about autistic children and her experience was from the Juvenile Justice system. She did pursue a little training after we got our daughter away from her, so I hope she did not abuse any more autistic children. I did warn the principal and other parents of autistic children who dealt with her to keep a close watch on her.
At my daughters old school they got out of the fact that she wouldn't lie by constantly going on about her "perception of situations". I told the autism support team (team? it was one lady!) that I was not happy about this at all but she still went ahead and wrote the report that way just because she took a dislike to me. I still have to deal with her now and be nice >:(
I found that the autism support team were there to support the school and not my daughter.
-
That teacher should not have been teaching anyone.
My daughter had a bad teacher when she was in second grade, too. She put soap in her mouth and she put her hands around my daughter's neck and squeezed until my daughter couldn't breathe.
W.T.F.?!?!?! :o
It gets worse. This woman is still a teacher at the same school where she abused my daughter. It was my daughter's word against the word of a special education teacher, and of course she denied doing any of it. My daughter told me at school that "Mrs. C put her hands on my neck," and she had marks on her neck. When we got home I had her show me with a rag doll how it happened and she demonstrated. I went to school with her for the rest of the year after it happened and then we were able to get my daughter away from that school after the school year ended.
Messed up. When I was in high school a teacher dragged me by the back of my shirt collar and tie to the point where I couldn't breath, just because I walked away from him when he called after me after an incident between me and some other student. Fucking arsehole.
When it comes to the teachers word against and a young autistic student, they fail to realise that autistic children don't have the same creativity as other children when it comes to making up stories about what the teacher may or may not have done. We always pointed that out when it came to situations like that with our kids.
I know. We pointed out that our daughter did not lie, but going to court would have been very difficult for her and the teacher almost definitely would still have gotten away with it. Sometimes I wonder whether we did the right thing not to pursue that course of action, but I think that is a big part of the reason my daughter is attending an expensive private school for autistic children rather than the public school with more ignorant people who are incapable of handling her. That special education teacher knew next to nothing about autistic children and her experience was from the Juvenile Justice system. She did pursue a little training after we got our daughter away from her, so I hope she did not abuse any more autistic children. I did warn the principal and other parents of autistic children who dealt with her to keep a close watch on her.
At my daughters old school they got out of the fact that she wouldn't lie by constantly going on about her "perception of situations". I told the autism support team (team? it was one lady!) that I was not happy about this at all but she still went ahead and wrote the report that way just because she took a dislike to me. I still have to deal with her now and be nice >:(
I found that the autism support team were there to support the school and not my daughter.
Was it actually on her IEP? Because if it was, you could consider not signing it unless it was changed.
I hear you with the having to deal with teachers and be nice to them. I actually hemmed the special education teacher's daughter's prom dress, but of course that was before the teacher choked my daughter.
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
I've heard that a lot of teachers only ended up in that position because they failed everything else at university and teaching has the lowest requirements. Therefore they hate themselves and they hate their job and take it out on the kids.
Sadly, I think that theory is quite correct.
Not all some like working with kids. Also in CT you have to have a B or better average and get a Masters degree within 5 years of starting and then there is the extra tests. Not to say there are some bitter nasty stupid one who should quit out there
No, not all teachers are like that. You have your average ones and you also have your handful of really good ones.
-
i think it's really sad that you've all had such bad experiences. in my experience, having worked with hundreds of teachers, the case is more that there are a few really awful ones, the majority are good, and a substantial minority are superb.
or perhaps it's different in the UK.
-
I dunno, I guess in the bad teacher category I include actively bad teachers and inactively bad teachers who just don't give a fuck.
And yes, it is sad, considering that these teachers are helping shape the youth of today into adults and parents who have a low opinion of teachers. I'm sure it doesn't make it any easier for you.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
They will kick you out of the party if they read this. Fascist. 8)
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
-
:laugh: That's such a teacher style comment
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Why? He's 100% right. The dumb ones are usually not interested in learning either.
-
:laugh: That's such a teacher style comment
just as well i was one for 20+ years then.
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Why? He's 100% right. The dumb ones are usually not interested in learning either.
shows how little you know about teaching.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Depends which school I am thinking of teaching in. In order to bring a school up having some pass as opposed to none passing is a good start - starting with the weaker kids is never going to succeed. Of course having the brighter kids succeed means that the dimmer ones have a better chance too.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Why? He's 100% right. The dumb ones are usually not interested in learning either.
True - but its more often than not the parents fault. As I can't drag them back to school though there is a big limit as to what can be done about it. Especially as a secondary school teacher when most of the gap has totally opened. Reallly sorting out this mess is something that the primary school teachers should be working on. Ideally I would expect my students to come in at least being able to read and write.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Why? He's 100% right. The dumb ones are usually not interested in learning either.
True - but its more often than not the parents fault. As I can't drag them back to school though there is a big limit as to what can be done about it. Especially as a secondary school teacher when most of the gap has totally opened. Reallly sorting out this mess is something that the primary school teachers should be working on. Ideally I would expect my students to come in at least being able to read and write.
I could read and write at 3. My parents begged that I should be allowed to start school earlier but all they did was to let me go 2 years in kindergarten(!) and then offer me to start school directly at 2nd class.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Depends which school I am thinking of teaching in. In order to bring a school up having some pass as opposed to none passing is a good start - starting with the weaker kids is never going to succeed. Of course having the brighter kids succeed means that the dimmer ones have a better chance too.
i re-iterate: you know very little about teaching, then.
so many people think they know about teaching, cos they have experience of some teachers, but to be a *good* teacher is more than standing in front of a gang of kids and telling them things. if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Why? He's 100% right. The dumb ones are usually not interested in learning either.
True - but its more often than not the parents fault. As I can't drag them back to school though there is a big limit as to what can be done about it. Especially as a secondary school teacher when most of the gap has totally opened. Reallly sorting out this mess is something that the primary school teachers should be working on. Ideally I would expect my students to come in at least being able to read and write.
I could read and write at 3. My parents begged that I should be allowed to start school earlier but all they did was to let me go 2 years in kindergarten(!) and then offer me to start school directly at 2nd class.
Exactly - the brighter kids get screwed over whilst the dimmer kids are allowed to catch up. Unless of course mummy and daddy have a lot of money to buy a private education - then the dimmer ones just get extra tuition but not at the expense of the rest of the class.
-
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
Why is this? Shouldn't they all be treated equal?
Teaching the brighter kids means the whole class learns. Teaching the dimmer kids means that the ones who actually have any potential get left behind. Its better to have some succeed than to have none succeed.
er, don't make any plans for becoming a teacher, hadron, if you really think this.
Depends which school I am thinking of teaching in. In order to bring a school up having some pass as opposed to none passing is a good start - starting with the weaker kids is never going to succeed. Of course having the brighter kids succeed means that the dimmer ones have a better chance too.
i re-iterate: you know very little about teaching, then.
Not at all - you just know little about my political objectives. My aim as a teacher would be primarily to get people from poorer backgrounds into top universities and then careers and frankly some kids have no chance. Asides if I were teaching Maths with a first class degree chances are I would be teaching the top students in the school anyway for most of the time.
so many people think they know about teaching, cos they have experience of some teachers, but to be a *good* teacher is more than standing in front of a gang of kids and telling them things.
Agreed - I never said that I would do just that, really you are attempting to put words in my mouth here. In fact I have this row on a regular basis with my dept, apparently according to one of my lecturers we are learning how to prove merely by watching him write a few on the board every lecture. Lets say my photocopier has been my best friend of late.
Though admittedly if a teacher could stand up at the front of the class and tell the class correct stuff in clear English, then they would be better than many teachers I have had.
if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments :)
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework. Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments :)
how many? hadron, you're reverting to "i'm a sprog and i know everything" territory again. take it from me (with 20+ years experience of hundreds of teachers), you really *don't* know, in this case.
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework. Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...
again, you should see things from "the chalk face", as it's called.
-
if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
And you'd know this, how? Face it, you're a spazz, still in your teens, have no kids or teaching experience, and you take the opinions of a middle-aged nazi with a preference for young girls seriously.
Grow the fuck up.
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments :)
how many? hadron, you're reverting to "i'm a sprog and i know everything" territory again. take it from me (with 20+ years experience of hundreds of teachers), you really *don't* know, in this case.
Most of my old teachers were in their fifties too - and I could find 10 people who pretty much agree with me, with more experience than yourself. Not that I believe in argument from authority of course...
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework. Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...
again, you should see things from "the chalk face", as it's called.
You mean the resource website for teachers who dont know / cant be bothered to write their own lesson plans?
http://www.chalkface.com/products/Maths/
-
if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
And you'd know this, how?
I have had the joys of meeting many of these people...
Face it, you're a spazz,
All the girls I pulled this term might disagree with you here. You see I try not to flail around too often in self-righteous anger...
still in your teens,
Being young is a bad thing now - do I detect a hint of jealousy here.
have no kids or teaching experience,
The latter isn't true - I have worked in a school before, and been paid for it. As for kids - I hope not.
and you take the opinions of a middle-aged nazi with a preference for young girls seriously.
I try to judge ideas by their merits as opposed who said them. I suggest you learn to do the same. As for Lit (I assume you are refering to him) - he backed me up, not the other way around here.
Grow the fuck up.
Whatever Harry...
-
if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
And you'd know this, how?
I have had the joys of meeting many of these people...
Face it, you're a spazz,
All the girls I pulled this term might disagree with you here. You see I try not to flail around too often in self-righteous anger...
:LMAO:
Who's angry? I'm trying not to laugh.
still in your teens,
Being young is a bad thing now - do I detect a hint of jealousy here.
It's about your lack of experience in what you're offering opinions on. Being young in itself is not a bad thing.
have no kids or teaching experience,
The latter isn't true - I have worked in a school before, and been paid for it. As for kids - I hope not.
Your replies tell me otherwise, re actual experience. How much did you get for the babysitting?
and you take the opinions of a middle-aged nazi with a preference for young girls seriously.
I try to judge ideas by their merits as opposed who said them. I suggest you learn to do the same. As for Lit (I assume you are refering to him) - he backed me up, not the other way around here.
Poor judgment from you, then. Or do you prefer to blame it on your youthful inexperience?
Grow the fuck up.
Whatever Harry...
The sooner the better. In the meantime you might want to listen to those with actual teaching experience. Or, barring that, any kind of experience.
-
if it were that easy, then there wouldn't be all the complaints about crap teachers, would there?
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
And you'd know this, how?
I have had the joys of meeting many of these people...
Face it, you're a spazz,
All the girls I pulled this term might disagree with you here. You see I try not to flail around too often in self-righteous anger...
:LMAO:
Who's angry? I'm trying not to laugh.
Right ... so ... convinced.... Try not to wheeze when forcing it, would hate to see the effects if you tried it.
still in your teens,
Being young is a bad thing now - do I detect a hint of jealousy here.
It's about your lack of experience in what you're offering opinions on. Being young in itself is not a bad thing.
have no kids or teaching experience,
The latter isn't true - I have worked in a school before, and been paid for it. As for kids - I hope not.
Your replies tell me otherwise, re actual experience. How much did you get for the babysitting?
Says the great master educator. As for it being babysitting - I don't know many who would pay such a rate.
and you take the opinions of a middle-aged nazi with a preference for young girls seriously.
I try to judge ideas by their merits as opposed who said them. I suggest you learn to do the same. As for Lit (I assume you are refering to him) - he backed me up, not the other way around here.
Poor judgment from you, then. Or do you prefer to blame it on your youthful inexperience?
Says Lord Almighty from the high heavens. Or maybe not - who are you to judge me?
Grow the fuck up.
Whatever Harry...
The sooner the better. In the meantime you might want to listen to those with actual teaching experience. Or, barring that, any kind of experience.
Best not listen to you then...
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments :)
how many? hadron, you're reverting to "i'm a sprog and i know everything" territory again. take it from me (with 20+ years experience of hundreds of teachers), you really *don't* know, in this case.
Most of my old teachers were in their fifties too
er, you think i'm in my 50s? if that's the level of attention you pay to things, then the rest of your comments are worth jack shit.
- and I could find 10 people who pretty much agree with me, with more experience than yourself.
ten? well done - when you can talk about hundreds, i'll start listening. ::)
Not that I believe in argument from authority of course...
you'll learn to listen to people, one day.
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework. Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...
again, you should see things from "the chalk face", as it's called.
You mean the resource website for teachers who dont know / cant be bothered to write their own lesson plans?
http://www.chalkface.com/products/Maths/
no, i mean what teachers call actually working in classrooms. again, i refer to your lack of experience and knowledge.
you can argue all you like, hadron, but it doesn't detract from the fact that - as has been pointed out on here several times, by several people - you're using an extrapolation of minimal experience to argue against people who know what they're talking about.
i dare say you really do believe you're right, and not just arguing to save face, and to avoid admitting that others know more than you - been there, done that. but, quite frankly, it's not worth engaging in debate with you if either is the case.
i thought we'd been through all this before, and you realised you didn't *have* to prove you have a brain. but obviously not. shame.
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
-
Hadron owns the Moomintrolls. :hahaha:
-
/shrugs.
fine - if he needs to score the points so desperately, he's welcome to them, with my blessings.
-
hadron, i really would give up if i were you. more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.
I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments :)
how many? hadron, you're reverting to "i'm a sprog and i know everything" territory again. take it from me (with 20+ years experience of hundreds of teachers), you really *don't* know, in this case.
Most of my old teachers were in their fifties too
er, you think i'm in my 50s? if that's the level of attention you pay to things, then the rest of your comments are worth jack shit.
Your nearing them - mentally you may as well be. Little difference between being late to mid forties and passing the mark of 50 anyway.
- and I could find 10 people who pretty much agree with me, with more experience than yourself.
ten? well done - when you can talk about hundreds, i'll start listening. ::)
Actually all you have done is waded in here and announced you have been in a classroom for 20 years - slightly different.
Not that I believe in argument from authority of course...
you'll learn to listen to people, one day.
[/quote]
Listen yes. Agree with a lot less often.
as for:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.
are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?
No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework. Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...
again, you should see things from "the chalk face", as it's called.
You mean the resource website for teachers who dont know / cant be bothered to write their own lesson plans?
http://www.chalkface.com/products/Maths/
no, i mean what teachers call actually working in classrooms. again, i refer to your lack of experience and knowledge.
In modern classrooms the chalkface no longer exists - instead they have the wonderful (and pointless) interactive whiteboard.
you can argue all you like, hadron, but it doesn't detract from the fact that - as has been pointed out on here several times, by several people - you're using an extrapolation of minimal experience to argue against people who know what they're talking about.
Yeah - because I keep a pocketbook full of evidence just in case I need it...
i dare say you really do believe you're right, and not just arguing to save face, and to avoid admitting that others know more than you - been there, done that. but, quite frankly, it's not worth engaging in debate with you if either is the case.
I believe targeting the brightest is the best way of fulfilling my objectives yes. It puts the bullies in the fun position of having to make friends with the smarter kids, or fail :D
i thought we'd been through all this before, and you realised you didn't *have* to prove you have a brain. but obviously not. shame.
Its not about proving myself at all :)
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
-
:agreed:
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
Normal lines? What normal lines? :laugh: I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.
I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".
Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.
Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.
And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.
I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
Normal lines? What normal lines? :laugh: I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.
Odeon jumping to really lame personal attacks for no good reason.
I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".
The thing is if you can get the gifted kids to learn stuff effectively - you then have a few students who can show the rest of the class when they get stuck. Especially in maths. One teacher is not enough to help 30 pupils.
Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.
Agreed - though I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.
Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.
My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.
And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.
Exactly. Failing occasionally anyway is a good thing - I got into being lazy and drifting through school, having never been challenged really.
I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.
Agreed. Though they could at least stream properly within schools. Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
Normal lines? What normal lines? :laugh: I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.
I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".
Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.
Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.
And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.
I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.
These are really good points, Pyraxis.
What some schools are doing now reminds me of something I saw once called "Animal School."
Here it is:
Once upon a time the animals had a school. They had four subjects, running, climbing, flying, and swimming, and all animals took all subjects.
The duck was good at swimming, better than the teacher, in fact. He made passing grades in running and flying, but he was almost hopeless in climbing. So they made him drop swimming to practice more climbing. Soon he was only average in swimming. But average is okay, and nobody worried much about it except the duck.
The eagle was considered a troublemaker. In his climbing class he beat everybody to the top of the tree, but he had his own way of getting there, which was against the rules. He always had to stay after school and write, "Cheating is wrong" five hundred times. This kept him from soaring, which he loved. But schoolwork comes first.
The bear flunked because they said he was lazy, especially in winter. His best time was summer, but school wasn't open then.
The penguin never went to school because he couldn't leave home, and they wouldn't start a school out where he lived.
The zebra played hooky a lot. The ponies made fun of his stripes, and this made him very sad.
The kangaroo started out at the top of the running class, but got discouraged trying to run on all fours like the other kids.
The fish quit school because he was bored. To him all four subjects were the same, but nobody understood that. They had never been a fish.
The squirrel got A's in climbing, but his flying teacher made him start from the ground up instead of the treetop down. His legs got so sore practicing take-offs that he began getting C's and D's in running.
But the bee was the biggest problem of all, so the teacher sent him to Dr. Owl for testing. Dr. Owl said that the bee's wings were just too small for flying and besides they were in the wrong place. But the bee never saw Dr. Owl's report, so he just went ahead and flew anyway.
-
I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.
What exactly do you mean by this? Identical in what sense? Why do you want to eliminate parental choice?
My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.
How was he "effectively banned"?
Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.
I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? :P
-
...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Pushing up daisies, I hope.
-
...
I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? :P
Don't even get me started about gym. Worthless class! The last gym teacher I had would literally show up for work drunk, and kept a stash of whiskey up in the ceiling of the fieldhouse. The vast majority of the social problems I had as a kid, started in gym class.
I would rather see them give the kids some options in how they burn their daily quota of calories (as decided by a bunch of distant politicians in the state capital, who haven't set foot in a locker room in decades). You don't need to shove football and basketball and soccer and track-&-field and shit down every kid's throat, because frankly anyone who's not going after an athletic scholarship or harboring ambitions of professional athletic careers DOESN'T FUCKING NEED IT!
For the nerds, my recommendation is martial arts. I was a nerd for a good portion of my school days, and later studied karate while I was in university. Martial arts will take care of the hand-eye coordination, anxiety management, and ass-kicking skills. Then the nerds can be everything they were meant to be instead of targets for any and every asshole to prey on.
They use physical fitness and the obesity rate as an argument in favor of gym classes. I seriously doubt it has much effect on how kids turn out physically as adults. If anything, it made me resent anything having to do with sports for a very long time. If the government wants Americans to be in better shape, they need to attack the fast-food and junk-food industries with the same ferocity that they attacked the tobacco industry (limiting advertising, taxing the fuck out of it, making them fund awareness campaigns against their own product, etc.).
P.E. rant done. :)
-
I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.
What exactly do you mean by this? Identical in what sense? Why do you want to eliminate parental choice?
Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?
My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.
How was he "effectively banned"?
Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable. Though apparently it would have also gone against political correctness to set me such a project - in that he would be isolating me from my peers.
Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.
I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? :P
That would be the point - well actually I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well. Tbh - all the sport nonsense means female aspies have it quite a bit better than male aspies in most cases. Of course I am biased here in wanting to reform society - ideally we need a system where Aspies are at least allowed to reach their full potential.
But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports
-
For the nerds, my recommendation is martial arts.
Yeah, I wish. I used to live for the two weeks or so of high school gym that they spent on self defense. (Well, that and rugby, 'cause I had a lot of repressed desire to knock the crap out of people.) They kept saying we'd get to do fencing, and then they never got the funding.
-
Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?
Not well. So if your system is applicable only to solve the current problems of Britain's schools, I probably won't have much interesting to say about it. I was trying to find a system that would be helpful in lots of places.
How was he "effectively banned"?
Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable.
I would say his flaw was more of unwillingness to go against the system, then. Don't you have independent studies in the UK?
I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well.
What problems would this solve? I don't have a clue how eliminating team sports would reduce an advantage of female aspies.
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you believe. Elsewhere you said you want a meritocracy, but athleticism is a form of merit, and you also said the bit earlier about giving everyone an identical education. It doesn't fit together.
But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports
Interesting. It looks like people in your area are pretty conflicted over whether competition in sports should be fostered or not.
-
Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?
Not well. So if your system is applicable only to solve the current problems of Britain's schools, I probably won't have much interesting to say about it. I was trying to find a system that would be helpful in lots of places.
Its applicable wider I believe - but as I know quite a lot about the British system then I could have cut a few corners in my explanations. In fact I would say the US system perhaps has the issue even more than our system.
Firstly, in Britain effectively (to be concise) parents can buy their kids access to the best schools - often to the disadvantage of those kids in poorer backgrounds. This then effectively stacks up to allow lots of very dim but incredibly well educated students to take the places in our (publically funded) universities and ultimately onto the best jobs and positions within the social hierarchy. Unfortunately most of this happens at the expense of the geniunely intelligent and even those of a poorer background (but brighter) are at a disadvantage when they get to the good universities. Why? Because these people have had access to the cultural structures etc, allowing them to advance to the top of societies and other aspects of university social structures, adding to their CV and even further entrenching their undeserved advantage.
By removing parental choice, you vastly reduce the opportunities for all these people to cheat like that. Not that I am saying there are not a few from private schools that did actually deserve their places, but the majority did not. Its not just private schools, there are also grammars and state schools in very affluent areas which distort the system. The percentage of those who get to a top university from a comprehensive school (bear in mind these people make up the vast majority of the population) without heavy private tuition or other forms of cheating is disgustingly low - on one of my courses its as law as 25%. The system stinks.
How was he "effectively banned"?
Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable.
I would say his flaw was more of unwillingness to go against the system, then. Don't you have independent studies in the UK?
Nope - not until degree level really in practise. Well asides a little coursework (which the government are busy trying to bring into the classroom)
I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well.
What problems would this solve? I don't have a clue how eliminating team sports would reduce an advantage of female aspies.
The way social structure currently is in the UK and other western civilisations is that its very difficult to be deeply into a social circle as a male without doing some form of sport. Gutting it from schools (and the TV imo) would help our cause a lot. Females can easily avoid having to sport (asides perhaps the odd gym session) as soon as they leave school - often before. Plus being good at sport as a female does not carry the same social kudos as it does being a male...
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you believe. Elsewhere you said you want a meritocracy, but athleticism is a form of merit, and you also said the bit earlier about giving everyone an identical education. It doesn't fit together.
The only form of merit that can be justified in a modern society is intellectual ability and the openmindedness to think originally. The rest may as well be morons which we might want to farm like Horses for our own entertainment - but nothing else.
But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports
Interesting. It looks like people in your area are pretty conflicted over whether competition in sports should be fostered or not.
I could not quickly find the article - but recently the education secretary decided he agrees with it.
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
Normal lines? What normal lines? :laugh: I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.
<snip>
well said, pyraxis. your whole post touches on both current pedagogical debate and thinking, and the restrictions put on teachers and schools - look at the funding and the ridiculous bureaucracy before you start blaming the teachers.
:clap:
:plus:
-
For the nerds, my recommendation is martial arts.
Yeah, I wish. I used to live for the two weeks or so of high school gym that they spent on self defense. (Well, that and rugby, 'cause I had a lot of repressed desire to knock the crap out of people.) They kept saying we'd get to do fencing, and then they never got the funding.
Two weeks out of a bully-infested gym class won't do crap for martial arts.
It really needs to be in an environment away from the school. For example, go to any dojo in town and have the sensei sign off on a form to verify your attendance and progress, and then take the form to the school. Then the kid never has to set foot in a smelly locker room, and stands a better chance of going unnoticed by the scum.
The environments inside a gym class and a dojo (at least the one I went to) are worlds apart. The dojo is a million times better.
-
Agreed and agreed. It was just better than nothing. :P
-
A teacher is a loser by default, at least below university. :(
my mother went to school to become a reading teacher and she taught in one of the worst public schools in new york city. she would come home with knives and other weapons that she took away from students. she retired at age 55 (they bribed her because she was making too much money) and to this day her students come up to her on the street and thank her. after she retired she worked as a mentor to new teachers and now she teaches tennis and her students still love her and her classes are overcrowded (she works for a school and they keep adding kids) - she got certified as a tennis pro a last year. she is in her 70s.
i know this is n of 1 thinking but my sister is below average in IQ - i think she scored 90; she became a very successful vocational counselor. actually i think she is a supervisor now. my older sister is average IQ - like 100; she is the chief financial officer for a hospital in new york city. they doesn't have AS, though. me and my nephew are the only ones.
my father set standards for grades that now horrify me. i was supposed to get all a's, my average IQ sister was supposed to get a's and b's, and my younger sister was supposed to get whatever she could. she got mostly a's. i got everything from a's to d's (classes that bored me; i skipped them and just took the exams) and failed a class for never attending, in spite of passing all the exams.
-
who are you to judge me?
Who are you to judge all those teachers and parents? Are you a teacher or parent, are you someone with experience from either teaching or parenting?
-
who are you to judge me?
Who are you to judge all those teachers and parents? Are you a teacher or parent, are you someone with experience from either teaching or parenting?
Ah - but I never made the original judgement here. Merely passed on someone else's (well-justified) judgement and used it here :)
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
You were insulting teachers and parents en masse. Why should I take your precious feelings into account? Do you need a hug?
besides, this is Intensity. If you can't stand the heat, go somewhere else.
-
who are you to judge me?
Who are you to judge all those teachers and parents? Are you a teacher or parent, are you someone with experience from either teaching or parenting?
Ah - but I never made the original judgement here. Merely passed on someone else's (well-justified) judgement and used it here :)
so all your "arguments" are just someone else's words?
i don't think i need to comment on that further.
::)
-
Odeon jumping to really lame personal attacks for no good reason.
Perfectly good reason, actually. Do reread your comments re parents. You were insulting lots of parents, without anything to back it up with.
If you need a friend, buy a dog.
-
who are you to judge me?
Who are you to judge all those teachers and parents? Are you a teacher or parent, are you someone with experience from either teaching or parenting?
Ah - but I never made the original judgement here. Merely passed on someone else's (well-justified) judgement and used it here :)
Maybe you should reread what you wrote, then. Here:
Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers. The other half is totally inept teachers working with a laughable curriculum and being foolish enough to stick to it.
Whose opinions are these? Are you about to blame someone else again? Maybe someone else posted this using your account? ::)
-
who are you to judge me?
you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?
Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...
You were insulting teachers and parents en masse. Why should I take your precious feelings into account? Do you need a hug?
besides, this is Intensity. If you can't stand the heat, go somewhere else.
Best get your bollocks off the fire then - before they spit roast...
-
who are you to judge me?
Who are you to judge all those teachers and parents? Are you a teacher or parent, are you someone with experience from either teaching or parenting?
Ah - but I never made the original judgement here. Merely passed on someone else's (well-justified) judgement and used it here :)
so all your "arguments" are just someone else's words?
i don't think i need to comment on that further.
::)
Nah - just that one. The rest are paraphrases, asides the private schools one which is my own.
-
Copout, as expected. Take some fucking responsibility for once in your life.
-
Ugh - what did you do to the quotes? I'll see if I can make some sense of this. :P
Firstly, in Britain effectively (to be concise) parents can buy their kids access to the best schools - often to the disadvantage of those kids in poorer backgrounds. (...) By removing parental choice, you vastly reduce the opportunities for all these people to cheat like that.
And put people at the mercy of the government instead. Instead of removing parental choice (which effectively eliminates student choice - some parents, like mine, actually let their kids pick the school), why not fund merit scholarships?
The way social structure currently is in the UK and other western civilisations is that its very difficult to be deeply into a social circle as a male without doing some form of sport. Gutting it from schools (and the TV imo) would help our cause a lot.
So basically, you want to make things better for male aspies at the expense of everyone else? I'm all for self-interest but that's awfully short-sighted. Rather than change people's attitudes, or even fix the system from the inside, you want to completely eliminate it? There's no way you'd get a majority to agree with you on that.
The only form of merit that can be justified in a modern society is intellectual ability and the openmindedness to think originally. The rest may as well be morons which we might want to farm like Horses for our own entertainment - but nothing else.
Okay, now I really don't take you seriously. That's as bad as Lit.
-
is he playing with mathces?
-
Ugh - what did you do to the quotes? I'll see if I can make some sense of this. :P
Ended up with double vision the night I wrote that on...
Firstly, in Britain effectively (to be concise) parents can buy their kids access to the best schools - often to the disadvantage of those kids in poorer backgrounds. (...) By removing parental choice, you vastly reduce the opportunities for all these people to cheat like that.
And put people at the mercy of the government instead.
Absolutely - over 90% of the population are in the state school system. What happens sadly under the current catchment area system is that parents can buy a house in the right place, effectively buying kids the best places in our state schools. In short, the more clued up and middle/upper class someones parents are - the better education they get. How on earth is that fair? In the UK (and elsewhere it seems) the top of the societal structure is those who are of richer backgrounds, often far from the brightest. Removing parental choice creates a meritocratic system which means the best people are in the most important positions. Certainly a set of people I would trust to run an education system.
Instead of removing parental choice (which effectively eliminates student choice - some parents, like mine, actually let their kids pick the school), why not fund merit scholarships?
There are two key issues here - a) middle class parents will always hoodwink it so their kids get in ahead of a brighter but poorer kid. The private schools do have merit scholarships - but these just go to posh kids whose parents divorced.
(b) What age do you select kids for a merit scholarship? Our grammar school system selects at 11 (grammars are only in certain areas of the UK - some areas had the sense to abolish them), but kids mature at different ages and writing them off at 11 is very unfair. Also again the admissions process gets hoodwinked.
The way social structure currently is in the UK and other western civilisations is that its very difficult to be deeply into a social circle as a male without doing some form of sport. Gutting it from schools (and the TV imo) would help our cause a lot.
So basically, you want to make things better for male aspies at the expense of everyone else? I'm all for self-interest but that's awfully short-sighted. Rather than change people's attitudes, or even fix the system from the inside, you want to completely eliminate it? There's no way you'd get a majority to agree with you on that.
Well it benefits more than ourselves - really its a culture change. Having a society of morons, which this sports culture encourages, only benefits morons. Asides, how does getting rid of team sports from the culture harm you, surely popular culture changing in such a fashion benefits you in practise. As for fixing the system - feel free to suggest any other way. I doubt you would find one tbh. As for getting people to agree - there are ways around it.
The only form of merit that can be justified in a modern society is intellectual ability and the openmindedness to think originally. The rest may as well be morons which we might want to farm like Horses for our own entertainment - but nothing else.
Okay, now I really don't take you seriously. That's as bad as Lit.
Everyone is supposed to be unique or special - but how can they be if they do not think for themselves. A religion more typically called society tends to be opiate that the moronic majority subscribe to - and it really does not make these people too openminded.
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
-
I agree with Hadron.
Cowardly :moomin:
-
I agree with Hadron.
Cowardly :moomin:
could you be specific about what you agree with in hadron's last post? i'd be astonished to see there was actually anything in it which was discernible as a fact, a piece of information, or even an opinion. ::)
-
I agree with everything he says. 8)
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
Wearing your specs tends to make things clearer. I suggest you go and fetch them (and no, not the beer goggles)
-
I agree with everything he says. 8)
:D
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
It may the result of him entering his "I want my trophy" persona.
Some of it makes a bit of sense, by stretch, but the rest reeks of the inside surface of a crapper door on a shrimp boat.
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
Wearing your specs tends to make things clearer. I suggest you go and fetch them (and no, not the beer goggles)
i was wearing them. :hahaha:
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
It may the result of him entering his "I want my trophy" persona.
Some of it makes a bit of sense, by stretch, but the rest reeks of the inside surface of a crapper door on a shrimp boat.
that's so... vivid.
:puke:
:laugh:
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
Wearing your specs tends to make things clearer. I suggest you go and fetch them (and no, not the beer goggles)
i was wearing them. :hahaha:
Wrongly obviously - ideally you are supposed to wear them in such a fashion that you can look through them. Rather than propping them up in your hair...
-
you do realise this attempt at anything isn't getting you anywhere, don't you?
apart from making you look extremely feeble.
::)
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
It may the result of him entering his "I want my trophy" persona.
Some of it makes a bit of sense, by stretch, but the rest reeks of the inside surface of a crapper door on a shrimp boat.
:laugh:
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
It may the result of him entering his "I want my trophy" persona.
Some of it makes a bit of sense, by stretch, but the rest reeks of the inside surface of a crapper door on a shrimp boat.
:laugh:
Did the cat run around again. Well done at the deja vu... ::)
-
:LMAO: :rofl: :LMAO:
i read that twice, and there's still no substance to it whatsoever.
what a load of twaddle and empty rhetoric. :laugh:
It may the result of him entering his "I want my trophy" persona.
Some of it makes a bit of sense, by stretch, but the rest reeks of the inside surface of a crapper door on a shrimp boat.
:laugh:
Did the cat run around again. Well done at the deja vu... ::)
???
-
from The Matrix, dawg. when neo says, "deja vu" cos he's seen the cat twice, there's a glitch in the matrix.
is it terribly sad that i know that? :laugh:
-
from The Matrix, dawg. when neo says, "deja vu" cos he's seen the cat twice, there's a glitch in the matrix.
is it terribly sad that i know that? :laugh:
Anyone who has not seen The Matrix is culturally deprived imo...
-
from The Matrix, dawg. when neo says, "deja vu" cos he's seen the cat twice, there's a glitch in the matrix.
is it terribly sad that i know that? :laugh:
Ahh! Of course.
I was pre-focused on his "deja vu" comment, without fully reading it, thinking that he was going to say we were ganging up on him again.
:violin:
I have had all three Matrix episodes for a while.
I recently bought the four DVD collection, though. It has enhanced sound, additional Special Features and the Animatrix version. :D
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Not sure. If anything goes badly wrong in my life then I can become Mr Loser - and get away with it. No one wants to teach my subject in schools.
What subject?
I think that there's nothing wrong with being a teacher, just with using the position to abuse children.
If you become a teacher, then you won't humiliate students in front of each other like garmonbozia's teacher did or physically abuse students like my daughter's special education teacher did, so you won't become a Mr. Loser.
Same subject as Mr. Loser - Maths. Though I might get to teach A-level or GCSE politics too.
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse. But I think bullies should certainly get the cane.
-
...Anyway, somehow the topic of that old hellhole came up during my recent visit. Turns out that teacher I had back then, who I hate even to this day, was some loser that none of the public schools would hire. So, the principal of this private school decided to be nice and hire him. Apparently he was putting this loser's best interests over those of his students. For those of you who don't remember my bad-teacher rant, this is the asshole who gave me a math phobia. Initially I liked math. I even had my own scientific calculator at age seven. I was aware of negative numbers before I was supposed to "learn" about them, and that annoyed this teacher. So, the first time I had a bad day with the math, that was Mr. Loser's opportunity to make sure it was a REALLY bad day, and make me hate math. The asshole enjoyed humiliating students in front of each other...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now. Hopefully not teaching anymore.
Not sure. If anything goes badly wrong in my life then I can become Mr Loser - and get away with it. No one wants to teach my subject in schools.
What subject?
I think that there's nothing wrong with being a teacher, just with using the position to abuse children.
If you become a teacher, then you won't humiliate students in front of each other like garmonbozia's teacher did or physically abuse students like my daughter's special education teacher did, so you won't become a Mr. Loser.
Same subject as Mr. Loser - Maths. Though I might get to teach A-level or GCSE politics too.
Well I would not abuse children (unless someone has the sense to bring back the cane - then I might give the dimmer ones a whack so they actually learn their timestables), but I would focus on making sure the brighter kids in my class get through as opposed the dimmer ones.
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse. But I think bullies should certainly get the cane.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
[/quote]
Welcome to Hadron's brave new world.
-
crap teachers in swede/finland, then - they don't teach you how to correct quotes properly.
:laugh:
;)
-
I only had a teaching assistant... :P
-
I only had a teaching assistant... :P
but they're bound to be better than teachers, cos teachers are crap, everyone says so.
:'(
-
I only had a teaching assistant... :P
but they're bound to be better than teachers, cos teachers are crap, everyone says so.
:'(
Easy to solve: become an assistant.
I'm a spazz. I don't deserve a *real* teacher, anyway.
-
I only had a teaching assistant... :P
but they're bound to be better than teachers, cos teachers are crap, everyone says so.
:'(
Easy to solve: become an assistant.
too late - i became a spazz instead. if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and all that.
I'm a spazz. I don't deserve a *real* teacher, anyway.
true. if your IQ is 170, and you can do maths, you can send people letterbombs instead, though. will that compensate?
-
He has no great ideas worth sending bombs for anyway.
-
I only had a teaching assistant... :P
but they're bound to be better than teachers, cos teachers are crap, everyone says so.
:'(
Easy to solve: become an assistant.
too late - i became a spazz instead. if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, and all that.
:LMAO:
I'm a spazz. I don't deserve a *real* teacher, anyway.
true. if your IQ is 170, and you can do maths, you can send people letterbombs instead, though. will that compensate?
I can do maths but my IQ is slightly less than that. I'll try postcards instead, all right?
-
If you knew anything worth knowing, you'd know that there are actually postcard bombs too. Mossad uses them
-
He has no great ideas worth sending bombs for anyway.
what a novel idea: "i have a fantastic idea, so i'll kill people, which will definitely get them interested, won't it."
for a start, he's missed the obvious flaw (blowing your audience into smithereens might be fun, but they probably won't be terribly receptive to your "message" afterwards). it's a somewhat flawed attempt at reverse psychology, i feel.
-
He has no great ideas worth sending bombs for anyway.
This is a true gem. You're a contender for this year's Flo Award.
-
If you knew anything worth knowing, you'd know that there are actually postcard bombs too. Mossad uses them
yes, i can believe that - i've got postcards from finland which made me want to spontaneously combust.
are mossad terribly active in finland, then? if so, they really ought to get over their fetish about flowers.
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
No, the dimmer ones with learning difficulties would be tbe responsibility of the teaching assistants. Its the only way to run a mixed maths grouping really.
-
bollocks.
how many have you run?
-
If you knew anything worth knowing, you'd know that there are actually postcard bombs too. Mossad uses them
yes, i can believe that - i've got postcards from finland which made me want to spontaneously combust.
are mossad terribly active in finland, then? if so, they really ought to get over their fetish about flowers.
:LMAO:
-
If you knew anything worth knowing, you'd know that there are actually postcard bombs too. Mossad uses them
yes, i can believe that - i've got postcards from finland which made me want to spontaneously combust.
are mossad terribly active in finland, then? if so, they really ought to get over their fetish about flowers.
Postcard bombs are made of hard pressed C-4. The reciever is usually an Islamic terrorist.
-
bollocks.
how many have you run?
More than you I suspect :)
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
No, the dimmer ones with learning difficulties would be tbe responsibility of the teaching assistants. Its the only way to run a mixed maths grouping really.
Sorry, Hadron, but this needs to be said: God, you're stupid. I no longer think it's just an act, you've convinced me. You're dim and hence the responsibility of some underpaid assistant, now.
-
bollocks.
how many have you run?
More than you I suspect :)
give me a number, then. or will you be drunk between reading this and posting your reply?
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
No, the dimmer ones with learning difficulties would be tbe responsibility of the teaching assistants. Its the only way to run a mixed maths grouping really.
Sorry, Hadron, but this needs to be said: God, you're stupid. I no longer think it's just an act, you've convinced me. You're dim and hence the responsibility of some underpaid assistant, now.
I can add two numbers together that are bigger than 10, I think I can pass on that one. :)
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
No, the dimmer ones with learning difficulties would be tbe responsibility of the teaching assistants. Its the only way to run a mixed maths grouping really.
Sorry, Hadron, but this needs to be said: God, you're stupid. I no longer think it's just an act, you've convinced me. You're dim and hence the responsibility of some underpaid assistant, now.
I can add two numbers together that are bigger than 10, I think I can pass on that one. :)
You won't fool me again. You really are dim.
-
But what if the dimmer ones have learning difficulties? They probably can't help it and caning them would only make them worse.
In that case then the responsibility of them would lie with the teaching assistant. Not myself.
so people with learning difficulties are the responsibility of the teaching assistants and not the teacher, are they?
christ on a pole... ::)
No, the dimmer ones with learning difficulties would be tbe responsibility of the teaching assistants. Its the only way to run a mixed maths grouping really.
Sorry, Hadron, but this needs to be said: God, you're stupid. I no longer think it's just an act, you've convinced me. You're dim and hence the responsibility of some underpaid assistant, now.
I can add two numbers together that are bigger than 10, I think I can pass on that one. :)
excellent - do just that and give me a number, then (see my post above, if you've already forgotten what i asked).
-
Hadron is brave! :arrr:
-
The dim often are--foolishly so.
-
cannon fodder...
-
cannon fodder...
Useful, then. :laugh:
-
as fertiliser, possibly.
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
-
Can't help imagining an idiot like Mr. Loser with a cane. ::)
Easy to imagine him with one shoved up his ass, though.
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
I do in the case of a bright teacher. Asides I can practically smell out Aspies these days, so I know who to favour.
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
I do in the case of a bright teacher. Asides I can practically smell out Aspies these days, so I know who to favour.
So does that mean you would cane a kid who is bullying or teasing aspies in your class?
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
I do in the case of a bright teacher. Asides I can practically smell out Aspies these days, so I know who to favour.
So does that mean you would cane a kid who is bullying or teasing aspies in your class?
Absolutely - and more.
-
Kill the little bastid! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
between Hadron's breezy hubris and Lit's utter bollocks, this thread is becoming quite entertaining. :popcorn:
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
I agree. Too many lazy teachers would place the blame on the child and his/her laziness rather than recognize the real issues with which the child contends.
My daughter's special education teacher felt qualified to recommend that I drug my daughter and she told me that my daughter couldn't possibly be autistic because "autistic children don't hit" even though I had a private assessment from someone infinitely more qualified than she that said that my daughter was indeed autistic.
-
What a stupid bitch. :thumbdn: I'm autistic and I hit a lot in school. I actually hit that much that I had to go to another school when I hit some bullies so they had to go to the dentist. :evillaugh:
-
They should not have been bullying you in the first place. I struck back at a couple of people who were bullying me too. I did not hit them as hard as you hit your bullies, but they eventually learned to leave me alone.
-
You know, guys always hit as hard as they can. :angel:
-
You know, guys always hit as hard as they can. :angel:
This is certainly not true of me.
I always pulled my punches, partly because I had broken some bones in my hands growing up from hitting walls and trees. But, when I was fifteen I got into my first real fight where I was trying to hurt someone for hurting me. I hurt him really seriously with just a few hits, even broke the bone that surrounds his eye socket, ruptured something in his larynx and put him in the hospital. It was two weeks before he returned to school and he was still fucked up looking.
To me, I over-reacted and hurt him far more than he had hurt me. Even having done this, it took me a long time to learn to control my anger. I still went off on people who pushed me too far. Honestly, though, I tried my best to let EVERY thing go and not get involved. I let people push me around a lot, until they went too far and I exploded like a wild animal, often hurting them. (the old saying, "Watch out for those quiet guys" was really true in my case.)
-
I was pretty thin as a boy and I'm just average in height. I just had to hit as hard as I could.
-
I was pretty thin as a boy and I'm just average in height. I just had to hit as hard as I could.
This guy was much larger than I was and he had been picking on me and my friends for three years, almost non-stop. I was scared of him. The only way I had ever responded to him was to cower and apologise. One day, I was just simply done with that and flew into him, swinging like one of those machines that plucks the feathers off of poultry.
I got into several more fights in the next few years, but I was never touched (well, except for that one time I mentioned in my "ask" thread, but no reason to go into that here, since it was personal and they had a grudge against me, they touched me hard, but I was the one still able to crawl away when it was over). I am five eleven and at fifteen, I was wiry, well muscled, kind of big-boned and about one hundred seventy five pounds. I'm not big, but I'm fast (used to be, that is).
In my senior year, I was on the boxing team, but I was unable to keep my weight from entering the "heavy weight" class (one hundred eighty nine and one half pounds was the line - I was often over one ninety), so I always had a rough time at the matches as the smallest heavy weight. It was damn good for me, though.
I took some martial arts beginning in my twenties, it helped a lot and I think everyone should try it. You gain a good deal of experience knowing JUST how much force to use in hostile situations, without hurting people, and it is very true that you can also gain enough personal confidence that you often diffuse scary situations with no violence at all. The exercise is enough reason to give it a try, alone, but the other benefits make the arts almost essential and it affects all aspects of your life.
Obviously, I have slowed down quite a lot since I was in my thirties and forties, lost some of my strength, hardly ever work out anymore, but I am still the wrong old man to fuck with and I never have those "same old fears" anymore.
-
I'm 5' 10" but I just weighed about 140 pounds as a teen. I could never gain weight back then. :-\
-
I took some martial arts training as an adult as well, but not when I was a kid being picked on. I really could have used it then.
You are right about it teaching you more control, both physical control and self-control. I could swing at you as if I were going to punch right through you, but stop at barely touching your clothing with my fist, assuming of course you didn't block me first. I also learned a lot about blocking kicks and punches.
My husband and I thought long and hard about getting classes for our daughter, but given her physical aggression, we decided against giving her more training in physical control.
She might have learned more self-control but we couldn't be sure, so the last thing we needed was her to just become more well-trained in punching and kicking.
-
I just checked out: I weighed 61 kilos or 135 pounds at 18, which means I weighed even less earlier. I exercised a lot at home but could never gain much muscles due to my low weight. :(
-
True. But I think the cane should be a last resort and it should be given by the headmaster/headmistress and written up in a book. I don't believe kids should get the cane for being slow learners.
Depends if the slow learning is their own fault or not - i.e. their own laziness.
I don't think it's the place of the teacher to make such judgements.
I agree. Too many lazy teachers would place the blame on the child and his/her laziness rather than recognize the real issues with which the child contends.
Its normally obvious who the lazy ones are - ask them what work they have been doing and you get a blank look back in response.
My daughter's special education teacher felt qualified to recommend that I drug my daughter and she told me that my daughter couldn't possibly be autistic because "autistic children don't hit" even though I had a private assessment from someone infinitely more qualified than she that said that my daughter was indeed autistic.
My favorite one is "autistic people can't lie". Guess how much fun I have had with that one over the years.
-
My shrink - a chief psychiatrician - told me honestly that I can't lie. ::)
-
I took some martial arts training as an adult as well, but not when I was a kid being picked on. I really could have used it then.
I am still trying to understand why, though I was picked on plenty, I was never actually hit, grabbed, tripped, etc. What makes a bully decide to use words and what makes one decide to use force, if the target is equally weak at both?
-
Words will kill you slowly. I didn't get beaten up much physically either but was bullied with words every fucking day for many years.
-
I took some martial arts training as an adult as well, but not when I was a kid being picked on. I really could have used it then.
I am still trying to understand why, though I was picked on plenty, I was never actually hit, grabbed, tripped, etc. What makes a bully decide to use words and what makes one decide to use force, if the target is equally weak at both?
I don't know. I was also picked on a lot verbally like you describe, but I was hit, poked, my hair pulled, etc, as well.
Maybe it could be a difference between you and me, or maybe it could just be a difference in the people who were bullying us.
-
I took some martial arts training as an adult as well, but not when I was a kid being picked on. I really could have used it then.
I am still trying to understand why, though I was picked on plenty, I was never actually hit, grabbed, tripped, etc. What makes a bully decide to use words and what makes one decide to use force, if the target is equally weak at both?
I wish I knew the answer to this one. In my son's case, he is profoundly able to use words in his own defense, but the result is that the bullies who taunt him then resort to pushing, hitting, taking his things, etc, because he has made them "look bad."
He does not seem to have my physical gifts (heightened proprioception, accuracy of movement, natural athleticism, but my daughter certainly does), although his balance seems to be every bit as exceptional as mine. Several paragraphs were made by his first diagnosing psychologist, pointing this out as an anomaly in her typical assessment of autistics. She made many comments about his clumsiness and lack of awareness of things around him, but spoke in amazement that he never seemed to fall down or lose his balance, despite tripping over her feet, bumping into her and her aides, etc.
I have no clue to tell me if it is the right time to start a program of training for him.
-
When I was just 8-9-10 they used to use words for bullying, for my reaction usually was to punch them in the face. Then they could go to the teachers and blame me for starting the fight. Cowards.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
-
I just checked out: I weighed 61 kilos or 135 pounds at 18, which means I weighed even less earlier. I exercised a lot at home but could never gain much muscles due to my low weight. :(
I don't think I have ever fit those proportions. I'm a fairly thick fellow.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Not really surprised; ashamed and disappointed, more like.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Not really surprised; ashamed and disappointed, more like.
Of whom?
-
I took some martial arts training as an adult as well, but not when I was a kid being picked on. I really could have used it then.
You are right about it teaching you more control, both physical control and self-control. I could swing at you as if I were going to punch right through you, but stop at barely touching your clothing with my fist, assuming of course you didn't block me first. I also learned a lot about blocking kicks and punches.
My husband and I thought long and hard about getting classes for our daughter, but given her physical aggression, we decided against giving her more training in physical control.
She might have learned more self-control but we couldn't be sure, so the last thing we needed was her to just become more well-trained in punching and kicking.
I think that the kicking and kick blocking training had for me immediate benefits, as well. I had already become a bit more confident of myself when I began to train, but I had no direction and no ability to stop once I lost my cool.
From my early encounters in school, once I finally tried to fight back, I found that I was indeed far faster than the average idiots who harassed me and some confidence came slowly afterward. This is what made me try out for the boxing team and I began to realize that I could almost always dodge a swing and avoid being hit. It came just from watching them, where always before my first fights, I always looked away at someone trying to "get up in my face."
I am lucky that my son is not the aggressive type, I suppose. I am not either, really, but when I responded with violence it was usually out of fear. I can see this same fear in him.
-
I don't know. I was also picked on a lot verbally like you describe, but I was hit, poked, my hair pulled, etc, as well.
Maybe it could be a difference between you and me, or maybe it could just be a difference in the people who were bullying us.
I would be more likely to suspect differences between us, since we both presumably had a bunch of different bullies. What I can't figure out is what the differences would be. I was female, small and clumsy, quiet and mostly passive. I don't understand why people didn't try to intimidate me physically.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
-
...
My husband and I thought long and hard about getting classes for our daughter, but given her physical aggression, we decided against giving her more training in physical control.
She might have learned more self-control but we couldn't be sure, so the last thing we needed was her to just become more well-trained in punching and kicking.
How about Tai Chi Chuan or somesuch? As I understand it, that would implement the self-control before it gets into actual fighting techniques.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
-
Of course it's insanity. I have no idea why some people seem to think such violence could ever be justified.
And before you say something, Lit, you do know that you're mad, right? Your obsessions are talking.
And Hadron, while there is still time, consider if you really want to end up being another Lit.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
... or get help?
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
... or get help?
Help with what - deluding themselves into being "happy". The root problem is society - and elimination of certain so-called "people" is the best way of dealing with the problem.
-
We've already had more than a few sprees.
How much better off are we?
None!
-
... and don't bother with telling me crapshite like the wrong ones were killed, because there are no right ones to kill.
-
Of course it's insanity. I have no idea why some people seem to think such violence could ever be justified.
And before you say something, Lit, you do know that you're mad, right? Your obsessions are talking.
And Hadron, while there is still time, consider if you really want to end up being another Lit.
Another Lit? How so?
-
We've already had more than a few sprees.
How much better off are we?
None!
Cho nearly started something - did you read all those articles about kids being nicer to the quiet kid in the corner for a few weeks? What we needed was a few more sprees at the right time, on the right scale and in the right place. With good media management we could get some social changes in place - without it ever appearing to be something to do with ourselves.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
Bullshit. Empty rhetorics. That is, pretty much what I expected from you.
A few posts down the line you will again be hiding from parts of your conjecture.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
Bullshit. Empty rhetorics. That is, pretty much what I expected from you.
A few posts down the line you will again be hiding from parts of your conjecture.
Are you baiting me into arranging a proof?
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
Bullshit. Empty rhetorics. That is, pretty much what I expected from you.
A few posts down the line you will again be hiding from parts of your conjecture.
Are you baiting me into arranging a proof?
Go right ahead if you think you can prove anything. Start with this:
Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
-
...
My husband and I thought long and hard about getting classes for our daughter, but given her physical aggression, we decided against giving her more training in physical control.
She might have learned more self-control but we couldn't be sure, so the last thing we needed was her to just become more well-trained in punching and kicking.
How about Tai Chi Chuan or somesuch? As I understand it, that would implement the self-control before it gets into actual fighting techniques.
That's a good idea. Thank you.
What I was trained in was Shotokan Karate, and I learned control along with techniques, but sometimes my daughter learns the exact opposite of what one would expect her to learn.
Like for example, she saw an anti-bullying video the school showed to all the kids, but she did not get the message the video was intended to teach. Instead, she learned to say "Nooser, nooser" (Loser, loser) perseveratively, which was the example the video gave of bullying which was saying a "naughty" word (to her it was, anyway).
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
Hadron, that's a crazy idea.
Then even more people would think that we are all potentially violent and dangerous and they would want to lock us away, even the ones of us who wouldn't hurt anyone deliberately.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
-
Of course it's insanity. I have no idea why some people seem to think such violence could ever be justified.
The bullies wants to kill their victims, at least the spirit of their victims, because they're usually too cowardly to really kill the victim physically.
And before you say something, Lit, you do know that you're mad, right? Your obsessions are talking.
No. My rage and sense for true justice are talking, though.
And Hadron, while there is still time, consider if you really want to end up being another Lit.
::)
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
:agreed:
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
... or get help?
Help with what - deluding themselves into being "happy". The root problem is society - and elimination of certain so-called "people" is the best way of dealing with the problem.
:agreed: :agreed:
-
... and don't bother with telling me crapshite like the wrong ones were killed, because there are no right ones to kill.
Sure there are. The bullies.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
Hadron, that's a crazy idea.
Then even more people would think that we are all potentially violent and dangerous and they would want to lock us away, even the ones of us who wouldn't hurt anyone deliberately.
"People" are idiots. They will look down on us despite the fact that we usually are more intelligent than they could ever be, for once. But everybody understands the global language of violence.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
Bullshit. Empty rhetorics. That is, pretty much what I expected from you.
A few posts down the line you will again be hiding from parts of your conjecture.
Are you baiting me into arranging a proof?
Go right ahead if you think you can prove anything. Start with this:
Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
An abstract proof would be difficult, however I am quite happy to wait for someone to prove the conjecture in a more practical fashion. Me thinks it will only be a matter of time.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
Hadron, that's a crazy idea.
Then even more people would think that we are all potentially violent and dangerous and they would want to lock us away, even the ones of us who wouldn't hurt anyone deliberately.
Nope - all the suicidal aspies are diagnosed with something else normally and by the time this reallly got to a head, other groups of people would be joining in.
-
:agreed:
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
Hadron, that's a crazy idea.
Then even more people would think that we are all potentially violent and dangerous and they would want to lock us away, even the ones of us who wouldn't hurt anyone deliberately.
"People" are idiots. They will look down on us despite the fact that we usually are more intelligent than they could ever be, for once. But everybody understands the global language of violence.
You're not intelligent enough to see past the bullshit. There's no master race, you idiot.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
That's not extreme. Extreme is what I did. These kids have gone beyond anything justifiable.
We are supposed to be smarter than the average buttface, in general, but resorting to killing in order to resolve a bruised ego is another definition of insanity, in my way of thinking.
I have remorse for the big badass I first put in the hospital, still. Of course, I'm not "norbal," as Lennon says, but keeping ourselves safe is what we are trying to do. Going so far as killing is insanity.
Read it again, hadron. Once some of your brain turns to heart, you will understand.
No, no. A few sprees would change society for the better, if they were well targeted and orchestrated. Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
Bullshit. Empty rhetorics. That is, pretty much what I expected from you.
A few posts down the line you will again be hiding from parts of your conjecture.
Are you baiting me into arranging a proof?
Go right ahead if you think you can prove anything. Start with this:
Bear in mind the removal of one bully means at least one kid not driven to suicide because of them.
An abstract proof would be difficult, however I am quite happy to wait for someone to prove the conjecture in a more practical fashion. Me thinks it will only be a matter of time.
Backing out already? I thought it would take a few posts more.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Yeah there is - society. I wish suicidal aspies would do it as a parting gift everytime they offed themselves.
Hadron, that's a crazy idea.
Then even more people would think that we are all potentially violent and dangerous and they would want to lock us away, even the ones of us who wouldn't hurt anyone deliberately.
"People" are idiots. They will look down on us despite the fact that we usually are more intelligent than they could ever be, for once. But everybody understands the global language of violence.
You're not intelligent enough to see past the bullshit. There's no master race, you idiot.
Yes, there is. White people are more intelligent than black people. Japanese people are more intelligent than whites. That's a fact.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
Oh, you sit down and sing "We shall overcome" with them? My dad took me out of school and if mum hadn't stopped him, he would have beaten the shit out of the bullies, becuase he's not a coward.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
Oh, you sit down and sing "We shall overcome" with them? My dad took me out of school and if mum hadn't stopped him, he would have beaten the shit out of the bullies, becuase he's not a coward.
You really are an idiot, aren't you? It's fortunate that you don't have any kids.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
-
:plus:
-
Poffe and Simon got what they deserved! :evillaugh:
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
Oh, you sit down and sing "We shall overcome" with them? My dad took me out of school and if mum hadn't stopped him, he would have beaten the shit out of the bullies, becuase he's not a coward.
You really are an idiot, aren't you? It's fortunate that you don't have any kids.
I fail to spot the relation between Lits last statement and yours.
Edit: Lit - you might want to read this. She was brave... http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/3993747.Mother_cautioned_over_attack_on_five_year_old_at_son_s_school/
-
Today Northumbria Police confirmed the 44-year-old woman had accepted a police caution.
In a statement the force said: "At around 9.10am on Thursday December 11 police received a report of an incident at Priory Primary School, Percy Park Road, Tynemouth.
"A 44-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of assault and received a caution."
It is understood the woman walked into a reception class at the school where her son is a pupil and struck the boy in front of other children.
According to reports, the woman accused the pupil of bullying her son but he was able to return to lessons later that day.
I don't know how brave it actually is for a 44 year old woman to hit a 5 year old child. I wonder about the wisdom of a parent interjecting themselves into a situation unless there is a large difference of power between the children, but I don't know the whole story.
-
I don't know how brave it is for a dozen of kids to bully an Aspie kid. ::)
By the way, that father who shot Simon and Poffe had to pay compensation to Poffe and Simon's parents. He didn't go to the Supreme Court, which in this case would have been absolutely sure that he would've been allowed to do. :(
-
Today Northumbria Police confirmed the 44-year-old woman had accepted a police caution.
In a statement the force said: "At around 9.10am on Thursday December 11 police received a report of an incident at Priory Primary School, Percy Park Road, Tynemouth.
"A 44-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of assault and received a caution."
It is understood the woman walked into a reception class at the school where her son is a pupil and struck the boy in front of other children.
According to reports, the woman accused the pupil of bullying her son but he was able to return to lessons later that day.
I don't know how brave it actually is for a 44 year old woman to hit a 5 year old child. I wonder about the wisdom of a parent interjecting themselves into a situation unless there is a large difference of power between the children, but I don't know the whole story.
I know exactly how brave it was ... not at all.
It seems more like an emotional outburst than a decidedly courageous, deliberately focused effort of bravery. There is nothing brave about having an emotional outburst.
To me, it seems absolutely ridiculous that this "protective" mother chose to hit a five year old child, rather than confronting the parents of the child and the teachers in some way. She got off easy with just a warning.
-
Haha, as if the teachers or the parents of the little beast would take any responsibility. They maybe do that in America but not in Europe. Forget it.
-
Haha, as if the teachers or the parents of the little beast would take any responsibility. They maybe do that in America but not in Europe. Forget it.
I'm not saying that everyone in America has the courage or the intelligence to find the right way to deal with these things. I am saying that this is what I have done. I have had sit downs with parents, the bus drivers, the school administrators, teachers. It can be very stressful, time consuming and extremely frustrating. The usual outcome seems unproductive at first sometimes, but those with any character no longer make the mistake of NOT taking me seriously after a visit, though.
It is often simply a matter of expressing expectations to find a mutually acceptable solution. The notion that there can be a long term solution is asinine, though. It's like a small sailboat in rough winds, in need of constant course correction.
You laugh at my tack in one breath, not long after complaining about what a directionless Nanny State has been created all around you. You have just shown a large part of the problem in one sentence - NO one takes responsibility for their own welfare.
"It is the State's job to protect us," are the words of an extreme leftist and certainly NOT the words of the Brave.
-
We have compulsory school duty for 9 years in Sweden, so I think the teachers should take care of the little beasts. If they make it voluntarily to go to school it's another thing.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?
What should that be? He's like all other "liberals" - just talk.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?
I'm doing what I have to and more, for my kids. You're not my kid, you're not part of my family, and you don't know anything about me or my situation, or that of my kids. Intensity, while entertaining at times, is not the place where I share details about my family.
If you have problems at uni, talk to an official about them.
-
Hahaha, ad hominem as usual. How unexpected - not.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?
What should that be? He's like all other "liberals" - just talk.
What's really funny is that you don't know who I voted for.
But how about you? All you do is to tell us how brave you are when you blow up road signs or drink Talisker, but you have not achieved anything at all.
It is you who is just talk, Lit. That's all you are. Talk.
-
Honestly, are you surprised if Aspie kids who have the possiblity bring guns to school and kill the bullies?
Yes. There is something wrong if the reaction is that extreme.
Sooo, there is something wrong if just a few years of living hell every day when you're a juvenile brings you to the edge of murder? Yes, there is something wrong, the bullies. Anyone who kills a bully should of course get amnesty from the court.
Time to lock you away again, methinks.
What will you do if they bully the shit out of your kids? Coward.
What makes you think I'd not be doing it already? Just because you can't see a solution it doesn't mean there isn't one.
Moron.
If you have a viable alternative solution I would love to hear it. Preferably one that works in our lifetimes.
One, you're not my kid, and two, you're not a--
Ah, yes. You are.
So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?
I'm doing what I have to and more, for my kids. You're not my kid, you're not part of my family, and you don't know anything about me or my situation, or that of my kids. Intensity, while entertaining at times, is not the place where I share details about my family.
I know that unless you are born into the aristocracy, the only thing that is really going to help your kids is radical social change.
If you have problems at uni, talk to an official about them.
I have had problems in my past which have impacted on where I am now. As for my uni - I have a problem with that too, but then it could be generalised easily into a problem with society, which my university help prop up by deliberately entrenching advantage both with how it decides its intake and how they structure the place socially.
-
I'm doing what I have to and more, for my kids. You're not my kid, you're not part of my family, and you don't know anything about me or my situation, or that of my kids. Intensity, while entertaining at times, is not the place where I share details about my family.
I know that unless you are born into the aristocracy, the only thing that is really going to help your kids is radical social change.
:lol:
-
I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed" or "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again" or "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."
:hair:
-
We have compulsory school duty for 9 years in Sweden, so I think the teachers should take care of the little beasts. If they make it voluntarily to go to school it's another thing.
Once again, you have shown yourself to be VERY far to the left of my "political" position and I am considered to be quite liberal in most of my views by my own countrymen.
-
I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed" or "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again" or "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."
:hair:
The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
-
We have compulsory school duty for 9 years in Sweden, so I think the teachers should take care of the little beasts. If they make it voluntarily to go to school it's another thing.
Once again, you have shown yourself to be VERY far to the left of my "political" position and I am considered to be quite liberal in most of my views by my own countrymen.
Obama is ideologically closer to our right wing parties in Europe, than our left wing ones. At least in his policies anyway. Might be something to do with the religious right boneheads that dominate US politics.
-
governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
Whaaat? Do you not see the complete contradiction this poses? :zombiefuck:
-
governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
Whaaat? Do you not see the complete contradiction this poses? :zombiefuck:
There is no contradiction - unless you don't know what a strong meritocracy is.
-
What is a strong meritocracy?
(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)
-
... if?
-
What is a strong meritocracy?
(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)
There is a brilliant explanation in Stewart White's book Equality, however I can give you a concise one. Meritocracy is about fair distribution of opportunity, namely to make sure that everyone has equal chances. "Weak" meritocracy ensures that people are given equal chances when applying for a job, position or whatever you would regard as an opportunity - however this essentially only applies at the point of application, so past experiences and opportunities would not be counted in this. "Strong" opportunity extends effectively to when someone is born, ensuring that everyone is given the same chances, so the same education, healthcare, work experience and other opportunities, there is no option for people to buy advantage, as they currently do. Basically it ensures that those who are naturally the brightest rise to the top, if implemented properly removing ones social ability to cheat the system. Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
-
Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.
-
Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.
It costs very little to do it on a basic level - banning choice in education is very easy and cheap to do. It could even be done to a large extent by manipulating the university admissions system.
-
do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme. In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally
mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself. I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?
-
do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme.
Rather interestingly, these bussing schemes exist in rural areas and the areas that still operate the 11+ system.
In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself.
Actually they tried this social experiment in the US to some extent, bussing in black kids into the subarbs and vice versa. It ended up working out really well. Outside of the rural areas, i.e. the cities, redistribution of pupils would merely mean putting them on the underused bus networks. It would cost very little in practise.
I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?
It shows them that they have a chance, which is more than a start. But in addition I would obligate parents and single parents on the benefits system to be doing something with their time, if they are not working they could be learning. This would then at least mean their offspring are not left behind, even if they were in the first place.
Of course I am not going to pretend that we will get a perfect system. However I feel we can get an awful lot nearer there than we currently are, in a very feasible fashion.
-
do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme.
Rather interestingly, these bussing schemes exist in rural areas and the areas that still operate the 11+ system.
In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself.
Actually they tried this social experiment in the US to some extent, bussing in black kids into the subarbs and vice versa. It ended up working out really well. Outside of the rural areas, i.e. the cities, redistribution of pupils would merely mean putting them on the underused bus networks. It would cost very little in practise.
I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?
It shows them that they have a chance, which is more than a start. But in addition I would obligate parents and single parents on the benefits system to be doing something with their time, if they are not working they could be learning. This would then at least mean their offspring are not left behind, even if they were in the first place.
Of course I am not going to pretend that we will get a perfect system. However I feel we can get an awful lot nearer there than we currently are, in a very feasible fashion.
QFI!
UnFUCKINGbelievable, Hadron.
This is quoted mainly for its idiocy. (QFI)
For one thing, every assumption you have made is a false interpretation and every outcome is a dreamworld fantasy.
:asthing:
-
Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
That's because it's pie in the sky. The degree of complexity, government interference and cost involved in attempting to implement such an approach ensure that it never will be.
"When I look into the sky, I see PIE!"
:lol:
-
I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed" or "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again" or "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."
:hair:
The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
Considering the percentage of NTs in society, having the rules favour them shouldn't be a surprise, even to you.
Quit blaming your laziness on everything else.
-
What is a strong meritocracy?
(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)
There is a brilliant explanation in Stewart White's book Equality, however I can give you a concise one. Meritocracy is about fair distribution of opportunity, namely to make sure that everyone has equal chances. "Weak" meritocracy ensures that people are given equal chances when applying for a job, position or whatever you would regard as an opportunity - however this essentially only applies at the point of application, so past experiences and opportunities would not be counted in this. "Strong" opportunity extends effectively to when someone is born, ensuring that everyone is given the same chances, so the same education, healthcare, work experience and other opportunities, there is no option for people to buy advantage, as they currently do. Basically it ensures that those who are naturally the brightest rise to the top, if implemented properly removing ones social ability to cheat the system. Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
Dream on.
There is no way for this to work in Real Life (TM). For one thing, people are not the same so an education that works for one person doesn't work for another. The healthcare that is fine for individual A sees individual B to her grave. Et cetera.
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
-
I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed" or "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again" or "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."
:hair:
The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
Considering the percentage of NTs in society, having the rules favour them shouldn't be a surprise, even to you.
Quit blaming your laziness on everything else.
Thankfully it takes very few people to destroy a system. Really we should be working to bring it down.
As for my laziness - totally irrelevant here. However I am going to say that I should not have to work to learn their game - really my time would be much better spent destroying it. Given half an opportunity, I will do precisely that.
-
What is a strong meritocracy?
(Be warned I don't have a heck of a lot of patience for this if you act like an idiot.)
There is a brilliant explanation in Stewart White's book Equality, however I can give you a concise one. Meritocracy is about fair distribution of opportunity, namely to make sure that everyone has equal chances. "Weak" meritocracy ensures that people are given equal chances when applying for a job, position or whatever you would regard as an opportunity - however this essentially only applies at the point of application, so past experiences and opportunities would not be counted in this. "Strong" opportunity extends effectively to when someone is born, ensuring that everyone is given the same chances, so the same education, healthcare, work experience and other opportunities, there is no option for people to buy advantage, as they currently do. Basically it ensures that those who are naturally the brightest rise to the top, if implemented properly removing ones social ability to cheat the system. Unfortunately there is no country that operates such a system at present.
Dream on.
There is no way for this to work in Real Life (TM). For one thing, people are not the same so an education that works for one person doesn't work for another. The healthcare that is fine for individual A sees individual B to her grave. Et cetera.
No, no - what you do is ensure for example with education that people have equal access to resources, this means tuition and so on. No one would be allowed to buy in a better education, for example sending their kids to Eton. As for healthcare, in the UK there is very little that someone can get privately that they cannot get on the NHS, In fact the NHS also happens to have to sort out the mess that these private hospitals manage to make in cases
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
I am arguing for equal distribution of opportunity, not wealth here. You just have to make sure there are some things money can't buy...
-
If you don't have equal distribution of wealth, you won't have equal opportunity. And if you define things money can't buy (like the important ones, such as houses, transportation, etc), you risk collapsing the economy.
Like I said, dream on.
I won't bother to reply further on your educational dreams. As a rejected teenager's wet dream it might suffice but for those of us with some experience there are just too many if's and but's.
-
If you don't have equal distribution of wealth, you won't have equal opportunity. And if you define things money can't buy (like the important ones, such as houses, transportation, etc), you risk collapsing the economy.
Like I said, dream on.
I won't bother to reply further on your educational dreams. As a rejected teenager's wet dream it might suffice but for those of us with some experience there are just too many if's and but's.
The only areas you do not allow people to cheat on is education and health - the other stuff follows naturally. You are ensuring that all people enter society as adults with the best opportunity they can each have. No need to mess with the economy beyond killing off a couple of markets here and there.
-
Again, dream on. And have a plan B ready.
-
do you think banning choice in education would be enough to have the desired effect? it won't stop middle-class parents moving to areas with a decent school - unless you were going to award school places randomly and organise a (complicated and more than likely expensive) bussing scheme.
Rather interestingly, these bussing schemes exist in rural areas and the areas that still operate the 11+ system.
In either case then you have a choice between life chances being allocated either by chance, or postcode. The alternative would be to make all schools equally mediocre good, a major re-engineering process in itself.
Actually they tried this social experiment in the US to some extent, bussing in black kids into the subarbs and vice versa. It ended up working out really well. Outside of the rural areas, i.e. the cities, redistribution of pupils would merely mean putting them on the underused bus networks. It would cost very little in practise.
I don't think you've really thought that one through. And how would this address the other reasons for poorer life chances, such as addressing poverty and a culture of low aspirations, providing support to bright kids whose parents are unable/unwilling to help them academically, etc?
It shows them that they have a chance, which is more than a start. But in addition I would obligate parents and single parents on the benefits system to be doing something with their time, if they are not working they could be learning. This would then at least mean their offspring are not left behind, even if they were in the first place.
Of course I am not going to pretend that we will get a perfect system. However I feel we can get an awful lot nearer there than we currently are, in a very feasible fashion.
QFI!
UnFUCKINGbelievable, Hadron.
This is quoted mainly for its idiocy. (QFI)
For one thing, every assumption you have made is a false interpretation and every outcome is a dreamworld fantasy.
:asthing:
what he said. :LMAO:
you might have a head full of vague notions Hadron, but forecasting and logistics really isn't your thing. You'll make a great NuLabour politician some day. :clap:
-
We have compulsory school duty for 9 years in Sweden, so I think the teachers should take care of the little beasts. If they make it voluntarily to go to school it's another thing.
Once again, you have shown yourself to be VERY far to the left of my "political" position and I am considered to be quite liberal in most of my views by my own countrymen.
Order in schools is not a left-right issue in Sweden. Everyone agrees that the teachers shall take care of it, though it's not happening.
-
I find it extremely distressing that the sum of these types of discussion turns out to be that some agency, state faction, governmental institution is to be presented with non-negotiable terms like "you have to do it for me, if I am to succeed" or "you have to fix this or that, before I can try again" or "you have to make my life better for me, so I can have what the ones who work hard at it have gotten."
:hair:
The rules are fixed up totally in favor of NT's. It is not an unreasonable expectation for those responsible for shaping to society to rectify that situation. As for hard work, most of those who have gotten to the top have gotten there by opportunity, not their own back or even their abilities. That is something that must change, governments should be at least be able to provide a strong meritocracy.
:agreed:
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
-
Thankfully it takes very few people to destroy a system. Really we should be working to bring it down.
:agreed:
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
::) Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.
Tell the audience how you would do it. :popcorn:
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
::) Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.
Tell the audience how you would do it. :popcorn:
You first - its not like you have not been asked.
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
::) Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.
Tell the audience how you would do it. :popcorn:
You first - its not like you have not been asked.
OK--assuming that you actually asked me to tell you why I don't think equal distribution of wealth is possible.
It's basic human nature, really. Most people don't want to part with their earthly possessions. In fact, quite a few are prepared to fight for them. It's all over the news, with stories of break-ins, shooting intruders and the like, as well as apparent here, in quite a few recent posts about gun control.
As westerners, I'd say that the average member on this board has more than the average person on Earth but I have yet to hear of anyone here planning on sending a fair share of those possessions to the less fortunate in, say, Somalia.
Feel free to prove me wrong and send your computer to someone there.
Your turn. Tell me why equal distribution of wealth is a practical possibility. Furthermore, tell me how to do it and live to see the next day.
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
::) Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.
Tell the audience how you would do it. :popcorn:
You first - its not like you have not been asked.
OK--assuming that you actually asked me to tell you why I don't think equal distribution of wealth is possible.
Ha - though I never advocated it if you had read my post.
It's basic human nature, really. Most people don't want to part with their earthly possessions. In fact, quite a few are prepared to fight for them. It's all over the news, with stories of break-ins, shooting intruders and the like, as well as apparent here, in quite a few recent posts about gun control.
As westerners, I'd say that the average member on this board has more than the average person on Earth but I have yet to hear of anyone here planning on sending a fair share of those possessions to the less fortunate in, say, Somalia.
Feel free to prove me wrong and send your computer to someone there.
Your turn. Tell me why equal distribution of wealth is a practical possibility. Furthermore, tell me how to do it and live to see the next day.
"So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?"
That question - you never said what you would do here.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
-
The thing is, your ideas are very simplistic, idealistic and amateurish to the point where is would be a lot of pointless work to explain why. If it isn't already obvious to you how those things just don't work in the real world, no amount of explaining is going to change your mind, and why wants to waste time doing something like that for no gain. People like you go out of their way to find their own wacky hair brained ideas and are never willing to listen to reason when it is given to you, no matter how much you claim that you want to hear. It's almost like a form of self delusion where you are trying to convince yourself that you are good guy by pretending to be open minded.
You are just another childless person who thinks they have all the ideas for those with children. You'll never understand and its a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:agreed: The coward cowers - what else? :P
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?
Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.
-
Equal distribution of wealth is not possible, either.
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
::) Nothing to do with liberalism, Lit, merely my considered opinion. I suppose it's easier for you to imply that than try explaining why you think my opinion is wrong, though.
Tell the audience how you would do it. :popcorn:
You first - its not like you have not been asked.
OK--assuming that you actually asked me to tell you why I don't think equal distribution of wealth is possible.
Ha - though I never advocated it if you had read my post.
It's basic human nature, really. Most people don't want to part with their earthly possessions. In fact, quite a few are prepared to fight for them. It's all over the news, with stories of break-ins, shooting intruders and the like, as well as apparent here, in quite a few recent posts about gun control.
As westerners, I'd say that the average member on this board has more than the average person on Earth but I have yet to hear of anyone here planning on sending a fair share of those possessions to the less fortunate in, say, Somalia.
Feel free to prove me wrong and send your computer to someone there.
Your turn. Tell me why equal distribution of wealth is a practical possibility. Furthermore, tell me how to do it and live to see the next day.
"So you don't have an alternative solution for dealing with bullies in schools then?"
That question - you never said what you would do here.
We were talking about equal distribution of wealth. I said it isn't possible and told you why. What seems to be your problem? Your turn now.
As for schools and bullying, I told you a couple of days ago that what I do for my kids is not something I will talk about here. What part of that pst did you not understand?
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
Which is why you replied with
"Liberalism" in a nutshell: to those who have shall be given.
instead of telling us why you seem to consider equal distribution of wealth a practical possibility?
See, the reason why I'm taking the piss is because you two are so fucking naive it hurts. You're replacing Flo as Intensity's village idiots and I'm not above kicking you in the arse for the lulz. You're just electrons, yes, but a bunch of very stupid electrons.
-
Anarchism is one way to get equal distribution. Another, more boring and conventional way, is the way that the Social Democrats have used in Sweden, which was pretty well functioning for a couple of decades.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
-
That's because the average man prefers to be a sheep instead of a free man. He could be free if he wanted to.
-
You're the sheep, Lit. Go blow up a road sign and show the world how *free* you are.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?
Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
-
You're the sheep, Lit. Go blow up a road sign and show the world how *free* you are.
What will you vote for 2010? The "liberals"? The "conservatives"? The Center Party? The Green? ::)
-
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
Poor you. Really.
-
You're the sheep, Lit. Go blow up a road sign and show the world how *free* you are.
What will you vote for 2010? The "liberals"? The "conservatives"? The Center Party? The Green? ::)
Avoiding the subject much? :zoinks:
-
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
:agreed: :plus:
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
The religion of anarcho-autism. 8)
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
That rule applies to any ideology, the underlying principle being that empires always fall over a period of time. That is not a flaw of socialism, merely a flaw of any system. It might be worth you noting the recent fall of capitalism - and the decline of US hegemony.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
The religion of anarcho-autism. 8)
If you want to get involved in setting up such a thing, it might be worth getting involved in the current extreme-left groups organising the riots in France and Greece.
-
They're brave but they're left. I want right wing anarchy. :-\
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?
You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.
And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?
All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."
Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
The religion of anarcho-autism. 8)
The religion of anarcho-moronism, rather. Being autistic does not equal being stupid, even with you two trying to even the score.
-
They're brave but they're left. I want right wing anarchy. :-\
Anarchy involving largely religious fundamentalists. I think I would pass...
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?
You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.
I have never advocated any form of redistribution of wealth here beyond what you currently have in your own country right now, at this minute. I am advocating a redistribution of opportunity, which is something totally different. The only restriction here is restricting someone buying educational advantage and a bureau of jobs to stop people hiring their chums - a system which effectively operates in government organisations when hiring anyway in some places. Basically its a restriction of parents ability to pass on wealth to their children, a little like inheritance tax if you like.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.
[/quote]
Most of them with a vacuum between their ears. An aspie terrorist group would be a lot smarter.
Oh - you might want to look up Israel. That nation was built by a terrorist movement.
And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?
All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."
Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?
In person I am pretty effective at persuading people who are odds with society on a one on one basis - I could use that as a basis. You are right though in that (b) would be a difficult problem. Though there is nothing wrong with (b) not being fully achieved in the short term if you make it a distinct enough subset.
-
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
:agreed: :plus:
Um, you guys have all been throwing meaningless ad hom crap at each other. Don't make yourself out to be victims; you're not.
-
Most of them with a vacuum between their ears. An aspie terrorist group would be a lot smarter.
Oh - you might want to look up Israel. That nation was built by a terrorist movement.
:agreed:
They're brave and they've killed a lot of towelheads. :arrr: Aspie terrorism ftw! Aspergiae est imperare orbi universo! 8)
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale.
Oh there is an entire anarchist country - it isn't going to well there. Well except for the pirates anyway.
Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything.
Nah - the credit crunch is going to increase the role of government, not reduce it.
Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis.
The big three bailout is Keynesian economics - completely different to new deal. As for creating more government jobs, its a good idea. The Japanese really sorted themselves out this way, the result being that they are one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth, as well as having the best transport network.
Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate.
According to one school of though (Keynesian) it may have done.
It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal.
As well as having millions more on the streets.
If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
No - it is going to bring necessary social justice.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?
Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
I'll have to remember that one, point out obvious flaws is now considered bullying.
Aren't you two supposed to be tough or something? I mean at least you talk that way ( :wanker: ).
-
We're brave! :litigious: :arrr:
-
We're brave! :litigious: :arrr:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
odeon is ridiculing other people in this topic as well as others, but he doesn't come up with a solution of his own. You don't have to give a solution of your own just for critizing others, but it makes you lee trustworthy.
So it's just a dumb rule you have made up to bully someone (which doesn't seem to be working) into giving forth their opinion in order for you to pick it apart because you are insecure in exposing the failings of your own idea?
Sounds like NT bullshit trickery to me.
If anyone one here could be construed to be bullying, it would be Odeon with his Ad Hom nonsense.
I'll have to remember that one, point out obvious flaws is now considered bullying.
Aren't you two supposed to be tough or something? I mean at least you talk that way ( :wanker: ).
Argument by society is (a) lame and (b) falls into the I have "lots of people agree with me so I am right" camp.
-
As opposed to the 'only Lit agrees with me because I am talking shite' argument? :orly:
-
Lit agrees because Hadron is BRAVE and visionary. 8)
-
The Holy Black People are BRAVE and VISIONARY. :zoinks:
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
-
Lit agrees because Hadron is BRAVE and visionary. 8)
Lit agrees because that's one of the few emoticons Lit can find on a regular basis. :zoinks:
-
I always liked 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
That's the other one, yes. And that pirate.
-
BRAVE! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
NO, not brave. Just boring.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
-
That's kind of BRAVE! And they have guns! BRAVE! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.
self-ownage. read up on anarchism, dumbass. thought you were supposed to be a politics student?
-
You're wrong, duncvis. There is right wing anarchy as well.
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?
You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.
And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?
All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."
Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?
It was a story-within-a-story. The actual story was called "Grail" and the s-w-a-s was told by the main character to dramatize how disappointed he was with the ending of his favorite serial.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.
self-ownage. read up on anarchism, dumbass. thought you were supposed to be a politics student?
I read that bit before posting, its like saying that its strongly contested by the great academic Osama bin Laden. Any serious IR theorist would tell you that Somalia is pretty much an Anarchy.
-
you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.
-
you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.
No, it isn't. Right-wing anarchism is individual anarchism as opposed to left-wing anarchism, which is just another form of communism.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
I disagree, and so do others:
Economist Alex Tabarrok has claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a "unique test of the theory of anarchy" as espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard, although this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos.
This is from the article you referenced. It is interesting to note that the ones to dispute that Somalia is an anarchy are anti-capitalist anarchists who, in my mind, would be the ones closest to the views you sometimes appear to uphold, New Labour.
Again, the lack of a government in itself does not equal anarchy. Mostly it only equals chaos.
-
None of those methods works. There was never equality under social democrat rule. That's why the socialist states fail, one after another--the ideology does not work. And anarchy--please; show me a working example of anarchy, anywhere.
:popcorn:
There is no working example of anarchy because no one has tried it on anything larger than a communal scale. Doesn't mean it won't work. My thought is that we're evolving into an anarchist society, but the masses aren't quite ready to give up this idea that government can fix everything. Based on recent polls regarding Bush and the bailout, however, I'd say they're leaning more towards libertarianism--or "anarchy light," if you prefer. What pisses me off is that, even with mass disapproval, Congress and Obama will probably go ahead with the Big Three bailout as well as creating hundreds of thousands of gov't jobs by upping the tax rate. This in a time of economic crisis. Ask any decent economist and s/he'll tell you that FDR's New Deal didn't curtail the economic depression; it *extended* it by creating jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business people, curtailing their abilities to make purchases, hire more workers and innovate. It's possible we could have had stereo records and TV five years earlier than we did if not for the New Deal. If not for War Two, the Depression might have lasted even longer. (At least FDR had the sense to end Prohibition and resume taxing alcohol consumption.) And now Obama's New New Deal threatens to sabotage economic turnaround before it can get properly started. Townsend was right: Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.
Personally I doubt we'll ever move to an anarchist society. The reason why there isn't a larger-scale anarchism anywhere is because I simply think it would be asking too much from people. Remember, the lack of a working government does not equal anarchism, as Hadron seems to think.
Merry Christmas (albeit a tad early...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
this is strongly disputed by anti-capitalist anarchists who contend it is not anarchy, but merely chaos[6] resulting from unequal distribution of power and meddling by neighbors and developed nations like the United States.
self-ownage. read up on anarchism, dumbass. thought you were supposed to be a politics student?
Great minds and all that, Dunc. I should read the rest of the thread before replying. :laugh:
OTOH, it would help more if Hadron read the articles he googles before replying. :P
-
I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here :green:
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
:LMAO:
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
:chicken:
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?
You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.
And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?
All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."
Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?
It was a story-within-a-story. The actual story was called "Grail" and the s-w-a-s was told by the main character to dramatize how disappointed he was with the ending of his favorite serial.
Thanks. :plus:
-
I read that bit before posting, its like saying that its strongly contested by the great academic Osama bin Laden. Any serious IR theorist would tell you that Somalia is pretty much an Anarchy.
So you think the anti-capitalist anarchists are not serious?
And btw--the sheer ineptness of your Osama comment is astounding.
-
you sir are a fuckwit. I see no point in even arguing this point further with you. Right-wing anarchism is an oxymoron.
Was there any point in taking this twat seriously in the first place?
-
Not really, but it passes the time.
-
Some insightful comments on anarchy and the illegitmacy of state power:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130801.html
-
"The state is the coldest monster of all. Out of its mouth a lie coils : 'I am the people'."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
"The state is the coldest monster of all. Out of its mouth a lie coils : 'I am the people'."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
:indeed:
-
Makes me miss garmonbozia all over again.
-
I apparently learnt to piss people off at quite an early age, somehow, as when I was about 8 years old, one of my teachers one day shouted in my ear 'I don't like you' then sent me out and my mother came and found me crying on the pavement(sidewalk). I believe she had words with the headmaster and with that teacher at a later date about their behaviour, but yeah, I was removed from that school soon afterwards. It had something to do with the fact I had been blamed for something I had not done, and that my friend, the teacher's favourite had done, and when someone told him it had been her and not me, he was not happy.