|
| Thread: The Mvass plan for fixing America |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted February 22, 2008 04:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said, nor even implied. And I wish you would delete it. Someone else already referenced it as if I really said something like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binabik:
One could also argue that if more of the students had guns, someone would have stopped this guy.
In the US, individuals with guns prevent an estimated 800,000-1,200,000 crimes a year.
Sorry for the misunderstanding..
And? Where does it say that I think students should carry guns? It doesn't say that. When someone says "one could argue...." it means they do not necessarily believe it them self, or in this case, draw any conclusions from it.
To repeat. I do NOT think students should carry guns to school.
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 06:20 AM |
|
|
An eye for an eye, Mytical?
Besides I don't see why people believe that SHOOTING A CRIMINAL TO KILL is the only way to prevent crime. 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 08:09 AM |
|
|
Hopefully pointing the gun at them stops the crime, and it will in the vast majority of cases. But if someone has entered your house and they don't stop when you have a gun pointed at them then the criminal should be considered an EXTREME danger.
The idea isn't to kill someone, or even shoot them. The idea is to stop the crime.
It was questioned before if some property is worth someone's life. It's not about property. Because if someone has broken into your house they have stolen something from you that can never be returned. They have have stolen from you the one place that we all should have a right to, a home, a place that is our haven, a place where we feel safe and can sleep at night. If someone has been burglarized or raped or whatever crime was commited, they have had that very presious thing stolen from them, probably forever.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 05:48 PM |
|
|
From Binabik:
Quote:
It was questioned before if some property is worth someone's life. It's not about property. Because if someone has broken into your house they have stolen something from you that can never be returned. They have have stolen from you the one place that we all should have a right to, a home, a place that is our haven, a place where we feel safe and can sleep at night. If someone has been burglarized or raped or whatever crime was commited, they have had that very presious thing stolen from them, probably forever.
A good point. I was mugged once (well, attempted mugging - they ran away unsuccessful) and the feeling of violation was surprising to me in its intensity. Almost irrationally, I didn't feel very safe for quite some time. That was a poorly-constructed attempted mugging. I can't imagine the phsychological damage that must ensue from having your home or body violated.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:
Quote:
Yes, but trigonometry is useful to know even if you don't go into a specialty that requires it.
Of course, that's why they should WANT to learn it regardless of jobs; but if they don't why blame them anyway?
Quote:
And how would it do that?
Hmm, the same way parents do it? (of course less emphasis on a single child; it also helps them be sociable too).
Quote:
Everyone has opinions. Even babies have opinions.
You said you didn't like the "drawing artistic" stuff in elementary school -- so that was your opinion. Now, I don't think you'll want to enforce THAT into other children, right, unless they choose? (unless of course you want a revenge on them to go through what you've been through)
Quote:
You don't have to go to school to form opinions.
Of course you "don't have to", as you don't have to go to learn anything, you could as well learn from parents (if they were teachers and had the time). The problem is, you just don't "learn" how to think for yourself by growing up -- the same way you don't learn "manners" by yourself. And I think that's what school should be about, rather than teaching more information than needed since most probably they'll forget it anyway.
Quote:
Of course he was creative. But how do you "teach" creativity?
Ok, again I think the word "teach" is not the best, it should rather "encourage" creativity and make children more mature.
A mature person is not represented by his/her knowledge of (e.g) rocket physics 
@TitaniumAlloy:
Quote:
Science should teach only scientific theories based on observable, testable evidence.
Ok, actually if you want to be scientific you'll have to let the students test the evidence and perform the experiments themselves. Maybe they'll have different (i.e their own) results, so they would have learned something wrong by being "taught" in this case.
But I agree science class should mainly teach scientific subjects, though one could argue whether current theories or models are perfect (in this case, it's no longer better than subjective assumptions, which the students are forced to grasp, whether or not they think otherwise).
Quote:
If kids want to learn about creationism then they can do it outside school or in an R.E. class or something but should never impose it on other students.
Mind you, I think nothing should be "imposed" on other students, not even science class (as it's certainly no 'better' than other classes), if they do not want it (or perhaps they already know something  ). Granted there are a few things the students should learn like language and communication (though not necessarily lot literature!) and some basic arithmetic/math, but aside from that I think it should be their choice (read not their parent's choice).
@Moonlith:
Quote:
@ TheDeath : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion
Please counter that. Thanks.
I'm not sure what I should counter? This idea is most certainly not new and perhaps discussed to death in the I Gave up in Believing in God thread. This wasn't about my beliefs anyway, but I'll be brief and talk a bit about "irrational" illusions as an example (read, it's only an example  ). No matter how many senses we have, in the end all of them take the form of an illusion, or so-called truth is an illusion, thus relative (subjective). In fact, if you still don't believe this, relativity tells us that it's impossible to know "the absolute" much like you can't 'measure distance' with a single point given! (supposedly you believe relativity more than other things, otherwise I really don't know how to explain this to you).
If all people were blind except one, it is arguable whether the one with eyes really saw anything at all and not illusions -- the blind people could not "believe" because the man with eyes might lie or simply have illusions. But in fact, why would the man with eyes believe his eyes are NOT illusions? After all, the five senses are processed by the brain eventually, and it is the brain that lets you "see". However, most people believe the brain also generates "illusions". As for emotions, they can be given the same 'credit'. You simply take some senses you want (e.g I'm pretty sure your eyes are no.1) and believe while dismissing others as even possible illusions, or not 'rational'. While you dismiss some of these as illusions (I'm pretty sure you do though, apologize if not), I dismiss all of them as possible illusions, and so we're both in the same boat since when you'll see why you dismiss some of them, then you'll understand why I am dismissing the others (though that doesn't make me instantly say it's irrational!), and the popularity (i.e how many people agree with me/you) has no consequences on truth (if you truly seek that), in fact as has been pointed, truth is relative, even kinda explained by physical laws (relativity), and that the Universe is probabilistic.
Now you are aware that science creates so-called "models" that try to 'explain' the things happening (explanations could be considered relative). Of course, a possible model would be "The (invisible) boogeyman does blablah etc", but unfortunately it seems people are not interested in this and think that this is not more logical than their explanation involving '(invisible) fields' (for example). This is where perhaps my post shows any relevance to the thread about education: people can make their own models, because "teachers" and scientists are relative too.
For example, some scientists (quite some centuries ago) said that the Earth was Flat, and that those who said otherwise were thinking irrational. But that's ok, I think this is subjective, as some would say "There is a clear tendency to view our own thoughts, words, and actions as rational and to see those who disagree as irrational."
So best would be to let students decide what's rational and vice versa, as it's relative, and any reasoning stating otherwise already makes you believe in something: that your thinking is rational while of those who disagree irrational. This is certainly indoctrination much the same as the religion indoctrination you are against, or even worse, because you don't even allow them to think up a different 'view' (or model). At least in religion God is abstract. And mind you I'm against all kinds of indoctrination. I think you should trust what you "feel" is best instead of what others feel it's good for you (or perhaps what others WANT you to).
I truly apologize for this long and quite off-topic post in here, I promise I won't hi-jack this thread further like this.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 07:46 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
For example, some scientists (quite some centuries ago) said that the Earth was Flat, and that those who said otherwise were thinking irrational. But that's ok, I think this is subjective, as some would say "There is a clear tendency to view our own thoughts, words, and actions as rational and to see those who disagree as irrational."
True, some PEOPLE thought the world was flat. However, they were not scientists, and flat-earthism has never been a scientific theory or deduction.
Important distinction.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 19:50, 22 Feb 2008.
|
@TheDeath: You've just earned my respect 
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 07:49 PM |
|
|
Some speculated that because of gravity and 'bent of light' or similar (I don't know much from things I'm not interested in) the Earth was impossible to be round (apparently they didn't think like gravity having a spherical shape). That was their point if I remember.
though I have to admit I'm not really knowledgeable of this subject and perhaps it is a bit different.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, that's why they should WANT to learn it regardless of jobs; but if they don't why blame them anyway?
Because some people are too stupid for their own good.
Quote:
Hmm, the same way parents do it?
But parents don't teach children to think for themselves. Children learn it by themselves.
Quote:
The problem is, you just don't "learn" how to think for yourself by growing up -- the same way you don't learn "manners" by yourself.
You can't be "taught" to think for yourself. You can only learn it by yourself. Of course, it can be encouraged, but how exactly do you encourage it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 08:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because some people are too stupid for their own good.
That's quite narrowminded, what makes you think they can't make decisions, or for that matter, that you know better what's "good" for them (since everyone sees this different, not to mention, they could say the same to you ).
Simply put, in this case, people can be 'stupid' outside school too -- are you going to violate their freedom rights there too?
(not to mention that they will probably forget everything about it once they're done, if they didn't "want" it)
Quote:
But parents don't teach children to think for themselves. Children learn it by themselves.
Yes they don't "teach" them (like I said it's not a good chosen word), but you're not telling me parents are just security guards in children's life?
Quote:
You can't be "taught" to think for yourself. You can only learn it by yourself.
Actually, if it counts, you are "taught" to think for yourself, by life itself
Quote:
Of course, it can be encouraged, but how exactly do you encourage it?
This is something I didn't put much thought on, but there a few things to mention. Firstly, children are often too "protected" from their parents about the world itself. It follows roughly a linear curve as children get older (up to around age 10). This curve should grow exponentially instead -- because a kid with age 9 makes much more distinction and is not so "fragile", so the derivatives (aka increase) should also go up higher.
Of course this is pure math speech and I don't have kids yet so I might be a bit biased, but seriously in such conversation I don't think how I could go on (at least, sympathy and social ties should be the most important).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Simply put, in this case, people can be 'stupid' outside school too -- are you going to violate their freedom rights there too?
Outside of school, you're going to also be infringing on the rights of adults too. But only children go to school. They can't be trusted to choose to learn trigonometry.
Quote:
Yes they don't "teach" them (like I said it's not a good chosen word), but you're not telling me parents are just security guards in children's life?
No, they pass on their ideas and values to the kids. But they don't really "teach" (I know it's not a good word) children to think for themselves.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 23, 2008 04:20 AM |
|
|
The Death:Quote:
Ok, actually if you want to be scientific you'll have to let the students test the evidence and perform the experiments themselves. Maybe they'll have different (i.e their own) results, so they would have learned something wrong by being "taught" in this case.
This isn't teaching at all. If you sat down a bunch of kids and said "there is a thing called gravity, find out for yourselves what it is...", that isn't doing anything. You teach the kids what has already been tested and observed, and the teaching method may incorporate experiments and practicals. If it produces results that aren't concordant, they find out where they went wrong. If they didn't go wrong then they have discovered something new
This is the current scientific method. What is wrong with it?
Quote:
But I agree science class should mainly teach scientific subjects, though one could argue whether current theories or models are perfect (in this case, it's no longer better than subjective assumptions, which the students are forced to grasp, whether or not they think otherwise).
Teaching science is about bringing the students up to date with modern scientific knowledge. The kids are allowed to think otherwise, it is irrelevant. But they still have to know what it is the general scientific community have come to agree on in order to join it and further their understanding or lead on to their own experiments etc.
Quote:
Mind you, I think nothing should be "imposed" on other students, not even science class (as it's certainly no 'better' than other classes), if they do not want it (or perhaps they already know something ). Granted there are a few things the students should learn like language and communication (though not necessarily lot literature!) and some basic arithmetic/math, but aside from that I think it should be their choice (read not their parent's choice).
This is what we have now...
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 01:49 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:
Quote:
Outside of school, you're going to also be infringing on the rights of adults too. But only children go to school. They can't be trusted to choose to learn trigonometry.
Why do they need to be 'trusted'? I guess since they are pretty much grown up to a certain level (for trigonometry ofc) what's wrong with them choosing if they want it or not? Or for that matter, how much of it? (besides, you think you know what's better for them than they do? that's life, they can make mistakes the same way you can, and have the same rights to 'freedom' as you do)
@TA:
Quote:
This isn't teaching at all. If you sat down a bunch of kids and said "there is a thing called gravity, find out for yourselves what it is...", that isn't doing anything. You teach the kids what has already been tested and observed, and the teaching method may incorporate experiments and practicals. If it produces results that aren't concordant, they find out where they went wrong. If they didn't go wrong then they have discovered something new
Well ain't this the same as a non-science class way of teaching? If these two have the same teaching methods, then why should they be split? (i'm not supporting this idea, but rather how to teach in a science class). For example, if I were a math teacher and give down a formula for my students, and said that "it works", they had to trust that it does (since the 'proof' is too complicated and they can't grasp it). Things get more complicated with other sciences since you might need equipment instead of pure mind like in math, and that is usually not available to students (e.g particle accelerators for anti-matter ).
Quote:
This is what we have now...
Well I thought there were some mandatory classes? 
(notice I said *basic* math, not advanced ones like calculus or analytic geometry, etc.)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I guess since they are pretty much grown up to a certain level (for trigonometry ofc) what's wrong with them choosing if they want it or not?
Because trigonometry is useful in real life, so they need to know it, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Quote:
besides, you think you know what's better for them than they do? that's life, they can make mistakes the same way you can, and have the same rights to 'freedom' as you do
I have to take mandatory classes too. I don't like some of them. Yet they have a certain benefit. I wouldn't take them if I didn't have to, but I am probably better off for having to take them.
Quote:
Well I thought there were some mandatory classes?
Well, calculus isn't mandatory.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because trigonometry is useful in real life, so they need to know it, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Now you're speaking like a true dictator! (and I thought you despise those religious people which also claim "religion is necessary, so they need to know it, regardless of whether they want to or not"). Do you think you are able to define 'usefulness' better than others?
not to mention, if a student really does not care about trig and is forced to learn it, he'll forget anything (like you e.g forget religion, if you're learning it without wanting to, or did I misunderstood something?).
Quote:
I have to take mandatory classes too. I don't like some of them. Yet they have a certain benefit. I wouldn't take them if I didn't have to, but I am probably better off for having to take them.
I'm pretty sure you feel that way, in the end everything is useful, but remember not everyone's the same, and others are not so inclined towards 'trig math' for example.
Quote:
Well, calculus isn't mandatory.
it was supposed to be a 'etc' list, forgot to put trigonometry in.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 02:44 PM |
|
|
At what age do kids have the choice what to learn and what not?
Who defines what is "basic" material which should be learned by all, coz it is needed for the majority of all professions?
Basic maths is for sure needed for the majority of all professions, while art, religion, music and history for sure is not. (imho)
Kids often need some pressure to keep their focus on 1 thing and get better, because they often get easily distracted by other things. Do you think all the great football players, basketball players or athlets started this sport by their own will? Many of them had to be forced by their parents and then later they started to like this sport more and more and got "addicted".
Kids need to make their own decisions, no doubt. But basics need to be tought. Be it in school by the teachers, or at home by parents. And then on the other hand they will make their own experiences (like the one with the hot oven..) and these experiences will force them to think about certain things a bit more and make decisions, which could differ from those they got taught. This then will be the moment where they start to "form" their own personality. Where they don't say "Ok dad" all the time, but sometimes "Dad, I don't think so...".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 02:54 PM |
|
|
Agreed mostly, but trigonometry is not something like arithmetic or basic algebra (i.e without matrices, which I classify as "advanced" algebra).
Arithmetic no doubt is useful in elementary school.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 04:23 PM |
|
|
@The Death -
So, taking this to the extreme, should children be able to choose whether they go to school in the first place?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2008 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I thought you despise those religious people which also claim "religion is necessary, so they need to know it, regardless of whether they want to or not"
Because no one doubts that trigonometry is true. And no one doubts that it's useful.
Quote:
if a student really does not care about trig and is forced to learn it, he'll forget anything
Now that is a problem. Well, if they're stupid enough to forget, it's their loss.
Quote:
Agreed mostly, but trigonometry is not something like arithmetic or basic algebra (i.e without matrices, which I classify as "advanced" algebra).
Arithmetic is useful in real life. So is trig. What's the difference?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 28, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, taking this to the extreme, should children be able to choose whether they go to school in the first place?
Elementary school: no, they are too young at that stage and only think about playing.
Middle school (don't know the name, usually classes 4-8 if I remember): The first two years I think should be a combination of kids & parents choice. Children have gained quite some maturity at this stage but are still not able to decide everything.
Of course that does not include "forcing" them by beating or forcefully moving them into class. If they don't want it, they don't, especially if moving them to school makes them worse. They need help, not from the perspective of not going to school (that's not the important thing in life), but because of the reasons why they don't. Some children are too depressed (and usually don't want to go to school) and I think we should help them, not by forcing them to school, but rather by taking a look into them and understanding their 'status'. I think we should value a child more by his own tragedies and thoughts on the subject, rather than only caring if he or she got the biggest prize in the class. Every children has their own feelings about this, and they should be free to express them -- the problem is, do adults really hear them?
At classes 7-8 I think they also should be 'heard' more because they have a pretty solid experience at this point.
Highschool: At this stage students are more than capable of handling themselves -- they may do some bad things from time to time (e.g: gang stuff), but nobody's perfect, and that's how they are, you can't change them by forcing them. They make mistakes, everyone does. So by deciding for them makes you think you can't make mistakes while they make a whole lot -- after all, experience in life is gained from mistakes too. So yes, they should choose whether they want or not.
|
| |
|
|
