my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

No, no one is just smart. Just becuse you can be a prodigy in chess does not mean you have an essential quick way of learning everything given to you.

In this case you are conflating intelligence with ability to quickly master subjects, which is an atypical sense of intelligence at best and at any rate subjective.

I am saying no one is smart in the context of this example: computer assembly.

What is your evidence for this, empirical or otherwise?

No, you are not impressing anyone

This statement is probably false.

You are using the tools of education and information to use for *yourself* and when you get down to it, those "gaggle of idiots" are the ones who put in a good word for you to get into a high end university.

1. Be more specific as to how you think I am using the tools of K-12 education
2. Don't make so many assumptions.

If you think that learning is solely based on reading books, then you are sadly mistaken. We gain effieciancy through practice. Surely, just becuase you read a book on philiosphy it does not make you effieciant in its practices.

There are some types of knowledge which can simply be acquired from books. For example I can learn what a Bunsen burner is, or what the Socratic method is. Learning how to engage in the physical processes associated with using a Bunsen burner, or how to employ the Socratic method to optimum efficiency are things which require practice. Not all forms of knowledge are dependent upon external tests.

At any rate, if you are making the charge that I am unpracticed in anything in particular you would need additional support.

Chance, indef. Resources, more than likely. Treatmeant, probable. School is school.

...really? So an impoverished inner city school is equivalent to a school in a rich suburban area? The conditions of student-teacher relations are uniform across K-12 education?

If you are mistreated for what ever reason, it does not prevent you from acquiring the information.

What is the particular relevance of this? Aside from being clearly false, mistreatment might encompass any number of things including academic mistreatment. Suppose a teacher doesn't like you as a person and grades accordingly? Since it seems grades are a primary form of access to higher education this abuse does indeed limit potential for advancement within our system.

Resources are there.

Not uniformly.

There are set standards in what you need to learn and when you need to learn them. A school hires teachers who have been given a degree which surely give them the credit to teach. Saying that there are no resources is absurd.

Reducing my argument to a universal negative claim is the only absurdity here. I would call it a straw man but honestly that might be giving you too much credit.

Have you at all reviewed the programs that prospective teachers go through in order to get their license? I have. You are claiming that a degree implies competence, I can tell you that is far from the case.

It is proven that grauates tend to make more money a year which means more money to suit a better life style or an even higher education.

Tend to make more money. We are talking measures of central distribution. Comparing a total of 2 criteria is hardly the best way to get an informative picture of the marketplace. Labor specialization will show certain subgroups of members of any education level to earn much higher or much lower average salaries than their counterparts.

Again, the government invests money into the schools and teachers and programs all for the benefit of a child.

Purportedly.

$20,000 is a -reasonable- amount. Depending on the area, it could be more or less. The education they are giving you is a lower end option of college. You are learning criteria that specializes in a certain aspect of a field or corresponding study. Learning is not free.

Problems here:

*You didn't clarify what you are talking about in terms of the $20,000
*You are conflating voluntary purchase of services with coerced purchase of services
*Your admission of non-uniformity contradicts with large amounts of what you have previously stated
*It is impossible to argue what is a -reasonable amount- when the amount is coerced, because value is subjective and therefore determined solely by the act of valuation itself relative to the person making that valuation.

The governemtn is there for order among the peoples. All they do is give out the particular requirements needed for a better life style.

What do these two sentences even have to do with each other?

Show me

1. The government produces order among the peoples
2. Order is desirable
3. The production of order does not result in greater ills that outweigh the good produced by order
4. There are requirements for a "better life style" that only government can give, or that are best supplied by government.

If the government did not care, they would invest so much money into teaching kids.

To begin with, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayers money. To continue, actions might be taken for selfish reasons which still provide for a good. The includes the act of making expenditures, even those which appear altruistic.

If they wanted to make people poor and keep them that way they would rather stop funding schools and enroll numerous people in unemployment where they can govern how much you make. Such a palce exists; This place is called Cuba.

You are conflating intended consequences with actual consequences.

They do have the right to lay everything out for us, but they are not going to beg for you to take it.

...what does the first part of that statement even mean? Surely it can't mean what it actually says, that would be laughably absurd.

they encourage that you study and stay in school so that you do not have to live in pverty, but they are not going to shove it down your throat; They will let you experience life without proper eduation in poverty because *you* did not listen to them otherwise.

You are conflating "proper" education with government education. An all too common mistake made by individuals who see the existence of a monopolistic state of affairs and associate a given service with a given provider. Nevertheless this is yet another issue with what you are saying.

I took US History AP my freshman year. I took World History AP my sophpmore year. I am taking US Government AP and American Economics AP this year. My knowledge on politics and economics is much more higher than where it should be, seeing how Government is a Senior Only class and I am a Junior. I love philosophy and politics along with economics and religion. The principals have passed down since early civilizations and have not changed. I understand these principals with extensive knowledge. To say I am ignorant in my major is baffling to say the least.

Ah, so you are supposed to represent the finest intellect that our public institutions are capable of producing? I feel more confident in my statements than ever before.

Incidentally Philosophy has dramatically broadened over time even if Philosophers tend to come back to the same problems, and your understanding of economics is worthless. No less than 3 schools of economic thought would take issue with the bulk of the statements you have made, and probably a good more would as well. When Marxist and Austrian economists both disagree with you odds are you're full of sh1t.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

COLLEDGE.

In my CT?

[KA0Z R4VR]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

The ideal purpose of school is to prepare students for life later on, not teach them a whole bunch of details that no one remembers years down the road. What people should learn/remember from school isn't who the 27th president of the US is (assuming you are in the US), but what is important, is the process. The process consists of studying towards a goal, managing time, etc., things that are supposed to help you one day. 10 years down the road, you will no longer care that you got an A in history, but the process of studying in order to get an A in the class becomes something you are familiar with. School is intended (directly or indirectly) to teach the population the basics of a language (so people can interact, write, read, in society), study/work habits (you probably cannot get a work permit without having sufficient grades, because you have not shown the ability, at least to the schools, to do everything that you have been asked to do), social skills (creating an environment where you can meet people your age), etc.

I agree 100%. School is for preparation and it gives the tools you will need later on.

Grades are not so important, in theory. It is important to other people (bosses, college admissions people), because it is one of the few things that have a chance at determining the kind of person you are, not that it is always accurate.

Like I said before, it gives a slight indicator of where your goals are and how they are being set, even though what the OP of this quote is saying is true: Sometimes they are not all accurate, but it is the only means in which a school system can define you.

Btw, KA0Z R4VR, you don't have a major... you are in high school (judging from your statements). In addition, just because you are taking these AP classes, does not make you an expert in government and stuff. Honestly, this is the American school system we are talking about. Also, there is no real purpose of saying that you are ahead of where you should be; what defines where you should be? If you think the standards define that, then you are letting yourself be held back by low standards.

I am taking the college courses. they are immediately applied towards my degree. I attend the College of Southern Nevada for my courses. It is a Political Science major along with my minor, Civil Engineering, where I currently take Physics II AP, Trig. I AP with Calculus intergration, and Architectual Study I. To make up for the immediate high school courses to be accepted into a high end university and recieve a high school diploma, I am attending the Academy for Indivisualized Study where I will soon graduate with an Honors Diploma as a Junior, rather than waste another year, because at the academy the course is at your leisure. It is intended for above level high school students and acts like a pre-college academy, or for middle school students who are not high school credit efficient. I do not set myself on the school standards, but rather with my peers and where I want to be.

------------------------------------
Directed at Kilroy X

What is your evidence for this, empirical or otherwise?

I was simply inferring that the OP stated that he can assemble a computer without going to school. That does not show how smart you are. It comes no where near defining your intelligence. It is simply memory that allows one to put pieces back where they come. Now if you were to build a computer with out instruction, then that is something else.

This statement is probably false.

What are you talking about. If school is self-improvement, then who are you to impress? No one outside yourself. The key word is *self*-improvement.

1. Be more specific as to how you think I am using the tools of K-12 education
2. Don't make so many assumptions.

You learn how to critically think beyond what you normally would. K represents interaction with people and familiarizing with objects and play things. You learn essential ABCs and common commands. 1-5 grade slowly progress the aptitude of a students ability to calculate math, reading and literature. 6-8 elaborate even more so on what you have grasped while in 1-5 grade and teach the mechanics behind what you have learned. For instance, I learned back then that 2-2= 0 when now I see that it is 2+(-2)= 0. And in high school, grades 9-12, one learns the basic principals and mechanics of a field of specialized study like Bio Chem or Trig., which includes all the resources that you learned back then INCLUDING critical thinking to push your mind even further to grasp concepts that are hard to comprehend.

There are some types of knowledge which can simply be acquired from books. For example I can learn what a Bunsen burner is, or what the Socratic method is. Learning how to engage in the physical processes associated with using a Bunsen burner, or how to employ the Socratic method to optimum efficiency are things which require practice. Not all forms of knowledge are dependent upon external tests.

I did not say knowledge is obtained through practice. I can read about cars and tell you how everytyhing works, but that surely does not mean I am a master at driving. I can actually read about driving, but that still does not mean I can drive perfectly. Like I said, efficiancy is gained through practice. While reading and studying provide the fundemental concepts, it does not mean you becomes efficient at what you read on.

At any rate, if you are making the charge that I am unpracticed in anything in particular you would need additional support.

I was not. No additional support needed

...really? So an impoverished inner city school is equivalent to a school in a rich suburban area? The conditions of student-teacher relations are uniform across K-12 education?

Essentially, yes. School is a palce of learning. Just because a school is in a "bad part of town" it does not mean you are learning bad inforamtion. If anything, you are learning the same material at a slower rate.

What is the particular relevance of this? Aside from being clearly false, mistreatment might encompass any number of things including academic mistreatment. Suppose a teacher doesn't like you as a person and grades accordingly? Since it seems grades are a primary form of access to higher education this abuse does indeed limit potential for advancement within our system.

Although the school system is more bureaucratic than what it seems, talking to a counselor and switching out the class *can* be done. Even if one has to make up an excuse to do so like an error with your schedule or misplacement.

Not uniformly.

I am not saying they are there at the same rate as every other place or situation, but yes resources are available. Friends call friends and ask for help. Hotlines and websites are available 24/7. Counselor request forms and teacher confrences, along with many other multitudes of resoruces available to the student. Can't afford a computer to go online? Go to the library at the school where it is free. Can't call a friend? Talk to them in school when you see them. Need further assistance? Speak to a teacher privately for tutoring and after-school lessons.

Reducing my argument to a universal negative claim is the only absurdity here. I would call it a straw man but honestly that might be giving you too much credit.

Have you at all reviewed the programs that prospective teachers go through in order to get their license? I have. You are claiming that a degree implies competence, I can tell you that is far from the case.

I just read this like 30 mintues ago from my academy handbook lol. Teachers in high school are required to take an abilities test on learning and teaching. I can not recall the test or acronym for it, but it is along the lines of a [DQMOT] "Secondary Quality of Education Assestment". They are certified to teach the course they have a specialized degree in, as oppose to elematary teachers who only need a degree in being an overall teacher.

Tend to make more money. We are talking measures of central distribution. Comparing a total of 2 criteria is hardly the best way to get an informative picture of the marketplace. Labor specialization will show certain subgroups of members of any education level to earn much higher or much lower average salaries than their counterparts.

I stated that they tend to make more money based on what statistics have proven. Also, keep in mind that if someone were to stay in school and study in a certain field that appeals to them, they or more likely to find a career in their study, which more than lilely is going to be specialized where a degree is needed.

Example: Jimmy was intersted in science. He later grew fascinated with creatures and the ocean. As he progressed in high school, he took Bio. Chem. and Zoology. After hard work and patience he later earned a degree in Marine Biology from a secondary institution.

I am inferring that -most- people go to a secondary school for a specific study.

Problems here:

*You didn't clarify what you are talking about in terms of the $20,000
*You are conflating voluntary purchase of services with coerced purchase of services
*Your admission of non-uniformity contradicts with large amounts of what you have previously stated
*It is impossible to argue what is a -reasonable amount- when the amount is coerced, because value is subjective and therefore determined solely by the act of valuation itself relative to the person making that valuation.

$20,000 in the form of knowledge and education. Tey are taking the time to incorporate what you have learned with what you want to become. If you want to be a civil engineer you must have had some extensive knowledge into what you think it is about. In school you must have learned a trade that will make you money one day. The time invested at school will pay off. The schools give you the education. It pays off [hopefully] when you learn and achieve your career.

What do these two sentences even have to do with each other?

Show me

1. The government produces order among the peoples
2. Order is desirable
3. The production of order does not result in greater ills that outweigh the good produced by order
4. There are requirements for a "better life style" that only government can give, or that are best supplied by government.

The first sentense is to infer that the government keeps everything on tract as best alofted. The government makes laws. We obey them. They set standards. We meet and pass them. Order *is* desirable, hence why -we- decided to enforce a democratic form of rule. We have all heard it. The Constitution of the United States of America; It outlines our government and in the preamble, it clearly states why.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

To begin with, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayers money. To continue, actions might be taken for selfish reasons which still provide for a good. The includes the act of making expenditures, even those which appear altruistic.

Wow, if you want to get technical, then let's. So, let us take your statement to the extreme. You are saying that the tax payers meet up every Tuesday and throw a chunck of cash in hopes that everything will work correctly and the government just runs by and decides what to do with it at their leisure and expence? We pay a federal government tax. Let us not forget the term government and what is represents, to regulate. It is a regulation tax that allows them to excersie the authority of our nation which includes the school system. Yes, we pay the teachers bills and run the system, but it is the government who is (loosely using the word) orgainzing where the money goes and why.

You are conflating intended consequences with actual consequences.

Don't you think that if the government wanted to keep out money they would stop education? It is alot easier for them to send someone a check of $200 every month, rather than to invest and regulate millions and millions of tax payers money.

...what does the first part of that statement even mean? Surely it can't mean what it actually says, that would be laughably absurd.

It is reffering to your post - Does the government have the right to put things on the table for us and can they do it effectively?

I believe they can. All they are doing is giving you basic tools to learn and progress. It costs them time and money along with the tax payers, but they are not going to force someone to take there help.

You are conflating "proper" education with government education. An all too common mistake made by individuals who see the existence of a monopolistic state of affairs and associate a given service with a given provider. Nevertheless this is yet another issue with what you are saying.

How so? As I said before, they are allowing the tools to be used. In fact, they are somewhat making it mandatory to use them, as in truancy is a punishable crime now, but if one were to somehow get around that and drop out and work, they are not going to care otherwise because you obvisouly did not want the help, or could not handle it for what ever given reason and have decided to work for an income.

Ah, so you are supposed to represent the finest intellect that our public institutions are capable of producing? I feel more confident in my statements than ever before.

No, I am not. Do not assume where I am comming from or where I am getting at. I am simply implying that I do have some knowledge in what I am talking about and the courses simply support it.

Incidentally Philosophy has dramatically broadened over time even if Philosophers tend to come back to the same problems, and your understanding of economics is worthless. No less than 3 schools of economic thought would take issue with the bulk of the statements you have made, and probably a good more would as well. When Marxist and Austrian economists both disagree with you odds are you're full of sh1t.

Read carefully next time. The principals have not changed. The ideas have changed with some regards to the principals. Philosophies have changed. Cultural diffusion is the cause. Ideas and practices are spread. Laws are obeied and re-created to ensure welfare. All I am saying is that I understand the mechanics behind laws, the government, and logical thinking that has been spread down since early Rome to modern Western Civilizations. I see where I made a mistake in my post saying that they have not changed, but I was speaking in terms of principals. It essentially makes up a history and government class. Several theories are based on the same principals such as gravity e.g. Newton to Einstein. But, as far as the idea that is implied, the outcome of new ideas are endless.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

I was simply inferring that the OP stated that he can assemble a computer without going to school. That does not show how smart you are. It comes no where near defining your intelligence. It is simply memory that allows one to put pieces back where they come. Now if you were to build a computer with out instruction, then that is something else.

Both actions require some sort of mental skill set, and such skills are indicative of intelligence. If you want to say this is a level of intelligence which is arbitrary that is one thing, but I don't see how you couldn't call it a form of intelligence.

What are you talking about. If school is self-improvement, then who are you to impress? No one outside yourself. The key word is *self*-improvement.

Did I state that it was my intention to impress anyone? No. Was what you described in the section of your post which I was quoting equivalent to self improvement? Yes. moreover I am amazed you would argue such a thing as this. The purpose of something may be self improvement. That doesn't mean self improvement can't have a purpose outside itself.

You learn how to critically think beyond what you normally would.

I almost certainly did not gain this ability from K-12 education. If made any such gains in conjunction with K-12 education I would argue it is to a negligible extent that could have been attained by alternate means.

K represents interaction with people and familiarizing with objects and play things.

None of those things are exclusive to K-12 education.

You learn essential ABCs and common commands.

Some people know their abc's prior to their introduction in early grade school. At any rate, you would have to show me that K-12 education is exclusively capable or at least best positioned to teach these things.

1-5 grade slowly progress the aptitude of a students ability to calculate math, reading and literature. 6-8 elaborate even more so on what you have grasped while in 1-5 grade and teach the mechanics behind what you have learned. For instance, I learned back then that 2-2= 0 when now I see that it is 2+(-2)= 0. And in high school, grades 9-12, one learns the basic principals and mechanics of a field of specialized study like Bio Chem or Trig., which includes all the resources that you learned back then INCLUDING critical thinking to push your mind even further to grasp concepts that are hard to comprehend.

See previous.

I did not say knowledge is obtained through practice. Like I said, efficiancy is gained through practice. While reading and studying provide the fundemental concepts, it does not mean you becomes efficient at what you read on.

How does K-12 education necessarily increase the efficiency of applied knowledge?

Essentially, yes. School is a palce of learning. Just because a school is in a "bad part of town" it does not mean you are learning bad inforamtion. If anything, you are learning the same material at a slower rate.

I'm not particularly sure you even understand the criticism. In some schools textbooks are not available because they cannot afford them. In some schools gang members beat you to your knees if you come across the wrong way. Both of these things demonstrate rather large inequities in resources and treatment, respectively. Even so your statement that some people will learn material at a slower rate due to social conditions is still an acceptance of the fact of inequity, just an incomplete acceptance.

Although the school system is more bureaucratic than what it seems, talking to a counselor and switching out the class *can* be done. Even if one has to make up an excuse to do so like an error with your schedule or misplacement.

Ah, but what if the counselor is biased against you as well? Or what if a particular school doesn't have a counselor, or if circumstances of your life prevent you from jumping through all the necessary bureaucratic hoops? What if dropping an excess of classes causes you to graduate 2 years late which has the same dissuading effect on top universities as if you had a low GPA? And so on and so forth...

I am not saying they are there at the same rate as every other place or situation, but yes resources are available. Friends call friends and ask for help. Hotlines and websites are available 24/7. Counselor request forms and teacher confrences, along with many other multitudes of resoruces available to the student. Can't afford a computer to go online? Go to the library at the school where it is free. Can't call a friend? Talk to them in school when you see them. Need further assistance? Speak to a teacher privately for tutoring and after-school lessons.

I was talking mostly about resources on the school side of the equation, which are beyond individual control. For instance what if your school doesn't have a library, or doesn't have computers. Hell, what if there are regulations on how long you can use the computers that are there, or how many books you can check out?

I just read this like 30 mintues ago from my academy handbook lol. Teachers in high school are required to take an abilities test on learning and teaching. I can not recall the test or acronym for it, but it is along the lines of a [DQMOT] "Secondary Quality of Education Assestment". They are certified to teach the course they have a specialized degree in, as oppose to elematary teachers who only need a degree in being an overall teacher.

Teachers of any sort typically need either a bachelors in education or to have completed a seperate program to become a licensed teacher. Training in teaching ability is what I would consider questionable, although I am damn certain that there are not a lot of K-12 educators who truly know the material they are teaching. This is generally less true in area's like social studies and more true in area's like science, but I hold to the statement.

Example: Jimmy was intersted in science. He later grew fascinated with creatures and the ocean. As he progressed in high school, he took Bio. Chem. and Zoology. After hard work and patience he later earned a degree in Marine Biology from a secondary institution.

I am inferring that -most- people go to a secondary school for a specific study.

Then you are no longer talking about the demographic of individuals with a high school level of education and what you are talking about is completely irrelevent to the contention.

$20,000 in the form of knowledge and education.

...those are abstract concepts. Where exactly should I go to buy them?

What you should be saying is "$20,000 that goes to educators salaries, school building upkeep, school equipment, textbooks, etc." Those are the real, tangible things the money is being spent on.

The time invested at school will pay off. The schools give you the education. It pays off [hopefully] when you learn and achieve your career.

You sold me at hopefully!

The first sentense is to infer that the government keeps everything on tract as best alofted.

I think your vocabulary is broken. I'm not even sure I can call this statement wrong because it's more or less gibberish.

Order *is* desirable, hence why -we- decided to enforce a democratic form of rule.

Kid, maybe one or two posts ago it was established that the role democracy plays in this country is minimal. You would do well not to randomly conflate 20 or 30 different things every time you try and articulate a concept, because it gives people the distinct impression you don't actually understand the concepts you are talking about.

We have all heard it. The Constitution of the United States of America; It outlines our government and in the preamble, it clearly states why.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This doesn't demonstrate a single of the things I asked you to demonstrate.

Wow, if you want to get technical, then let's.

Oh. My. God.

I think I know what your problem is now. You're intellectually lazy, disinterested, and on the whole worthless.

So, let us take your statement to the extreme. You are saying that the tax payers meet up every Tuesday and throw a chunck of cash in hopes that everything will work correctly and the government just runs by and decides what to do with it at their leisure and expence?

Heh, you "inferred" all that from the simple statement that the government gets its money from taxes? Keep digging that hole buddy.

This isn't an extreme form of my statement. This is a different statement.

We pay a federal government tax. Let us not forget the term government and what is represents, to regulate. It is a regulation tax that allows them to excersie the authority of our nation which includes the school system. Yes, we pay the teachers bills and run the system, but it is the government who is (loosely using the word) orgainzing where the money goes and why.

This response doesn't even have meaning.

Me: The government gets its money from the taxpayer
You: If you want to get technical, fine. But keep in mind not only do they get the money from the taxpayer, they also spend the money on things. Not only that, but the government interferes in the economic sphere.
Me: ...

Don't you think that if the government wanted to keep out money they would stop education?

You're still conflating intended outcome with actual outcome. Stop it.

It is alot easier for them to send someone a check of $200 every month, rather than to invest and regulate millions and millions of tax payers money.

The government is incapable of investment, it is only capable of expenditure. And no, printing off $200 a month for an entire country would create hyperinflation and make the dollar worthless. How the hell is economics your major? Where do you even go to school?

I believe they can.

Do you also believe they have the right to? This would imply they have the right to take money from their citizens, since the government does not produce anything on its own.

All they are doing is giving you basic tools to learn and progress.

Non-uniformly, at taxpayer expense, when other methods of learning and progressing would almost certainly do just as well if not better, and when the establishment of this system creates a stacked opportunity structure which makes the entire rest of a person's life dependent on how well they did at attaining arbitrary status symbols within an equally arbitrary and illegitimate system.

It costs them time and money along with the tax payers,

False, it only costs the taxpayers money. The government by definition cannot produce, it can only consume.

How so? As I said before, they are allowing the tools to be used. In fact, they are somewhat making it mandatory to use them, as in truancy is a punishable crime now[blah blah blah yada yada yada]

Maybe if you would actually try reading instead of just talking you would finally, truly learn something. The tools come from somewhere, that somewhere being the taxpayer. If the government did not create these particular tools in this particular way, other tools would come into existence. Almost certainly better tools. Hence we compare your tools and the new tools, and since the new tools are better we take those.

Part of the reason the new tools are better is they cost less, in terms of money and in terms of fewer ruined human lives.

I am simply implying that I do have some knowledge in what I am talking about and the courses simply support it.

Well that can't be right, you've clearly demonstrated a rather profound lack of knowledge. So in turn we see that your courses are worthless.

Read carefully next time. The principals have not changed. The ideas have changed with some regards to the principals.

Oh, ok. So "The unexamined life is not worth living" is an identical principle to "These glorious new Philosophers will be Philosophers of the moment, trusting their instincts." Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.

Philosophies have changed.

Philosophies include principles.

All I am saying is that I understand the mechanics behind laws, the government, and logical thinking that has been spread down since early Rome to modern Western Civilizations.

You really don't seem to.

I see where I made a mistake in my post saying that they have not changed, but I was speaking in terms of principals. It essentially makes up a history and government class. Several theories are based on the same principals such as gravity e.g. Newton to Einstein. But, as far as the idea that is implied, the outcome of new ideas are endless.

Y'know, I sort of stopped being able to even figure out what you're talking about. Maybe when your statements stop reading like a bunch of buzzwords randomly juxtaposed amidst one another I'll be able to respond better. If that ever happens, that is.

[lord_carbo]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Your overuse of profanity, your spelling and grammatical errors, the terrible flow of your ideas, your inability to communicate in an effective manner, all of these are failings that the education system is designed to educate you out of.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Coodles: I think school sucks!
CT: We can tell!

When Marxist and Austrian economists both disagree with you odds are you're full of sh1t.

Hahahaha, high five.

Teachers of any sort typically need either a bachelors in education or to have completed a seperate program to become a licensed teacher. Training in teaching ability is what I would consider questionable, although I am damn certain that there are not a lot of K-12 educators who truly know the material they are teaching.

Kilroy, just curious, what's your opinion on school vouchers?

[Coodles]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

so if im all full of **** and my writing sucks so bad, why are people still argueing over this topic?

and if its so uninteresting and poorly written then why do you people bother to reply and fuss over this?

i admit this isnt a huge topic yet i have gotten a good amount of responses.

and yes my grammar,flow, and over all presentation of my work could be more organized and ore carefully constructed, but yet understand i didnt mean for this to become a critical thinking topic.

i wrote this for a random thoughts bulletin on my page. so there infact i didnt care how it looked, and when i thought hmm maybe some people might share some of my views i decided to post it to where i MIGHT get some useful critisism.

so yes attack my spelling, punctuation, and views but remember this people.

**** you guys took the time to reply.

i just wrote the damn thing.

i think people are always looking for ways to be dominate.

always looking for a way to attack someone for the smallest of errors.

i also think doing so may make that person feel they have acheived something, yet all they did was provide no useful hints or tips.

i mean come on people i woulda took a simple you need to organize your views.

or practice on how you layout your essays.

i admit some people shared slight common ground with me yet never dead on.

but coming into this i didnt ask for useful tips i just put the paper out there and says read it people.

so i cant expect too much.

and i also noticed another thing that i think compliments my attacking theory is that, people who bitched and whined about how bad of a job i did.

they decided to REVISIT the topic to see if i had made any new posts or what ever their reason being.

i would think that they came back to see if there was any other way to attack anything new i might have posted.

[THOR-AXE]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Okay well I don't have source on this but I've heard that the brain is not fully developed (on average) until a person is about 18 which is why I believe there is an assumption that if you are not 18 then you must be inferior or whatever point your trying to make about age. Also, as to why people look at if you have a degree or not it shows that you must be a)well educated and b)had the effort to go all the way to get a degree. Now if you are poor and can not
afford college even with a scholarship then yes there might be a problem but I think the companies will at least look at your resume if you finished college with all A's. Through classes and going to school you learn to socialize better with peers by being around them more which may be another reason why you can't just quit high school and get a job because even if you are good at making computers better if you are a complete jerk to everyone I don't think they will hire you.

ps:COLLEGE. The words underlined in red are marked as misspelled please make a note of this for I don't know if you do but I find it very embarrassing to type a word in all caps and spell it wrong.

pss:sorry if i just made a really retarded first post in CT

[lord_carbo]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

:'( My topic sucked.

This is critical thinking. We're not here to praise you. We're here to discuss what you post critically. Your post happened to be open to a lot of criticism because it was fool of holes and slight hypocrisy.

How about instead of complaining you're getting the criticism, learn from it. Be open-minded. See the other side. Read the whole thread. And make your decision from a middle ground.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Kilroy, just curious, what's your opinion on school vouchers?

I think school vouchers, if done properly, would be a good step towards improving the education system. I would prefer complete privatization eventually, but that isn't going to happen any time soon and perhaps more importantly if the schools were completely privatized overnight it would lead to huge short term problems that would dramatically shake the public faith in market forces.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

so if im all full of **** and my writing sucks so bad, why are people still argueing over this topic? and if its so uninteresting and poorly written then why do you people bother to reply and fuss over this?

Some of us are interested in trying to get closer to the truth, or in helping others to do the same.

[somerndmguy]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

so if im all full of **** and my writing sucks so bad, why are people still argueing over this topic?

and if its so uninteresting and poorly written then why do you people bother to reply and fuss over this?

...

**** you guys took the time to reply.

i just wrote the damn thing.

i think people are always looking for ways to be dominate.

always looking for a way to attack someone for the smallest of errors.

i also think doing so may make that person feel they have acheived something, yet all they did was provide no useful hints or tips.

...

and i also noticed another thing that i think compliments my attacking theory is that, people who bitched and whined about how bad of a job i did.

they decided to REVISIT the topic to see if i had made any new posts or what ever their reason being.

i would think that they came back to see if there was any other way to attack anything new i might have posted.

And has everyone who posted in this thread attacked you on your bad spelling, grammar, or punctuation specifically?

Has everyone here attacked only you and your ideas?

I think people are here to debate with each other and see each other's viewpoints on the subject.

...And I just realized how much of a hypocrite I was in this post.

[devonin]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Has everyone here attacked only you and your ideas?

You say that like it is one category of action.

Attacking a person is incredibly poor form, and when it happens, mods tend to want to slap some bans around. Attacking someone's ideas, provided you do so in a reasonable and logical manner, is exactly the opposite.

This is a forum for discussion and debate, and analysis. If you want people to just smile and nod, or post "I agree" or "I disagree" then perhaps you should head over to chit-chat.

[Chrissi]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

I'd like an opportunity to respond seriously to the original post in this thread. In the interest of saving space and making things easier to read, what I'm going to do is snippet arguments from the original post in bold, and make my rebuttal underneath in non-bold.

Advice for the poster: don't defend yourself until you've been attacked. Throughout the entire post you are on the defensive. You should be on the informative. You should be trying to tell us something we don't already know and trying to explain why you have the views you have - not trying to defend yourself against an imaginary attacker. If someone attacks your argument, address it appropriately, but only once it's been attacked. Otherwise, you are simply wordy and you lose major credibility by remaining on the defensive for no reason whatsoever.

I mean if someone is just smart. i can take a computer apart and put it back together even better. Its very simple. Its also a job that gets a VERY high salary BUT!!! you have to get a degree. ok now why, if i know how to do something, must i go through COLLEGE.

Knowing how to take something apart and put it back together doesn't mean you are adequately trained for the job, trained for the working world, and trained for life in general as an educated member of society. It means you will probably be good at the part of the job that you hope to achieve someday where you take apart machines and put them back together - but even if you work at a computer repair shop, life isn't that simple. That isn't all you need to survive as an adult in the working world.

my friend just told me the other day, "colledge cost about 23,000 something dollars that iam loaning from the school but i have to pay back after i get a degree/job." so im like... umm...if the school has money...why do they need to give it to you to buy stuff...cant they just... loan the **** to you? i mean pay for it if it gets damaged or something sure.. but they loan you money they already have.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. If you could respond back with a clear, concise description of what your point was, I can fully address this.

Im sorry

Please don't apologize. Nobody's said anything yet. Saying "I'm sorry" decays your essay into a rant.

i think school should be a choice. after your sophmore year i think you should be able to choose if you want to go to school anymore or not.

Isn't that the way it is already? I thought once you were 16 you weren't legally obliged to remain in school. Perhaps that's just Canada.

i from my own life experiences know things would be easier. im ****ing starving because we dont got enough money, why dont we have enough money my moms single i dont expect her to support me and hers eating smoking and bills. so i would go get a job at like arbys or something. BUT!! you have to have a workers permit if your under 18. well to get a workers permit YOU HAVE TO HAVE GOOD GRADES. now if your DP&L was turned off because your poor and its 90 degrees outside. and even hotter inside. do you really think i can study like that?

I understand. From your perspective it looks like everyone's bringing you down. You need money, and you can't work. You're hungry, and you have no food. Your mother's poor, and you can't help. But let's look at this from a wider view. And for this, since I don't know anything about worker's permits and "DP&L" (not sure what that is), I'm going to assume you have your facts straight.

For one thing, you said that you and your mother have smoking habits. If you kicked that, you'd have more money. It's been said that "where there's a will, there's a way" (I hate using cliches, but I think it's oddly appropriate here). If you really wanted a better environment, you'd both quit smoking. I realize this is a difficult thing to do. But human being are blessed with a strong will to survive and flourish. And if you really wanted food, you'd buy that loaf of bread over a pack of cigarettes.

Finally, if you're as smart as you say, why don't you just... get good grades? That would solve the problem of not being able to work. What are you doing with your time that's so much more important than learning things? And since when is learning ever a bad thing?


our goverment FORCES kids to basically either learn or suffer. oh theres medicare and blue cross and welfare and social security the goverment helps out... bull****. the goverment knows our problems. yet they still wont realize that **** we are the leading country in the world we dont gotta try and show off our schools.

I'd like to know what you think is wrong with learning. In my opinion, learning is a pretty good thing. I'd like to think that most people feel the same way. I think an educated society is a good society. Education is set up in such a way as to require all children to attend school until they are 16. Guess what that means? Children who wouldn't otherwise get an education are actually getting one. Children of parents stuck in poverty are allowed the privilege of going to school and staying out of the work force until mature. And since they are given this privilege, they stand a better chance than their parents of moving up in the world. The more education they receive, the further up they can move. Education allows us to be more active citizens, more skilled labourers, and lets the child of a single mother struggling in poverty decide that he wants to study and become a doctor.

If only it were all free. Unfortunately, we're only provided with this privilege for free up to a certain point in North America. There are places in Europe where a university education is publicly funded. In these places, everyone is truly given an equal opportunity to move up in the world. And in Canada, we have a leg up on America, as far as I know; our post-secondary education is partially subsidized. That means we don't pay the full cost. We pay about 1/3. The government pays another 1/3, and the rest comes from various sources such as fundraising and corporate sponsorships.

Like you said, some people are "just smart". But what about the ones who aren't? What about the people who need to read a few books to earn what society sees as enough knowledge to earn a living? I think you're taking a few things for granted. For one, school taught you how to read. Even if you feel that you learned most of your reading ability from your parents, your parents likely learned it from school. And since you seem to be below the poverty line, you truly are indebted to society for your ability to read. You would not have this ability without the services that your society offers, and "forces" you to take part in.

Think about if you were living in your respective social class in society 200 years ago. You would be starving, forced to work and aid your family, and you STILL wouldn't know how to read. I think you have a pretty good deal here.

maybe theres a highschool student who might have known how to make the twin towers strong enough to withstand those attacks. but oh ****. hes only a junior..... hes still got 6 years to go before he could do anything! WTF i say if you have a skill ****ing use it.

A lot of this seems to be rhetoric designed to invoke feelings of guilt and regret. Stop it. It doesn't make for good argumentation. An intelligent reader sees right through it and finds you to be foolish.

Anyway, you do have a point there, but it is a limited point. Yes, if a child had an ability that could help the world, in many cases he or she wouldn't be able to use it to its maximum effectiveness until they left school and joined the work force. However, think about the other consequences of this. If the child prodigy excelled in, for example, concepts of physics and could be of great help to physicists in understanding... things that physicists seek to understand, but the child hadn't learned, for example, to read and write, the child would quickly become a burden and it would be difficult to communicate with this child, who, as a genius, had not achieved a sufficient education to get along with people.

Education prepares us to be citizens who work and have the means to pull themselves out of poverty. You have to think about the future instead of the present sometimes. In your current situation, it is a shame that you cannot work to improve your situation until you are older. However, think about when you are older!! Since you've received your general education, you'll be better adapted to the working environment, and you will do much better than your mother. Things are looking up for you, kid. Stick with it.

the goverment doesnt care about drops outs. THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO. they have more important things on their mind than education!

Well, I've already addressed why little is more important than education.

im sorry when im at home hungry as **** because i havent ate for a few days its not easy to find the hypotneuse of a right triangle.

If you quit school and started working, it might aleviate your hunger; however, you would still not be able to point out a hypoteneuse. Hunger is a current condition, and as long as you are surviving, you'll be okay. But not knowing what a hypoteneuse is means that you cannot do basic math, which means that you can only function as a citizen at a very low level. Viewing it this way, you'll see why it's not staying in school, but QUITTING school, that "traps" children of lower income families.

standards are set by some ****ing scientist who says well most sucessfull people need this grade by this time.

You have demonstrated why the education system is needed. You obviously don't know what science is or what a scientist does.

i need some air conditioning.

Air conditioning is a relatively recent invention. 75 years ago you could not have had an air conditioner even if you had had the money. Nobody had air conditioners. GASP! How did people cope?!? It's a comfort issue, not a learning issue.

the only other person who lives in this house is me. and i cant get a job because my grades are low. why are my grades low im stressed and im depressed becasue i have to get yelled at by my mom because we dont have money and that makes her stressed. why does that make her stressed? because if we dont have money they will take our BASIC LIVING NEEDS FROM US.

That does sound like a bit of a pickle. Your thread of ideas makes sense, and seems to trap you into your current situation. However, you are presenting an extremely biased argument.

You do not mention that, when you are at school, your basic comfort needs are probably met. Schools usually have air conditioners. Schools often have breakfast programs, where you can receive a free breakfast (or maybe, again, this is a Canadian thing? I hope not. It's a fantastic idea.)

You do not mention that your basic living needs seem to still be intact. This is a threat coming from an imaginary power looming just under the horizon. It isn't anything to be seriously considered. Just think: if you complete school, you stand a better chance of getting a higher-paying job, and you can pull you and your mother out of this poverty! Sure, you might have to suffer right now. I realize that is difficult. But if you really need food, you'll find a way to get it. You won't starve. And maybe you'll lose your electricity, but you're always free to stay after school and study there where there is light and air conditioning.

our goverment needs to find the fundemental flaws, and actually do something about them.

Which you have not identified. I'd like you to nod your head for a second at the idea of universal health care.

there are people living out on the streets. and it may not even be their fault.

95% of bankrupcies in the United States are a result of unexpected medical expenses.

give me a few intellectual beings ill talk psychology with them.

Being a student of psychology, I'd like to inform you with the fact that psychology is not something you "talk". It's something scientific that is studied in labs and on surveys and through the scientific method, and through scientific means. It isn't something you philosophize about. It's definitely a case of standing on the shoulders of giants. Trying to say you'd "talk psychology" with someone, and having not been educated in the realm of psychology, is equivalent to saying that you'd recognize what gravity is, and that the earth moves around the sun, if nobody had told you so. Not unless you are a genius you wouldn't have.

In conclusion: if you're looking for a reason that america's government traps lower class citizens, you oughtn't attack the privilege of universal, free, mandatory schooling for minors. It's actually one of the best things they're doing, and could be vastly improved by an expansion to government-subsidized post-secondary education. In other issues, universal free health care would make a world of difference for america's poor.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Chrissi, there are two main problems with some of what you said

Firstly, you seem to be holding people hostage to the actions of others. You do this once when you state that the OP can better his fortunes if only his mother improves herself. You do it again when you say that even smart people should be forced to attend school because of the benefits of schooling to less intelligent people.

Secondly, you state categorically that learning is good without providing a basis for it. To avoid confusion, nothing can be good in and of itself. All good is subjective. Hence if there exist individuals who do not desire education, education is not good for them.

[devonin]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

To avoid confusion, nothing can be good in and of itself. All good is subjective. Hence if there exist individuals who do not desire education, education is not good for them.

There are plenty of schools of philosophical thought that disagree with you on that one. There are all kinds of things that are good for people that they don't desire. For example the eight year old who does not desire to eat his vegetables.