On July 08 2008 08:46 Plutonium wrote: "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."
-Cicero
Times were bad. Cicero lived in the death throes of the Roman Republic.
It was a time not unlike today. A time when great wealth, which did not stem from the labor of the general population (in his case, military conquest with professional armies, in our case, technological advancement driven by a tiny minority), flooded his country, and the people all felt entitled to a share of what they never contributed to. A time of growing egotism and partisan politics, which together brought the end of sincere rational discourse. A time when labor was increasingly seen as a thing to be done by foreigners (in his case, captured slaves, in ours, third-worlders and immigrant laborers, legal or otherwise).
Imperial Rome turned out to be a city of welfare bums and the idle rich, which slowly fell apart. I wonder where we're headed.
On July 08 2008 10:11 Kwark wrote: I actually addressed your solution in a well informed argument against it. Something you ignored. I pointed out your solution is just a rehashing of outdated and failed education policy which we left for a good reason. I explained why vocational training is utterly redundant, why selection based upon merit is unfair and will always create sink schools and why "creating better environments for the good (read middle to upper class)" translates as a bad deal for the bad (read working class).
And I grew up in the south in a middle class area (which is why we still have grammar schools) and my university, although technically part of the University of London, is in Surrey and therefore chavs can't afford the houses.
Like I said previously, you argued in your typical style which is reactionary. You didn't provide an opinion of how to solve the issues at hand, like I said. Your speculations as to what might occur if my suggestions were implented are just that, speculations. Not only is your opinion that the old education policy was worse than the current one simply an opinion; you didn't address the fact that we already have sink schools, everywhere. I don't even know what the hell your point about class means there. Free education is free education regardless. You didn't satisfactorily explain how vocational training is redundant. Far from it. You threw a few words in its direction. I completely disagreed. I restate that a course in building is more interesting and applicable than one in science. It's about holding attention. The aim is not to create a rocket scientist out of every state schooler; just to make sure we get the most potential out of kids who aren't necessarily of the academic persuasion. And often, the most troubled kids are the ones to whom the academic curriculum does not appeal.
Selection based upon merit is clearly fair. I believe thoroughly in setting, in subjects. Do you seriously disagree with setting? I see it as the most efficient way to deal with kids of all different ranges of ability; and similarly I find the same thing to happen with schooling. Some of our nation's best and brightest were grammar school educated. Free private school-quality education has always sounded good to me. But this is completely beside the point, in reality. What's on the cards is how to hold the attention and respect of the kids who are causing the violence and disruption in society; and how to engage them in society.
And well I can't believe that you don't regularly run into (or rather away from) chavs and townies, you must live in some sort of eutopia.
Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
They're not speculations on what might occur because what you're suggesting has been tried and tested and what I'm saying will happen has happened. You're acting like it's this new untried idea whereas anyone who has studied postwar British history (again with the me being a history student at the University of London and you being a college dropout) will know is both old and failed. Either qualify yourself to discuss the failures of the Butler education act or listen to one who is. Don't just deny it failed.
The kind of parents who bring up chavs cannot afford houses in the surrey commuter belt. Add into that the fact that most of my friends are students at a university which is difficult to get into and you have very few chavs.
Selection upon merit is fair provided those selected recieve the same education as those not. This is very markedly not the case in the grammar school system. I went to a grammar school, the standard of education is quite simply better. It's unfair. Better teachers, better connections, better equipment and better prospects. At my grammar school we had a specialist in Oxbridge applications because there were 40 or so a year. Most schools can't boast a single Oxbridge entry a year. This is not simply cleverer students. Everything is better. Which in turn means everything is worse at the secondary moderns.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
On July 08 2008 10:43 Kwark wrote: They're not speculations on what might occur because what you're suggesting has been tried and tested and what I'm saying will happen has happened. You're acting like it's this new untried idea whereas anyone who has studied postwar British history (again with the me being a history student at the University of London and you being a college dropout) will know is both old and failed. Either qualify yourself to discuss the failures of the Butler education act or listen to one who is. Don't just deny it failed.
From cursory reading it seems the 1944 act was less than successful because it comes down to misspent funding, failure to develop the technical schools in particular and general lack of motivation to actualise the plans- with grammar schools and secondary moderns staying in equal proportion and the majority of funding actually going to secondary moderns. There were of course many vital and important things that arose from the Butler act but I assume you are referring exclusively to the tripartite separation.
Not only did I present only a very slight similarity in the concept of adding more vocational GCSEs (and I also advocate more onus being placed on vocational diplomas); my point about enforcing the return of the grammar school doesn't equate to the tripartite system. I believe that, well-actualised, a strong and thorough reform of all education would be a welcome dose of medicine for the failing school culture which tells students to clamour for a piece of paper with some letters on but doesn't really care about teaching them anything useable. I think that meritocracy should be the absolute conerstone of education. Children should never be satisfied with just doing enough. That is a terrible work ethic to take into the real world.
and you are making speculations because what I proposed was clearly not the exact same thing that had already been tried and failed...and it's at a different time period entirely in different economic situations. It's all so different that you clearly are making speculations.
On July 08 2008 11:02 NovaTheFeared wrote: Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
On July 08 2008 11:02 NovaTheFeared wrote: Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
We don't hunt anymore. And farmers can still have guns.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
And you're implying that the only way governments can yield to their constituents is if they take up arms. I must also disagree with you in the fact that I would not feel safe if I knew that everyone around me was armed. It makes me wonder how many more people would end up getting shot in the heat of road rage or a bar fight. Deterrents are only effective when everyone in the situation is level headed.
To the person who ate the grouse: how did you come to eat it? You shot it, and it died. That's what guns do.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
And you're implying that the only way governments can yield to their constituents is if they take up arms.
That's more true than modern thought usually entertains. The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Hey that's catchy, I'm going to write that one down.
I must also disagree with you in the fact that I would not feel safe if I knew that everyone around me was armed. It makes me wonder how many more people would end up getting shot in the heat of road rage or a bar fight.
The fallacy I despise the most of gun control enthusiast is this one. A paranoid distrust of other people, coupled with a curious acceptance of government control. Individuals are, for the most part, intelligent and reasonable. And in a society where each man has the means to ultimately defend himself, there is even less reason to believe that individuals would virtually commit suicide over a petty disagreement. I can't believe how popular this assumption is. It is paranoia plain and simple.
The problem isn't bad yet, but it's geting worse I'm assuming. In the town I'm from we have a much smaller population, and a much larger murder rate from thugs. Orlando, FL sucks
On July 08 2008 07:38 Kwark wrote: I went to a grammar school in a highly middle class area so I have very little experience with all that stuff. However what your conclusion seems to be is that you should separate the good children from the bad to stop the bad ones corrupting the good. If you keep all the good ones together then there will be no bad influences and they'll all grow up to be model citizens. In theory it sounds good and I expect it'd work. The phrase one bad apple can spoil the barrel springs to mind. The problem is that this isn't apples. These are children. You're willing to write off a portion of the nations youth in order to prevent their taint spreading to the rest of them. And the worst part about that is you're using an intelligence based exam to do it.
The clever kids go to the grammar school where they are shielded from the problems of the world and bad influences and grow up to be perfect citizens. The ones who don't work or cause problems go to secondary moderns which are basically day care for the under 16s. Society writes them off simply because they were brought up poorly and acted out at school. Maybe their problem was an abusive father who taught them it is acceptable to hit people. Who knows. Who cares. They'll drop out at 16, end up turning to crime, go to prison and be in and out for the rest of their life. The stupid kids go to the secondary moderns and can't get a good education because society has written them off. Sucks for them because they didn't actually do anything wrong. You just chose the grammar school to be the method of selection. Best case scenario they get a menial low skill job at 16 and stick with it for the next 50 years. Worst case scenario they hit back at society and spend the rest of their life in and out of jail.
Sound about right?
Sounds pretty good. Western societies are too focused on bad and good people, rather than identifying the social factors that drive people to act a certain way. The other purpose of that dichotomy is to remove the blame from "good" people, who have nothing to do with "bad" people being "bad." At the risk of sounding like a hippie, the issues rest much deeper than good and bad people and society as a whole must take responsibility.
I bet most of these kids' lives are largely predetermined before their own intelligence or ability becomes a factor.
The Lucifer Effect is a good read for this subject.
You forget that these governments that you have such little trust in are made up of the same people that you accuse me of distrusting so much. I could just as well say the same thing for you, a paranoid distrust of governments coupled with a curious acceptance of other people. It's not that I don't trust other people per se, because as you say, they are for the most part intelligent and reasonable. It's the other part I'm worried about.
At the risk of answering the gun control advocates and thus degenerating this topic further. There is no reason to legalise guns in Britain. The average man on the street doesn't need a gun to defend himself because he's in no danger of getting into a gunfight. This is because the other men on the street don't have guns. This is not comparable to the situation in the US in which the idea of gun ownership is ingrained deeply into the popular consciousness. Guns are pretty rare even among criminals here simply because it's not worth owning them. Getting caught with a gun will add a long time to your jail sentence and actually shooting someone will get every police force in the country after you. Guns are sufficiently rare to make them more trouble than they are worth. After all, what can a criminal really do with a gun that he can't with a knife. He's just as fucked in a firefight with the police. Tyranny is not a legitimate fear in the UK. Our political system is sufficiently stable not to require the constant threat of popular uprising to keep it honest. It's one of the perks of being the oldest democracy in the world. It's unthinkable that it could change. Equally foreign tyranny is not considered a threat. Given a nuclear deterrent and a highly capable armed forces the resort of a citizens milita with handguns is unlikely to be necessary, or useful if the above fail. Hunting? All the bears and wolves are dead. All the large game is dead. That leaves deer, game birds and rabbits. Farmers still shoot rabbits and indeed have a license for their guns. Shooting game is still a popular sport among the landed classes. We don't load up the truck with hunting rifles and go out into the country for our food. We go to the supermarket. It's just the way we do things.
In short, the British people don't want guns, don't need guns and are better off without them. This does not translate to the American example because it's a completely different culture. However I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that people aren't walking around the street with guns in their jackets. To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
EPT
