Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Not my Iwaku Username, Oct 15, 2015.
Continued from the body cameras on Police thread.
How DARE you tag my stuff from another thread you boob!
This user has been banned for: Source of large problems. Unwilling to adjust behavior.
Am I a pretty boob? :3
They are going to fall through the cracks regardless. If two parents with a few children (average) cant catch a child's issues, how are a handful of teachers going to notice something like this with an average of 26 yo 30 students?
Also, the school is just an extension of government. Truth is, school is too incompetent to be a "catch all" fail safe.
Its more effective to hold parents accountable for being terrible parents, instead of relying on a government institution that already does just as bad of a job.
Because of schools, I would argue that kids often are worse for kids. Especially with the bullying often driving kids to suicide or wanting to harm other students.
I was bulled a lot in schools (the American ones) that I attended. Of course, I only fought back when I was being physically harmed, but that was stuff that could only happen as consistently as it did in school.
Because home schooled are generally smarter than public schooled and even privately schooled people. (Within America, I should clarify).
Really, I believe that schools are on the way out. You have a veritable Library of Alexandria at your fingertips, which even the poorest of the poor have (recent study showed that even those in the bottom percentage of wealth in families have internet access). In time, more and more people will be self taught brilliant nerds like many of those in our Founding Fathers generation.
Agreed. However, I don't believe that schools are the appropriate way to approach the problem, as it just causes more.
I'm not expecting a 'catch all' fail safe.
But it's not something school shouldn't even be attempting.
And this wouldn't require watching out for anyone specific either.
Teach teachers to be more compassionate, install classes such as awareness of mental health, stuff like that would become routine ways to help combat it.
It's pretty difficult to nail a parent for being abusive.
I've seen some pretty bad cases of parenting that's allowed because it's either 'strict parenting' or 'cultural differences'.
It's pretty awful yes.
But people being dicks to others is also part of the real world.
There is no eliminating it.
It's better for children to start building the skills to deal with bullies when young, when figures of authority can still look out for them.
Rather than wait till adulthood to throw them into that shark pit, where they have no prior experience and are expected to able to handle it and just do their work.
And I say this as a kid who was contemplating suicide back in Grades 3-5 due to bullying.
That requires motivation though.
And not just the "I have a day of inspiration!" motivation, constant motivation.
There are not many people would take several hours of almost everyday to simply learn facts for the sake of learning.
They're going to get distracted, get tempted by other things.
You can get a few cases of people who do, but it's not the norm at all.
And remember this isn't just about you and friends you have.
All those people in High School that picked on you?
They'd be expected to have such dedication as well. This applies to every human being, not just the one's we choose to surround ourselves with.
Then what would be a more appropriate way of doing it?
Um, citation needed?
In addition to what Gwazi said in response to this (which I wholeheartedly agree with), I would just like to point out that I actually had a lot of friends in high school who, although I wouldn't describe them as being the "poorest of the poor", were still economically disadvantaged enough that they didn't have internet in their homes -- which left them at a significant academic disadvantage, as well.
It has occurred to me that this is not a debate thread.
Which normally would've prompted me to delete my reply entirely, but, this thread pretty much looks like it was a debate from the start (and perhaps even intended to be one), sooo....
...Eh, do what you will with my response, I suppose.
I think school is still important, but people are trying to preserve what they believe is important in a world that has clearly changed. The problem with most classes is not a problem of what they teach, but instead how they teach it. The days of memorizing facts is behind us. That level of learning is no longer adequate. You do not want the learning you did in school to be replaceable by a google search. What schools can do to make our populace more informed is to teach at higher levels of thought. Instead of teaching kids what, we need to shift the focus to why, as the what has already become primarily automated.
One reason we haven't is because teaching at this level is much harder. More students will struggle and fail at this level of knowledge, and we have demonstrated as a society that we are not willing to fail. We take failure as a personal insult, and would rather be awarded consolation ribbons. Another reason is because our teachers are not able to teach at this level. We haven't made curriculums that emphasize why over what, and I question the intellectual capacity of some teachers being able to teach at this level.
Also, as people have said, practical skills are usually considered inferior in academia, which is weird. While I understand that people need to learn about more than just the area which they need to work in, I'm rather baffled that the processes immediately affect everyone as they become an adult are not viewed as a priority. Teaching children to save, be thrifty, pay taxes, get a place to live, get a job, be an informed voter, and understand current events should be our school's top priority. Learning how to learn about anything makes much of our core still important, but at the end of the day, we should draw our baseline of who gets out of school to be the ones who can function in society.
Lastly, while school does teach children how to socialize, it doesn't necessarily do that well. For some kids it will mean getting pressured into trying drugs, having unprotected sex, and being generally irresponsible. Others might become more intolerant as their bigoted opinions become reinforced by their peer group. The problem with what is socially correct is that it typically gets ignored during our youth when we are hormone crazed. Pushing people out of groups, placing unreasonable expectations to stay in groups, groups fighting against and within themselves, or ganging up on those who have no group to call their own. The thing I remember about highschool is how adults rarely exerted their influence to change any of this. It seemed like maybe there was nothing to be done about it. That this was just the way things were. Going to school for me seemed like a practice of futility in which students learn that they must fit in. Where they discard old habits, not because they want to, but because they must. The social element of school for me was destroying diversity so that we may become socially acceptable.
Agreed. Which was my main point.
I don't think compassion works if you have to teach it. We simply shouldn't have asshole teachers in schools. Unfortunately, we do, because of Teachers Unions. (Fuck those things, seriously.)
I'm not trying to necessarily use them all as arguing points. Since this is a Discussion, I am tossing around some thoughts. My thoughts on schools (In America) are they are a joke and ineffective at what they do. Of course, I am comparing this to my experience in the Japanese school system.
A lot of this has to do with culture. Americans have individualist mentalities, while Japanese people have collectivist mentalities. Both with serious drawbacks and positives to them.
Also, I find that punching people is far superior to suicide. However, I am sorry you had to deal with it.
The individualist and Libertarian in me thinks and believes that people should do whatever they want. If they don't want to learn everything that society wants them to learn, there are plenty of jobs in the world out their for them. Live and let live.
I think parents can motivate children to learn much better than an essential no Freedom of Speech, Opinion or Individualism zone that schools are.
I don't have an answer because I haven't thought of one. I just don't think that school is the answer.
From what I always heard, America's schools were originally designed to teach us/get us into factory work. Primary problem being, that is outdated, but we still use it's system, simply modified what info we are learning. (And it's all about test, not actually learning. Unless you get that teacher who doesn't care about test and just wants to teach ya.)
Then go to schooling in say Japan. Apparently it's quite different. I can't speak too much on this one as I don't know too much, but apparently their value of info is different from ours. So they teach after a different goal, while we teach for test scores.
Never heard this. I'm going to have to do some reading tonight.
I don't know how to explain this...
Teaching is more focused. Classes are more divided on subjects. More kinds of math subjects than a regular old "just math shit" sort of thing.
I normally see Debate this as meaning "Feel free to tear into each other, just note that you'll probably get locked soon if you don't stick to a fine line".
While Discussion? Well, you've seen human's discuss before, it's a back and fourth communication.
That's all that's happening here so far.
But if stuff like Logical Fallicies pop up? That's when it turns to debate and I'll be leaving.
I don't mean teaching compassion itself, though I did poorly word that earlier post there. XD
I meant teaching ways to help show and express compassion.
Ways to make students feel more safe and accepted in the classroom.
Though I agree, teacher unions are a bitch and need to die in a fire.
Normal Unions like all workers get are fine. But teacher's shouldn't be getting practical invulnerability to being fired.
Indeed. What I think would serve us best is creating a sort of hybrid of the two, and then taking that Hybrid and building on it.
Oh I did that too. :P
Which would be fine, if all those people weren't still part of the community.
We still need to feed them, cloth them, provide for them.
I mean welfare is damn important for a society to help those unfortunate. But the fact remains the more people reliant on it, the more vulnerable we got because of all the resources being effectively drained.
We need a way to get people into the working world and helping society.
And due to our technological advancement those jobs you refer to are quickly being filled in by cheaper and more efficient machines.
We're hitting an age where people practically need to be educated to get a decent job.
Eh... Largely dependent on the parent.
Remember Parent's are barely regulated.
Hell even in ECE, where teachers are required to called authorities on even the smallest suspicion of abuse the usual response is "Send the child home, we don't have enough info or legal right yet". Even if it's painfully obvious it is abuse such as clear bruises from beatings in covered spots, overly agitated parents, parents fleeing the school etc.
And there's cases where "Tiger Parenting" is applauded in certain crowds of people.
Parenting styles with stories such as literally starving their five year old, not permitting them to use the washroom and threatening to sell all their toys if they can't master a song on a Piano.
Parenting styles where they are seen as a failure if they aren't #1 in the class... Seriously, imagine the issues if even two families like this had a child in the same class. One child is guaranteed to be disgraced.
Our current system was designed when we needed fast workers.
We need people in the factories, we needed mothers, we needed people ready to go to war.
We hadn't yet reached the age where creativity, the arts etc. were of much focus or concern.
I think this coddles children too much to be worth a damn in society. Thats why everyone gets offended over everything, and makes people feel like they have some sort of "right" not to be offended. It also completely kills individuality.
They are all cut from the same nasty mold. They don't do what they did back in the day.
Too utopian of a solution for me.
No we don't. And if these people notice that people and the government wont (more appropriately CANT) magically keep providing for them forever, then they have a chance to turn their lives around.
Don't make drugs illegal. If people start wasting away on the streets, show them that they can go to a place to get help with their addiction. If they refuse help, then we have to be willing to step over them and let them die. Its their choice to make.
Unfortunately, the governments idea of welfare isn't to help people get out of bad situations. Its to get them dependent on government. Its a piss poor system that is severely broken.
Only because people keep pushing up minimum wage and it becomes easier and more cost effective to get a machine to do it instead of an entitled brat who thinks somehow that flipping burgers is worth more money than Firefighters/EMS/Soldiers.
So? Government isn't God. People thing that taking a shit should be regulated by the government. Big government is a failed system that fails greater each time it gets bigger.
Societal progress was done by sharing different ideas passed down by different families and values, not by big pants governments making people all think the same way.
We still need mothers.
What we need even more is fathers.
I don't think it's that they want people dependent on government, but more that they aren't enforcing the regulations strict enough. It's supposed to help you a bit for you to get a job or whatever, so you need to show them you are searching. Problem? They don't check. Or if they do, they don't seem to care. It's not necessarily that the system is broken, but more that the people running it aren't doing what they are supposed to do.
Let me restate what I meant to mean.
A certain political party wants to increase its (welfare, not the party) reach beyond that of what it should be, and kill regulations on it in order to get people dependent on that. This causes two things to happen:
1) Said party gets votes from those people.
2) It gets too big to reduce its size and scope, so that the other party can't mention it without getting booed and looks like monsters in the process.
I'd argue the opposite.
Because you'll always getting extremist one way or another.
But by showing Compassion you're being more accepting of all types of people. You encourage them to grow into the person they want to be, rather than guilted or shamed into fitting a specific mold.
And those people demanding the 'right' to not be offended.
That's not compassion, that's intolerance to any sort of opinion that they don't agree with.
That's the complete opposite of compassion.
No. But they did force students of all ages into a single classroom.
They beat students with rulers and belts.
They publicly shamed students with the dunce cap.
Unions give workers the ability to fight for civil rights in their workplace.
Basic job protection, fair wages so they can survive and not have financial stress carry over into the workplace.
The trick is to make sure that stays it's purpose, like it is in most fields.
And doesn't become contaminated into invulnerability to criticism like it has for teachers.
Which would be an education with the way technology is going.
If we dropped the minimum wage (and I'll get to the issues there in a bit) that would only make human's cheaper for a few more years.
Machines would still eventually become mass produceable, cheaper and more efficient to the point of replacing humans relatively quickly, and then we'd be stuck all over again.
Like Pharaoh said, it's meant it help people be able to find a job.
But it has the issue of not being regulated enough.
Plus on top of which we don't make finding a job easy right now with the combination of education requirements and almost a complete lack of services to actually aid in the job finding process.
We cover people while looking for a job, but we don't have much to help them actually obtain the job.
No they aren't.
But you don't want to rely on something as unpredictable as parents to be the sole factor in a child's well being.
Especially when the requirements of being a Parent is as easy as having sex.
I mean there are some amazing parents out there, but when the job has such a low barrier of entry and determines something so important?
Put quite bluntly, too many of them are just too inexperienced (or simply wrong) to solely trust in this sort of matter.
If that was all there was to it women would still be cattle, anyone who wasn't white would be a slave, LGBT would get lynched mobbed, and anyone not of ____ religion would be burned alive.
I'm just explaining the history of the current education system though, not defending it.
That's subjective. Why should anyone be /forced/ into accepting someone for who they are (want to be, is the optimal term), then they anyone should be /forced/ into fitting a specific mold.
Not to mention, if you really believe in what who are doing/being, then opposition to that should only strengthen your resolve for it. Nobody coddled me and everyone challenged me on who I was. It tempered me and what you see before you is an Anime Artist/Roleplayer/Christian/Bisexual/Libertarian who just so happens to be culturally and racially mixed to some extent.
A place to help people get over their addiction is not comparable system. Thats apples and oranges.
There will always be jobs where you would rather have humans over machines. Fast food is one of those things. The only reason they are changing to technology is because they can't afford what people are demanding.
I know that everyone seems to want to Bernie Sanders the work industry, but economics just doesn't work that way.
I already readdressed the statement.
I'd say its because of illegal immigrants. I'm waiting for the proper research center to show that "Sanctuary Cities" are having more unemployed Americans are higher in these averages then the rest of the country.
However, this will probably be another year or two and off topic.
1) Its one guys opinion. I've seen many others that disagree with this.
2) Its riddled with inaccuracies that should be addressed in both another topic and a debate setting.
I don't think it is nearly as unpredictable as you think it is. If schools are so great, we should be seeing a drop in violent crime and people on welfare and all that.
Its quite the opposite.
1) Libertarian response. Who are we to tell what other individuals do with their children and how to raise them? We are an individualist society and trust me (experiencing a collectivist one) you should definitely stick with the former.
2) "Wrong" is subjective, unless you are referring to a certain code of morals in standards.
Government didn't make those things happen. Society did.
1) Womens Rights were granted by a bunch of penis baring men telling the government to grow up.
2) 50% of slaves were white. And it was a bunch of pissed off Christians that bitch-slapped stupid ass (fake) Christians that made that stop. Not the government.
3) I'd like to see something of legitimacy that shows any big movement trying to lynch LGBT in America. I mean, Islamic/Muslim countries, I know it. But America? Nah man.
4) Government didn't grant religious liberties in the US. The Founding Fathers believed religious freedom is an inherent right given to us by God and that Government should protect it, not grant it as a Right.
Which is why I think its on the way out. If government would stop trying to keep it alive and let it fail so something else could replace it.
Image seems to be broken.
Don't quite know what to tell you.
Its a Pew Research poll that shows that 71 percent of households with persons 18+ have some form of internet, and 46 percent of people have actually full scale Broadband internet. These are people in teh 30,000$ percentile and lower.
Ok then, that's still far from everyone like you claimed. It's not even 3/4 of everyone.
So you can see why saying that "everyone has internet, even the poorest of the poor" isn't completely accurate. The point stands that there are lots of people who don't have it -- and the assumption that everyone has it is one of the reasons why my friends who didn't have it were at such a disadvantage when their teachers assumed that online homework assignments and the like were something that they could easily do at home. Yeah, they could still use the computers at school and at libraries and such, but going out of their way to make that happen meant that it certainly wasn't as easy for them as it was for others.
So, the claim that school is unnecessary because "everyone has internet" and so everyone can just teach themselves? Even if we assume that everyone can and will give themselves a proper education using nothing more than an internet connection (and that's a huge assumption), we still have yet to solve the problem that many people simply don't have internet and thus wouldn't have that opportunity.