School and Family Life

[Kakumei]

So you can see why saying that "everyone has internet, even the poorest of the poor" isn't completely accurate.

71% isn't really a low number. Especially with how well mobile internet really works (and is continuing to be better and expand).

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.

Which has little to do with my statement as much as it does prove the failures of public school systems.

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.

I didn't mean to allude that we were at the current stage of internet completely beating out public school systems. I was stating my case (and mostly my opinion) that while public schools are (kind of) available to everybody, Internet can (and eventually will) do it better.

Your also making the assumption that internet wont be readily available (and much cheaper) in the future. Technological advances double something like every 14 months when it comes to internet ability.

In fact, if Net Neutrality wasn't shoved (illegally) down our throats, I would have expected that realistically 90% of housholds (who wanted it) would have it. Thats coming from my cousin, who up until recently worked in Internet and Networking in Atlanta as is kind of a big deal when it comes to that.

There are about 220 Mil Americans, and only 60 Mil don't have internet. In the scale of other countries, that's INSANE. And it will close much faster than you think.


You also too the "everyone" part of that far too literally. My number would have been more accurate if I saw this as a debate, as apposed to a discussion. Still, in the grand scheme of things, a poop ton of Americans have great access to internet, and that gap will close fast.

 

[Kagayours]

71% isn't really a low number. Especially with how well mobile internet really works (and is continuing to be better and expand).

Given the fact that I didn't actually see the poll you linked, I can't say this for sure, but, there's a good chance that the "any form of internet" bit included mobile internet -- meaning that there are a lot of people who don't have that, either.

Which has little to do with my statement as much as it does prove the failures of public school systems.

Um, I never said that public school systems weren't flawed. I definitely agree that they are.

But, I was trying to say that we can't just toss out school entirely in favor of self-teaching via the internet because those same friends of mine who were merely put at a slight disadvantage because of their situation would've had no education at all if they were just expected to self-teach via the internet.

And I think we can agree that a flawed education is better than no education at all.

I didn't mean to allude that we were at the current stage of internet completely beating out public school systems. I was stating my case (and mostly my opinion) that while public schools are (kind of) available to everybody, Internet can (and eventually will) do it better.

Your also making the assumption that internet wont be readily available (and much cheaper) in the future. Technological advances double something like every 14 months when it comes to internet ability.

In fact, if Net Neutrality wasn't shoved (illegally) down our throats, I would have expected that realistically 90% of housholds (who wanted it) would have it. Thats coming from my cousin, who up until recently worked in Internet and Networking in Atlanta as is kind of a big deal when it comes to that.

There are about 220 Mil Americans, and only 60 Mil don't have internet. In the scale of other countries, that's INSANE. And it will close much faster than you think.

I'm aware that lots of people do have internet and that surely more will have it in the future, but,

You also too the "everyone" part of that far too literally. My number would have been more accurate if I saw this as a debate, as apposed to a discussion. Still, in the grand scheme of things, a poop ton of Americans have great access to internet, and that gap will close fast.

When we're talking about who has access to mere public education, I think I have pretty good reason to take your use of "everyone" rather literally. Assuming we're talking about the US, then, ideally, everyone should receive some form of public education.

But if, suddenly, the only people who got an education were the ones whose families had internet access? We'd be cutting out a lot of kids. 29% is a pretty huge number to be denying such a thing.

I realize that you've now clarified that you didn't mean that such a switch-over would be possible today, but, since I initially read it as you saying that "everyone" has internet and so such a thing would be possible even now... yeah.

There are times when it's fairly obvious that the word "everyone" is being used as mere exaggeration. But in a context like this? "Everyone" better be pretty damn close to literally everyone. 71% is not nearly close enough. Like I said, it's not even 3/4. That's literally a quarter of the population that's getting left out. Could we actually reach that point of literally everyone having internet in the future? Maybe, probably -- but it's certainly not the case today.

ALSO, even ignoring all that, I do still disagree that everyone would have the means and motivation to self-teach just from having internet access, but, I'll let Gwazi argue that one for me.

I just wanted to clear up the myth that "everyone" has internet. Yeah, in this day and age, it may seem like that may be the case (at least in 1st world countries), but, having witnessed firsthand the damage that such assumptions can do to people who don't have it, it's important to remember that, no, not everyone has internet.

 

[☆Luna☆]

71% isn't really a low number. Especially with how well mobile internet really works (and is continuing to be better and expand).


Which has little to do with my statement as much as it does prove the failures of public school systems.


I didn't mean to allude that we were at the current stage of internet completely beating out public school systems. I was stating my case (and mostly my opinion) that while public schools are (kind of) available to everybody, Internet can (and eventually will) do it better.

Your also making the assumption that internet wont be readily available (and much cheaper) in the future. Technological advances double something like every 14 months when it comes to internet ability.

In fact, if Net Neutrality wasn't shoved (illegally) down our throats, I would have expected that realistically 90% of housholds (who wanted it) would have it. Thats coming from my cousin, who up until recently worked in Internet and Networking in Atlanta as is kind of a big deal when it comes to that.

There are about 220 Mil Americans, and only 60 Mil don't have internet. In the scale of other countries, that's INSANE. And it will close much faster than you think.


You also too the "everyone" part of that far too literally. My number would have been more accurate if I saw this as a debate, as apposed to a discussion. Still, in the grand scheme of things, a poop ton of Americans have great access to internet, and that gap will close fast.

Net Neutrality is a pretty good idea in my opinion. It is what prevents ISPs from slowing/speeding up data transfer based on who is asking and where it is coming from. Considering the relatively small number of ISPs, this is probably for the best.

 

[Kakumei]

Given the fact that I didn't actually see the poll you linked, I can't say this for sure, but, there's a good chance that the "any form of internet" bit included mobile internet -- meaning that there are a lot of people who don't have that, either.

Its either Mobile or Broadband. Then Satellite. There are no other types.

And saying "I didn't see the poll" is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

Um, I never said that public school systems weren't flawed. I definitely agree that they are.

But, I was trying to say that we can't just toss out school entirely in favor of self-teaching via the internet because those same friends of mine who were merely put at a slight disadvantage because of their situation would've had no education at all if they were just expected to self-teach via the internet.

And I think we can agree that a flawed education is better than no education at all.

And I am saying that when the majority of the US has internet access, better options will be available than the public school system.

I think these points don't need further discussion, unless you feel otherwise.

When we're talking about who has access to mere public education, I think I have pretty good reason to take your use of "everyone" rather literally. Assuming we're talking about the US, then, ideally, everyone should receive some form of public education.

There are more children on the streets and not in school then there are gay people. I think a poll in 2008 said that 3.7% of the population is gay, and a 2010 poll said that 6 or 7% were not in school. However, most of them are runaways or in homeless families.
These are from memory and since its not a debate per se, I am not compelled to look for information to defend a position I don't care much for.

But if, suddenly, the only people who got an education were the ones whose families had internet access? We'd be cutting out a lot of kids. 29% is a pretty huge number to be denying such a thing.

What would you think of a compromise? Think of this:

We make the switch over for kids who do have internet. That way kids in public schools can have more specialized attention and we can put to better use a lot more money for things we need, or even put that money into a system online?

Just a thought solution though, I wouldn't look too far into it.

I just wanted to clear up the myth that "everyone" has internet. Yeah, in this day and age, it may seem like that may be the case (at least in 1st world countries), but, having witnessed firsthand the damage that such assumptions can do to people who don't have it, it's important to remember that, no, not everyone has internet.

It wont be a myth much longer. ;3

 

[Kakumei]

Net Neutrality is a pretty good idea in my opinion. It is what prevents ISPs from slowing/speeding up data transfer based on who is asking and where it is coming from. Considering the relatively small number of ISPs, this is probably for the best.

That's because you don't mind how the government literally stole how internet was handled and gave that power to a few people in the Telecommunications Act and not in the hands of the people.

Many big names who really know technology and internet (Like Elon Musk) know what the impact is on this.

And since the people no longer even have the right to vote on the issue, they can actually implement SOPA like regulations on the internet and neither us nor the courts have the right to challenge them on it.

And most of the arguments that went on the internet about the ISP's had no cases ever taken to court under the case (except once, and it wasn't really legitimate). The fact is, it was all a big sham, and SOPA will come our ways in a few years time.

 

[☆Luna☆]

That's because you don't mind how the government literally stole how internet was handled and gave that power to a few people in the Telecommunications Act and not in the hands of the people.

Many big names who really know technology and internet (Like Elon Musk) know what the impact is on this.

And since the people no longer even have the right to vote on the issue, they can actually implement SOPA like regulations on the internet and neither us nor the courts have the right to challenge them on it.

And most of the arguments that went on the internet about the ISP's had no cases ever taken to court under the case (except once, and it wasn't really legitimate). The fact is, it was all a big sham, and SOPA will come our ways in a few years time.

Honestly, this is always what the government has done. They control and regulate things even if the original constitution didn't give them the power to control such things. However, I really don't understand blaming the government for something they haven't done yet any more than I can understand what companies intended to do if they were allowed to control data transfer to such an extent. The only thing that I can see is that I like the fact that internet doesn't have a luxury mode. I like that ISPs don't have the power to discriminate. I like that Iwaku can not be asked to pay money to ensure that its users can connect quickly. It might be a limited perspective, but right now I cannot understand how enforcing Net Neutrality took away any power of mine to decide how the internet is run. It was never me or you who would even be able to decide. At least now we have the fake societal control that is provided to us through government.

 

[Kakumei]

I like that Iwaku can not be asked to pay money to ensure that its users can connect quickly. It might be a limited perspective, but right now I cannot understand how enforcing Net Neutrality took away any power of mine to decide how the internet is run.

There was never, ever a case where this has happened. The internet was never under threat of it happening, and internet providers wouldn't do it because that means they would lose business to companies that wouldn't do it.

It was never me or you who would even be able to decide. At least now we have the fake societal control that is provided to us through government.

Yes, BEFORE Net Neutrality, internet companies could easily be taken to court over this.

AFTER Net Neutrality, the Government protects these businesses from being sued over this.

You should NEVER believe what the government tells you, especially when it comes to the internet. They ALWAYS lie.

 

[Kagayours]

Its either Mobile or Broadband. Then Satellite. There are no other types.

And saying "I didn't see the poll" is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

The image link was broken. I pointed this out and you said "I don't know what to tell you". You then relayed to me the information from that poll, and I trusted that you didn't just make it up. I only specified that I hadn't actually seen the poll because I couldn't really look closely at the nitty-gritty of it, and therefore could only base what I said off of your information -- which was limited -- and I wanted to clarify that I could only work off of that and wasn't able to see what other information might also be in the poll.

I don't know what else you want from me. @_@

There are more children on the streets and not in school then there are gay people. I think a poll in 2008 said that 3.7% of the population is gay, and a 2010 poll said that 6 or 7% were not in school. However, most of them are runaways or in homeless families.
These are from memory and since its not a debate per se, I am not compelled to look for information to defend a position I don't care much for.

Yeah, I realize that not everyone is in school, either, which is why I said "ideally everyone should be". Still, I think the goal of public education is to reach everyone, even if it doesn't actually happen.

Still, my point is, 6-7% is a lot closer to no one being left without an education than the hypothetical 29% mentioned earlier.

What would you think of a compromise? Think of this:

We make the switch over for kids who do have internet. That way kids in public schools can have more specialized attention and we can put to better use a lot more money for things we need, or even put that money into a system online?

Just a thought solution though, I wouldn't look too far into it.

Perhaps I might agree with that if I agreed that such a switch-over is a good idea in the first place, which I still don't -- again, for reasons Gwazi pretty much already tackled (though I admit I didn't read the entire back-and-forth on that).

If I were to ignore my stance on that and assume that such a system would work, then, well, yeah, I'll agree that it would certainly be better than those without internet being disadvantaged due to the assumption that they do have it.

It wont be a myth much longer. ;3

And it would be nice to see that day. Until then, though, I just think it's important to remember that lots of people do unfortunately live on the wrong side of the digital divide.

 

[☆Luna☆]

There was never, ever a case where this has happened. The internet was never under threat of it happening, and internet providers wouldn't do it because that means they would lose business to companies that wouldn't do it.


Yes, BEFORE Net Neutrality, internet companies could easily be taken to court over this.

AFTER Net Neutrality, the Government protects these businesses from being sued over this.

You should NEVER believe what the government tells you, especially when it comes to the internet. They ALWAYS lie.

Having seen how our courts behave, I'm not sure how much better this makes me feel. Though regardless, if the government hasn't been successfully challenged in court, then they still have the legal authority. I don't know if this is for better or worse, but I like how things are now, so I'll wait for that to change before I protest against this. The government has a lot of trust issues, many of them earned, but for right now I don't have another source to put my faith in. They have unchallenged control, so any attempts for change will have to come through them.

 

[Kakumei]

Though regardless, if the government hasn't been successfully challenged in court, then they still have the legal authority.

I can't remember the court ruliing that made this happen, but unfortunately, the Federal Government can't be sued by anyone except the Supreme Court.

I don't know if this is for better or worse, but I like how things are now, so I'll wait for that to change before I protest against this.

You mean how its exactly the same as before?

And protest it, but it doesn't matter now, because we have no power to do anything about it anymore.

I don't have another source to put my faith in.

Let me offer a much better alternative. Yourself, and the American people as a whole. Certainly not the government. I say that from my heart.

The image link was broken. I pointed this out and you said "I don't know what to tell you". You then relayed to me the information from that poll, and I trusted that you didn't just make it up. I only specified that I hadn't actually seen the poll because I couldn't really look closely at the nitty-gritty of it, and therefore could only base what I said off of your information -- which was limited.

I don't know what else you want from me. @_@

I was teasing you. Its a discussion, not a debate, so calling the Fallacy was just for fun.

Still, I think the goal of public education is to reach everyone, even if it doesn't actually happen.

I think its to throw propaganda at kinds. But I digress.

Perhaps I might agree with that if I agreed that such a switch-over is a good idea in the first place, which I still don't -- again, for reasons Gwazi pretty much already tackled (though I admit I didn't read the entire back-and-forth on that).

If I were to ignore my stance on that and assume that such a system would work, then, well, yeah, I'll agree that it would certainly be better than those without internet being disadvantaged due to the assumption that they do have it.

Thats what I get for trying to offer a hypothetical compromise.

Do I get points at least for the Jon Tron faces?

 

[☆Luna☆]

I can't remember the court ruliing that made this happen, but unfortunately, the Federal Government can't be sued by anyone except the Supreme Court.
Yeah, and even then it rarely happens.

You mean how its exactly the same as before?
Basically. Don't fix what isn't broken.

And protest it, but it doesn't matter now, because we have no power to do anything about it anymore.
Sometimes it changes things, and really I think our power has been a constant. We elected the people who did this, and that was our power to change it, already finalized before we understood its ramifications.

Let me offer a much better alternative. Yourself, and the American people as a whole. Certainly not the government. I say that from my heart.
I'd like to believe in the American people, but I've grown disenchanted that the masses can make the correct decision. I think that ultimately the American people are at large uneducated, self interested, and stubborn. I have faith in some particular people and organizations, but I'm actually scared of the world at large, and I'm waiting for that to change.

^

 

[Kakumei]

"I'd like to believe in the American people, but I've grown disenchanted that the masses can make the correct decision. I think that ultimately the American people are at large uneducated, self interested, and stubborn. I have faith in some particular people and organizations, but I'm actually scared of the world at large, and I'm waiting for that to change."

Then how about just in yourself?

Also, do you mind if I ask what your political leanings are, if any? And don't worry, I wont judge or anything. I'm not like that.

 

[☆Luna☆]

"I'd like to believe in the American people, but I've grown disenchanted that the masses can make the correct decision. I think that ultimately the American people are at large uneducated, self interested, and stubborn. I have faith in some particular people and organizations, but I'm actually scared of the world at large, and I'm waiting for that to change."

Then how about just in yourself?

Also, do you mind if I ask what your political leanings are, if any? And don't worry, I wont judge or anything. I'm not like that.

Personally, I'm a bit of a moderate. I think that my own opinion is far from adequate to be good enough. I'd prefer it if subject matter experts were in charge of and credible for all decisions, but that isn't even Democracy. Instead I settle for any choices that make the population more intelligent and empathetic as a whole.

 

[Kakumei]

Personally, I'm a bit of a moderate. I think that my own opinion is far from adequate to be good enough. I'd prefer it if subject matter experts were in charge of and credible for all decisions, but that isn't even Democracy. Instead I settle for any choices that make the population more intelligent and empathetic as a whole.

That's fair. I am more Libertarian myself. I don't believe we should tell anybody how they should live, except that they take responsibility for what they do with their own freedom. I don't like when any group of people tries to control another.

 

[Kagayours]

I was teasing you. Its a discussion, not a debate, so calling the Fallacy was just for fun.

Oh.

I apologize for missing that, then.

Thats what I get for trying to offer a hypothetical compromise.

And I accepted your hypothetical compromise -- under the understanding that I would still disagree that self-taught education via the internet is a bad idea. XD

Do I get points at least for the Jon Tron faces?

Of course. *marks +2 bonus points*

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

And saying "I didn't see the poll" is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

But if stuff like Logical Fallicies pop up? That's when it turns to debate and I'll be leaving.

 

[Kakumei]

And I accepted your hypothetical compromise -- under the understanding that I would still disagree that self-taught education via the internet is a bad idea. XD

Actually, on second thought. You could just have an online curriculum for students at home to run through, or even doing it via video's with a teacher.

Like I said, as the internet stands, its a powerful media with a potential of so much more than weve ever had before.

 

[Kakumei]

@Gen. Gwazi Senpai
Someone missed the part where I said I was joking.

 

[Kagayours]

Actually, on second thought. You could just have an online curriculum for students at home to run through, or even doing it via video's with a teacher.

Like I said, as the internet stands, its a powerful media with a potential of so much more than weve ever had before.

Yeah, and I'd agree that that can be an effective teaching strategy. In fact, a lot of people are already sort of homeschooled like that -- learning from an online curriculum, with online guidance from teachers.

I'm not trying to be all "science is evil and Thomas Edison was a witch" about the whole internet-schooling thing -- I just think there needs to be some sort of guidance. Just expecting people to be able to teach themselves is the part I don't agree with.

 

[Kakumei]

I'm not trying to be all "science is evil and Thomas Edison was a witch" about the whole internet-schooling thing -- I just think there needs to be some sort of guidance. Just expecting people to be able to teach themselves is the part I don't agree with.

Hey. I'm internet taught. XD (Totally not proof that it works for anyone else. LOL)