I just lost all faith in the American public.

political power should be in the hands of scientists and economists.

fuck politicians and lawyers. they should be advisors to smarter people, with real fucking degrees, to ensure that they follow the protocol. thats all they can do properly, and even then, they know the lines, so they know how to step over them.
 
and going off that, i couldn't care less. it means less competition for me in the working world.
 
You couldn't be more wrong. Political power should be in the hands of people who have the ability to lead.
 
how? theres no way that video is real. if i ever met someone that retarded i would shoot them because they are a disgrace to society.
 
wow, this thread got really interesting.

i just want to say i'm sorry for steriotyping all americans, didn't mean it to sound that way. my bad.

the other day my geography teacher quized us on simple stuff. she pulled out a map and questioned us. for example "point out china and tell me the capital?".

that day i heard some of the stupidest stuff ever. like that hong kong was the capital of china, most of them didn't know where the fuck egypt and isral where and so forth.
 
right now, its in the hands of those who can lead.

you know who was a great fucking leader? hitler, thats who. his led his people into a killing spree, and they didnt give it a second though. right now, leaders dont need to lead after the electiosn over, because from then on, their decisions will speak for them. and leaders dont make the best of decisions because thats not what theyre trained to do
 
There's a difference between "Americans" and "People"? Get outta here.

Quinny is a genius! Gooooo philosopher kingdom! Except not really, because I'm not sure I trust the people who'd manage to gain power... probably just a bunch of rich dudes... and corruption would be worse than now... but in the abstract, it's a pretty sweet idea alright. People really are stupid.

As for US public education, there are easy ways to fix that. Say... funding??
 
You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Nor do you have a grasp of what leadership is. Specialists lack the ability to lead a diverse system. Its too complex for their scope of expertise. Leaders are the pivotal figures that hold everyone together. They delegate expert opinion form qualified people and make rational decisions based upon the information provided to them. Leading takes a special ability. It is a talent. Some people simply just can't or do not want to weald that kind of power and responsibility. Saying leaders should not hold power is a complete and utter disregard for organized human society. A leader is a person that manages and controls people and resources to achieve a goal. Hitler had absolutely brilliant leadership talent, but was also insane and lacked the ethical prowess. Not all great leaders are inherently evil. What do you say about people like Gandhi, MLK Jr, Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Winston Churchill? Leaders are essential to human organization. Without them...we are plunged into chaos and are no higher than the common animal. The stance you are taking on this is absolutely laughable.
 
But thats how it works. If you don't like it, get the power to change it. But it is a double edged sword, pour attention into one thing and you'll surely neglect another (not necessarily by your own fault). The group as a whole is stupid. The individual holds the intelligence. This is because it is much easier to express and evaluate your own thoughts as opposed to a massive group. Not everyone agrees, and thats part of the problem (albeit an unavoidable one).

And I agree whole heartedly with more funding for public education. That is my absolute sharpest criticism of the current administration (OMFGs QuiNNy disAGrEEs wIth teh BuSH). But you can't just throw money at it. The whole thing needs to be restructured, from the Federal level right down to the classes. No president in recent times have given education the attention it needs. It is the neglected redheaded stepchild of my government.
 
haha i know that more americans were killed. fortunately, the bracket of "people" includes more than just americans. it is not a true fact because more people died in both world wars than the american civil war. google it if you dont believe me
 
its a federalism issue. since states have the first say over whats what in their school systems, its difficult for the federal government to implement any sort of fair policy thats realitivley equal from state to state.
 
Yeah, but you can't really wrestle power away from the philosopher king(s) (read: benevolent (hopefully) dictator(s)), because once they're in power they decide what's best, and what's best will in most cases be "I get to keep running shit, so back off". Right? So we need the right PKs to begin with, and they need to actually be governed by what's best for the people rather than their own wishes and ambitions.

Restructuring education requires throwing a lot of money at restructuring it. And it will continue to cost more later. For one thing, if "teacher" was actually made a respectable position, maybe more people would be drawn to it. For another... textbooks?

Finally, why is it that being smart is looked down upon? Restructuring of SOCIETY is equally important... the mob rule mentality is just not working here. In fact, a great deal is wrong.
 
okay, so i did take an extreme stance on the subject. but i do agree with your point wher you state that leaders hold everyone together. that is their job, as is delegating tasks. the problem with many leaders is that they dont delegate or draw upon the opinions of the experts for their areas of expertise. leaders also need to learn to prioritize

right now, leaders need to take a far more rigourous approach to environmental threats. many governments will disagree, with the reasoning that it will destroy the economy. well, you wont have an economy if you kill off the entire population with global warming.

about MLK jr though, one of his strengths as a leader was to use religion to bring people together. what he accomplished as a civil rights leader was astounding, but he drew upon people's misfounded beliefs. i believe a great leader would bring people together without using something as bs as religion, or even take the next step and eliminate religion entirely. im fine with freedom of speech, but it should only be wielded by people speaking the truth.
 
No, you can't wrestle power form people like that. Unless a revolution is organized, which of course requires those very leaders and intellectual types of people or organize it. Or you can have system that gives the individuals the ability to voice change and lobby to make it happen if they want to (US, Canada, Western Europe, etc.). A flawless system is impossible. There will always be leaders, and there will always be followers. Obviously you want a person in power that governs in the best interest of society, but there will always that personal bias in then (even very slight).

Reworking the schools would be expensive, time-consuming, and probably painful. That is exactly why politicians are scared to death of making a commitment to it. There is a lot of risk involved in that kind of dramatic change...unfortunately few have the balls to face it.

Society molds the way people think. If you teach the right things in schools (your example, smart = good) you can counteract much of the superstitions that people adopt. A good education system is the strongest step in fighting ignorance and misconception. Thats why I think education is the US's most important domestic issue.
 
Leaders do prioritize and delegate, it just may do not agree your priorities. I, for example, personally do not agree that the environment is our biggest concern. Don't get me wrong, it is an issue, but I think there are other things that need to be sorted out first.

Religion is a common tool used by leaders because a great way to unite people is to show them a common belief. Religion is a highly continuant mechanism for getting people to agree because it heavily influences peoples outlook and thought process, thus people can more easily agree to a common goal.

When people look at leadership, they think politics. That is not the only place where it occurs at a highly refined level. I suggest looking at the business world (please cast aside any predetermined bias you may have). Leadership at its highest level occurs in government and business.
 
perhaps you should read a magazine, such as scientific american or nature. headlines for more than the past decade have concerned with global warming. i still hear people in my classes quoting mainstream journalism articles that question whether or not its even happening. this is the biggest crisis of our times, and its not given sufficient attention. leaders hav enot only been given the ability to influence business, but they have been charged with the maintenance of their region.

not only that, but quantities of oil are limited. whole economys are going to be reshaped once oil is cut out, regardless. so the environment has the power to redefine the economy. have you read "dune"? its fictional, but its a display of the environment shaping government. since the environment has the power to change the economy, it should take priority
 
The environment shouldn't take priority. That's silly. It is however, A priority. And it is certainly an element of societal wellbeing. As such, it should not be foregone in favour of private monetary gains. In other words, in spite of widespread economic downturns, environmental issues should be emphasized to the detriment of corporate interests. I know that's also going to have its negative effects, but it seems necessary.

You know, people have overlooked or misused much of the power of the internet. I bet you could start a vbulletin board, get the right members, and come up with a lot of solutions to many of the world's problems.

Also you'd end up bickering a lot, but hey, it's better than groupthink.
 
I get trashed on for going to parochial school... well im glad I got a good education. I can be a military strategist for when we go to war with Iran and its neighboring country New Zealand
 
I want a centrally planned school system. All executive decisions and prodical occur at the federal level. All schools teach the exact same classes and material at the K-12 level. All schools receive the same amount of funding per student and teacher. Grading is the same everywhere. Standardized testing is the same everywhere. Highschools would reinforce classes that actauly teach real world skills, for example, personal finance. Taking some form of extra-curricular activities would be mandatary for every single student. All rudimentary skills would be taught to the student upon graduating highschool. Public colleges would no longer need to waste time with level 100 GS classes because students that have graduated highschool should already know these basic skills. All colleges at the undergraduate level should have credits that are perfectly transferable. K-12 should serve to teach students how to become skilled well-rounded people to enter society and the modern world. If you don't make the cut...you stay in the school system until you do. College should teach students skill refinement and prepare them for specialization or expertise in a field. If you don't make the cut...you're out.

Thats how the system should work.
 
the anonymity is the best. you can trash (with support) the other guy's ideas without fear of following diplomatic procedures. also, it would remove any biases you would have of others' ideas because of nationality
 
To cure the world of all its environmental problems, the world must first work as a single cohesive unit with the intention of righting those problems. Otherwise we're all just spinning our wheels. I also think world problems should be tackled at the root. The environment is not the root, it is an affect.
 
i agree with more or less all of that (cept i have no idea what 100 gs is). however, i dont see why colleges should limit students to one area. prepare sufficiently for that one area yes, and make sure they have a career possibility ahead of them. however, you need enough room to dabble in other subjects, because if you have a variety of classes and subjects, you will have a wider arsenal of knowledge and tools. certain jobs only investigate problems a certain way. im (obviously) going into science, but im going to be dabbling in astrophysics and analytical chemistry and biodiversity even though they are fairly separate, because it will help me better a approach a problem, if i know more then one way to go about it. high schools should give you as many of these tools as possible by forcing you to diversify your area of study, before you choose a specialization.

Have you considered the implications of standardizing colleges? in Canada, most universities operate independently and in very different fashions. its one of the greatest features of university, because it allows you to choose a teaching style that will best conform to your needs. you cant introduce transferable credits because they entail a similarity in curriculum. it would cripple one of the greatest strengths universities have
 
Canada will never be as military minded as the states, yeah Harper has mounted a larger afghan attack but its what needs to happen. Canada is over fighting the taliban and al qeada rebels. Actual terrorists not Iraqi civilians.
 
your the 4rth? your a moron for even comparing yourself to central africa. America is a 1st world nation, Africa is not. Major economic centers where their is some wealth are pretty much the only places in Africa where you can find education systems that are somewhat like the American education system. You are one of the dumb ignorant Americans that should be featured in the video.
 
at high schools in canada, or ontario at least, we have a sort of people-skills class known as careers. its a mandatory class that teaches you how to go about finding a job, how to get a job, what kind of job to get, and essentially figuring out what kind of job youd do well at.

the class is a fucking joke. the teachers dont take it seriously, and the kids who need it dont show up. the class is good, and fairly reasonable as far as the stuff that is taught. however, you have to change the mentality of the people to get them going to this class and participating. you cant do this by increasing funding. unless youre willing to pay kids to learn. this basic sort of intelligence needs to gain popularity.
 
GS is and abbreviation for general studies. Many colleges (if not all) make freshmen take basic composition and mathematic classes. It's total nonsense. You should have learned these skills in highschool. The only reason it is a problem is because not all highschools teach the same English and math. I came from a private school and I was forced to take a composition class that was far below my level of skill. It's a waste of the student's time. I'm all for you having freedom to experiment and choose your major in college. I think that all underclassmen courses should count the same. If you take an anthropology class at UCLA, it should count for the same credit as an anthropology class at CU Boulder. Many undergraduates are unsure what they want to study and frequently change majors and/or transfer. It's a needless headache havening to take the same classes twice. Colleges can and should offer different majors, but the same kinds of classes should count for the same credit.
 
I'm sure it was. There are educated Americans out there, they probably just chose these people to make Americans look like dumbfucks. The media can portray any message it wants. When dealing with the government, this is called propoganda. Don't believe everything you see on tv.
 
I love how the creator of this thread hasn't comment once......I think someone was just brewing up trouble!!
 
The administration needs to discipline the teachers and tell them it is an essential part of the curriculum. Kids that don't show up to the class should be failed and forced to take it again.
 
im going to stick with canada's strengths here. our universities have different qualities of education. beyond the whole difference in approaches, there is also a difference in the level of difficulty. im taking calculus right now, and my exam encompasses concepts none of my friends at other universities will deal with till next year. the reason my university doesnt accept any credits from other schools, is because they havent learned half this shit yet. if you want that higher level of education, you have to be there from the start. they shouldnt count the same, because im better than they are. if they went to the college with a lower level of education, then they deserve to be there, because they didnt investigate the possiblities of transferring, and they didnt care what level of education they were getting. based on that, they probably couldnt deal with the harder classes here.

im not sure what the deal is with social sciences or philosophy course, but thats how it works for science. in science, you need to have the proper schooling. i believe that if you can prove that you learned similar things, then yes, you should be given the credit. thats why certain credits are transferable. but you cant have all of them be transferable, because then otherwise you cant have schools where there are high levels of education, because they wouldnt coalesce with the rule.
 
CAPP, careers, whatever you want to call it, IS a joke. People can figure out for themselves what "career" is right for them. The education to allow them to excel is what is important. The nuances of the educational system can be debated endlessly, I personally think introductory philosophy classes should be MANDATORY because no matter what field you're in, broadened, logical, analytical thinking is key to success both in professional and personal life. But that's another point entirely. What most needs to be dealt with is apathy and attitude problems on the part of scoiety at large which lead to self-improvement by means of education being prioritized below, for example, american idol. I am firmly set in the belief that, while no one source can be held at the root of such a widespread problem, that the pursuit of wealth and unbridled capitalism is a major source. Corporate exploitation of the masses is FACILITATED by apathy and ignorance. Big business does not want the average person to be smarter, it doesn't serve their profit line. And yet, big business is utterly necessary. What needs to be done on that point is to make it profitable, and gear corporations towards profit, based on a society that does not appeal to the LCD but raises the bar and demands that if you want to be a part of this society, you'd better step your fucking game up.

Harsh, but necessary, and if it happens, it won't be so harsh anymore, will it.
 
in terms of american casualties only, they are close, the civil war had 500,000, if you count both union and confederate soldiers, and the world wars combined had 520,000 american deaths. so he was wrong, but only by a little bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top