NationStates Jolt Archive

In the UK, there has been recent outcry ever since a Labour MP complained about the old A level system because "It was unfair, the most intelligent people got the best grades and went to the best universities."

Is it me? Or is that a really stupid statement. Surely we are allowed to discriminate against people based on ability?

Surely the stupid people are allowed to be called stupid? Surely that's not offensive because it's fact? Surely we're allowed to call people rednecks/chavs/whatever if it's actually what they are?

Why aren't we allowed to call people things they are anymore? Why aren't we allowed to discriminate against the stupid or the poorly educated?

There's a typo in the poll. Just vote YES with the QUESTION or NO. Apologies

-snip-
That is greatness - as is this related joke

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".

In the UK, there has been recent outcry ever since a Labour MP complained about the old A level system because "It was unfair, the most intelligent people got the best grades and went to the best universities."

Is it me? Or is that a really stupid statement. Surely we are allowed to discriminate against people based on ability?

Surely the stupid people are allowed to be called stupid? Surely that's not offensive because it's fact? Surely we're allowed to call people rednecks/chavs/whatever if it's actually what they are?

Why aren't we allowed to call people things they are anymore? Why aren't we allowed to discriminate against the stupid or the poorly educated?

No offense, but that's a very stupid Thread

read Rawl's writings on the Veil of Ignorance. its a complete lottery as to what skills or background or chances in life you are born with. hence it can be argued that discriminating in any way whatsoever is unfair & unjust. it might be that "stupid" people are not, in fact, stupid and don't go to university not because they are lacking in ability, just because they do not come from a background where learning is encouraged or is stifled, or lack motivation to achieve. just because somebody doesn't achieve academically doesn't automatically mean they are stupid. plus, calling somebody a derogatory insult, like 'stupid', is hurtful and not exactly conscientious or considerate of their feelings.

my view anyhow

In the UK, there has been recent outcry ever since a Labour MP complained about the old A level system because "It was unfair, the most intelligent people got the best grades and went to the best universities."

Is it me? Or is that a really stupid statement. Surely we are allowed to discriminate against people based on ability?

Surely the stupid people are allowed to be called stupid? Surely that's not offensive because it's fact? Surely we're allowed to call people rednecks/chavs/whatever if it's actually what they are?

Why aren't we allowed to call people things they are anymore? Why aren't we allowed to discriminate against the stupid or the poorly educated?


I beleive that the correct response is not that it's wrong, its just that it's very Un-PC.

Which equals retardedness :p

I voted no suppose to be yes.....Damn the poll and damn the question of this thread! :headbang:

This poll makes my head hurt.

This poll makes my head hurt.
As it should.

Dunno what it has to do with the poll, but it's funny:
http://markc1.typepad.com/relentlesslyoptimistic/images/morans.jpg

Stupid people are stupid and deserve to be treated that way.

As it should.

Oh, I guess it's OK then.

But wait a minute... college is a place a person goes to hone their intellect. If a person can't make it into a specific college, there's very little chance they'd be able to complete the classwork and avoid flunking out. So it makes perfect sense. There are things any person can't do.

Besides which, I feel like there's SO many people that if they just bothered to TRY, they'd get good grades. Seriously, if you're not literally mentally retarded, it is possible to work hard enough to get a 4.0 (in high school). Some people just need to spend more time working on it, some people it naturally comes to.

That is greatness - as is this related joke

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".

That is ridiculously simplified and unrealistic.
I still fail to see why the republican party are so popular with Christians! Their thinking is so unchristian for the most part. :headbang:

That is greatness - as is this related joke

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
So the joke is related because it's a stupid joke?

I see.

Surely its just the laws of nature, survival of the fittest and all?
I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who only went to medical school just because of equal opportunities !

Oh, I guess it's OK then.
Its is, unless you're bleeding from the ears.

Its is, unless you're bleeding from the ears.

Oh, heaven forbid, no! Just the nose and eyes.

The Republican beliefs that aren't the most Christian are few and far between. To my knowledge I can think of two
1. Capital Punishment
2. Helping the Poor (this isn't as much absent in the Republican Party as much as it is reduced)
The Similarities would be things more like
1. Against gay marraige
2. Against abortion
and so on
I think that Christian beliefs are in general much closer to Republican beliefs than to Democratic beliefs.

They should just make a new party then. A two party system is incredibly flawed. How about "the christian party" ?

My answers:

May people be discriminated on intelligence?
-Off course. People with a very low intelligence should not be admitted to university for instance. If they have no chance whatsoever of making a certain study, they should not be admitted. Also, not everyone is fit for every job. A job may require a certain intelligence of the employee, if he/she doe'sn't have this, the job is not fit for her.

Must people wit a low intelligence be treated badly?
-Off course not. This is another case entirely. Just because they are unfit for certain educations / jobs, doesn't mean they must be treated worse. Having another job does not nescesarily mean having a worse job.

Hekker

They should just make a new party then. A two party system is incredibly flawed. How about "the christian party" ?

And when they win and we have a theocracy, what then?

EDIT: anyone remember the last time government in America was run by the church?

Stupid people will always be stupid. I think that if intelligence isn't your talent, you should put yourself to use elsewhere.

And when they win and we have a theocracy, what then?

EDIT: anyone remember the last time government in America was run by the church?

*is tempted to say* "what do you mean, LAST time?"

You konw, when I saw this thread, I was wondering if it was one of those language things..

Like, I understand (kinda) where someone might be offended if I call someone behaving in a rediculously stupd way retarded.

But then they get offended if I call them stupid.

Stupid != retarded, there's no PC issue there.

[/rant]

*is tempted to say* "what do you mean, LAST time?"

lol

Anyone remember a little town called Salem?

YES!!! Weed out the stupid people!

That is greatness - as is this related joke

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".

I'm not sure why this "joke" is in this thread, but I should point out that diligence and sacrifice are not the only things that lead to success.

Plenty of bright, motivated people have worked hard all of their lives and never make it above the poverty line, whether it's because they grew up in an underprivileged neighborhood and didn't get to go to college, or because they chose to take care of an ailing parent and could never make career advancement a priority. (That's just a few possible cases, I'm sure we could all think of more).

It's also possible for an ignorant, lazy person to be born into a wealthy, influential family with myriad corporate and political connections, coast through high school and one of the most prestigious universities in the world, despite a mediocre academic record (thanks to those family connections), and then one day become President of the United States. Ahem.

I'm not saying that effort has nothing to do with success. The liberal view of politics isn't about taking away hard-earned, honest money from the rich. It's about saving those who never got the chance to get ahead, even if it means more fortunate people have to make sacrifices to save them.

Or - as President Bush so tactlessly said yesterday, when he used His Holiness' passing to shill for his own political agenda - the strong must protect the weak. By that logic, if a nation is willing to sacrifice billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives in the name of protecting the Iraqi people, we should be just as willing to sacrifice a few dollars out of our paycheck to feed the less fortunate in our own country.

Surely its just the laws of nature, survival of the fittest and all?
I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who only went to medical school just because of equal opportunities !
:confused:

You are against people having an equal opportunity to succeed?

Define 'stupid' without referencing the word 'intelligent'. What IS stupidity, anyway? Can it be quantified? Can it be qualified? Or is it just a relative term, with no real, objective basis?

I'm not sure why this "joke" is in this thread, but I should point out that diligence and sacrifice are not the only things that lead to success.

Plenty of bright, motivated people have worked hard all of their lives and never make it above the poverty line, whether it's because they grew up in an underprivileged neighborhood and didn't get to go to college, or because they chose to take care of an ailing parent and could never make career advancement a priority. (That's just a few possible cases, I'm sure we could all think of more).

It's also possible for an ignorant, lazy person to be born into a wealthy, influential family with myriad corporate and political connections, coast through high school and one of the most prestigious universities in the world, despite a mediocre academic record (thanks to those family connections), and then one day become President of the United States. Ahem.

I'm not saying that effort has nothing to do with success. The liberal view of politics isn't about taking away hard-earned, honest money from the rich. It's about saving those who never got the chance to get ahead, even if it means more fortunate people have to make sacrifices to save them.

Or - as President Bush so tactlessly said yesterday, when he used His Holiness' passing to shill for his own political agenda - the strong must protect the weak. By that logic, if a nation is willing to sacrifice billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives in the name of protecting the Iraqi people, we should be just as willing to sacrifice a few dollars out of our paycheck to feed the less fortunate in our own country.

Can anyone say BS? Honestly the less fortunate can get all the help they want, generally they are to damn lazy to get off their asses and go down to the FIA, Churches or anywhere else. If you need a job you can go to a temp agency get a job and it is possible, if you are not to lazy, to be hired in with a decent wage. In America they say 70% of the kids are to fat, 20% are starving so that leaves 10% that are perfect? These numbers are skewed beyond belief and reason. Leave it to the liberals to fuck something up as simple as counting the fat, starving and perfectly fit. America is getting fatter but we have a problem with people starving. Anyone else see the idiocricy of this statement?

The above joke if that is what you want to call it, holds a lot of truth to the philosphy of both the Republicans and Democrats. As I tell my kids if you had two cows and your neighbor had none. The Republican would trade one of them to the neighbor the liberal would kill one and do nothing else.