NationStates Jolt Archive

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

MeansToAnEnd is campaigning for votes in the best troll thread.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Eh, the abortion helping terrorists was better.

MeansToAnEnd is campaigning for votes in the best troll thread.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

MeansToAnEnd is campaigning for votes in the best troll thread.

He's doing a pretty good job of it. Blaming low educational standards and poverty on the liberal agenda. I never saw those to getting lumped together.

MeansToAnEnd is campaigning for votes in the best troll thread.

He tries too hard. At least some of the other trolls mentioned there were believable. :\

Eh, the abortion helping terrorists was better.

Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Where's that "not this shit again" image when you need it? You refuse to acknowledge my points, because you have no adequate defense, but instead you resort to puerile name-calling.

Eh, the abortion helping terrorists was better.

I agree. Although, stating lack of standardised Economics lessons as the root cause of poverty is deliciously absurd.

no sorry art very important, especially music. music promotes mental disipline. people should do at least 7 subjects for main of schooling. maths, english, a science, business(economics or geography), an art subject and two others.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.
And yet you advocate the complete abolition of everything that makes us human...

Maybe you do need training in this - training which might well show that you cannot make a million dollars in modern money on a minimum wage.

But you might also be worth off reading novels that aren't by Coulter, and actually have a meaning to them that isn't just face value.

History teaches us about the modern day. If you studied that properly, maybe you'd know.

I agree. Although, stating lack of standardised Economics lessons as the root cause of poverty is deliciously absurd.

No, the lack of financial knowledge and discipline that is prevalent among the poor is the cause. They would rather buy alcohol and drugs than investing their money, which is why they live in squalor. If they were better educated in how to effectively utilize their wealth, they could rise up out of their predicament. Instead, they waste, waste, waste.

I'd be nice if you guys could actually dispute his argument instead of just going "Lol! Tr0llzor5!" If he really was a troll, you could defeat him in a debate.

*turns up the volume on Rush's Hemispheres*

Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Where's that "not this shit again" image when you need it? You refuse to acknowledge my points, because you have no adequate defense, but instead you resort to puerile name-calling.
There's nothing to say other than "you are wrong", so that's what everyone's saying. That is all.

Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Where's that "not this shit again" image when you need it? You refuse to acknowledge my points, because you have no adequate defense, but instead you resort to puerile name-calling.

Alright, without history you dont know why or how the American economy sucked, how we screwed the rest of the world, or how the Great Depression happenned.

And without art or writing, no one will tell you how your damn economy is doing.

Lack of culture means lack of respect.

I'd be nice if you guys could actually dispute his argument instead of just going "Lol! Tr0llzor5!" If he really was a troll, you could defeat him in a debate.

Oh, and we HAVEN'T defeated him in any debates? Please... He's defeated the second he clicks "Submit Reply".

My school teaches art, and econ.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

That's...probably the point.

In any event, the function of schools is not, as you say, "to prepare them for entry into the workforce" but rather to PREVENT their entry into the workforce.

It's cute to see such "true believers" in the Taker cause as yourself. Will you consent to giving speeches after my revolution? My people always wish to learn from the past for the future.

As an afterthought: "Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." --George Bernard Shaw

No, the lack of financial knowledge and discipline that is prevalent among the poor is the cause. They would rather buy alcohol and drugs than investing their money, which is why they live in squalor. If they were better educated in how to effectively utilize their wealth, they could rise up out of their predicament. Instead, they waste, waste, waste.

So a homeless man can walk into Wall Street and invest?

Oh, and we HAVEN'T defeated him in any debates? Please... He's defeated the second he clicks "Submit Reply".

Yes we have, and we should keep doing it to keep up the spirit of this forum, this troll-hunt mentality is starting to get out of control.

Oh, and we HAVEN'T defeated him in any debates? Please... He's defeated the second he clicks "Submit Reply".

Certain people can't seem to tell the difference between "debate" and "demented demagoguery."

Yes, I'm looking at you, ye of two party systems...

Economics?? What about science and technology?

So a homeless man can walk into Wall Street and invest?

If that were to happen, food manufacturers and clothiers would gain unimaginable wealth.

Certain people can't seem to tell the difference between "debate" and "demented demagoguery."

Yes, I'm looking at you, ye of two party systems...

:p

No, the lack of financial knowledge and discipline that is prevalent among the poor is the cause. They would rather buy alcohol and drugs than investing their money, which is why they live in squalor. If they were better educated in how to effectively utilize their wealth, they could rise up out of their predicament. Instead, they waste, waste, waste.
And yet the common man will never be properly taught economics - they need to spend their money on their crappy houses and enjoying themselves so that they can be exploited and so that the money keeps flowing straight from their hands into the shops of the highly educated business(wo)men at the top.

In return they get jobs, but this basically just feeds the system.

So a homeless man can walk into Wall Street and invest?

No, nobody would be homeless in the first place because they would know how to balance their budget and refrain from splurging on unnecessary commodities. First, that man would get a job.

The purpose of schooling is preparing people to take part in a participitory democracy, not preparig them to be in the economy. English and History are necessities to doing so. Math and Science are not. The reason we teach math and science is as an addition, to help people.

Art, however, is more important yet, since artists are what makes us better than mere beasts.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

I find an insult that you exist. I will retract mine if you retract yours. :D

No, nobody would be homeless in the first place because they would know how to balance their budget and refrain from splurging on unnecessary commodities. First, that man would get a job.
And if there were no jobs, which is what led him onto the streets?

Economics?? What about science and technology?

They can be taught alongside economics. I am not suggesting that we exclusively teach economics, but that we integrate it within the curriculum. Everybody needs at least a basic grasp of math.

And yet you advocate the complete abolition of everything that makes us human...

Actually I see where he's going.

You see, by not knowing about books such as 1984, we'd not be able to refer to it when we see what the Bush administration is doing and how miserable that dystopian (for it is dystopian, Means, take it from someone that knows much more about, well, about EVERYTHING, than you) setting is.

Thus, fitting Means' agenda.

Everybody needs at least a basic grasp of math.
And everyone is taught maths ffs.

No, nobody would be homeless in the first place because they would know how to balance their budget and refrain from splurging on unnecessary commodities. First, that man would get a job.

Where would he get a job if everyone is doing the same job? You propose throwing out all parts of education except for economics and math, so that means no colleges (why teach the same thing a thousand different places), no job competition (everyone educated the exact same way), and homeless people, because the whole population cannot be investment bankers.

We are at full employment. Where will those jobs come from?

Maybe when you are swimming in bland money you'll realize the world is not just oil, food, and money

lets see...We'll start with history. History is taught so that people understand the mistakes of the past. I challenge you to find a single general without a strong knowledge of battle history. Additionally, you can't know where you are going without knowing where you came from.
Music helps with math abilities. Music is purely math based, and there is a proven connection that students who study music do better in math.
Art...depends what kind of art. Sculpture helps with spacial knowledge, painting with geometry, etc.
English teaches a high level of reading comprehension. If you can read and understand a text, and critically analyze it, then you can teach yourself just about anything

Additionally, music, art, and English all provide the creativity needed. Understanding how electrical systems work is great. Being able to create an entirely new system on part with the complexity of a computer or the internet or the modern car is quite another. You need creativity to do so.

John Dewey, educate the whole child. There is a purpose for it.

Well, that's fucking stupid.


I'm sorry, there is just no other way to explain this.

There's something hilariously ironic about advocating the dismissal of literature on an author's website.

And if there were no jobs, which is what led him onto the streets?

If you are willing to look hard enough, there are jobs which you can perform. Also, all you need to be successful is a temporary job. After that, you can use the proceeds to invest.

They can be taught alongside economics. I am not suggesting that we exclusively teach economics, but that we integrate it within the curriculum. Everybody needs at least a basic grasp of math.

Anyway, the trouble with people (whether it results in poverty or not) is not what people aren't being taught, it's what they are learning - that it's normal to be constantly spending, buying. So much stuff is bought and thrown away. Everything seems incredibly inefficient to me. There's a kind of mental laziness. In my idea of a perfect world, people wouldn't work very much - because they'd work more efficiently and get things done in less time.

In my eyes, a lot of unnecessary daily effort is made because effort wasn't made to plan for efficiency.

If you are willing to look hard enough, there are jobs which you can perform.
Bullshit, pure and simple.
Also, all you need to be successful is a temporary job.
Hahaha. No.
After that, you can use the proceeds to invest.
Or eat, or drink, or pay rent, or amuse yourself so you don't get so low that you kill yourself.

Where's that "not this shit again" image when you need it?

I don't know, but this thread needs it.

This is like the 50th time you've blamed some unconnected s--t to liberal agendas.

I don't know, but this thread needs it.

This is like the 50th time you've blamed some unconnected s--t to liberal agendas.

Shit is fine for this forum. So is fuck.

I couldn't agree more. Whats more important? drawing a stick figure or balancing a check book? I think you better have a handle the economy before you know how to draw.

Where would he get a job if everyone is doing the same job?

Just because everybody takes the same mandatory courses does not mean that they will have the same job. All of us are forced to take English, history, etc., but not all of us are competing for a single type of job.

Anyway, the trouble with people (whether it results in poverty or not) is not what people aren't being taught, it's what they are learning - that it's normal to be constantly spending, buying. So much stuff is bought and thrown away. Everything seems incredibly inefficient to me. There's a kind of mental laziness. In my idea of a perfect world, people wouldn't work very much - because they'd work more efficiently and get things done in less time.

In my eyes, a lot of unnecessary daily effort is made because effort wasn't made to plan for efficiency.
if people dont work, they would make money, your logic is flawed.

I couldn't agree more. Whats more important? drawing a stick figure or balancing a check book? I think you better have a handle the economy before you know how to draw.
Yes!

You're back!

No, nobody would be homeless in the first place because they would know how to balance their budget and refrain from splurging on unnecessary commodities. First, that man would get a job.

Homelessness is most often, in major cities, a result of a mental illness. It's not for the most part "laziness" or "unwillingness to work".

Are you insinuating that I am a troll? Where's that "not this shit again" image when you need it? You refuse to acknowledge my points, because you have no adequate defense, but instead you resort to puerile name-calling.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3751/crybabyzz3.jpg

I find this image more suitable.

lets see...

I am not advocating completely doing away with those courses, but simply making them optional. For example, if you wish to become a military general, you would do well to take a history course. However, since very few people are ever going to become generals, they should not be forced to take such a class.

However, since very few people are ever going to become generals, they should not be forced to take such a class.

They will all become voters.

Just because everybody takes the same mandatory courses does not mean that they will have the same job. All of us are forced to take English, history, etc., but not all of us are competing for a single type of job.

If you take those away, there are two jobs: teaching economics, and being an investor.

And what say you about full employment?

They will all become voters.

And the less they know, the more they'll vote for whom they're told to.

You realy haven't thought this through. Get rid of art and music? Do you know how much they alone bring into the economy and how many they employ. And then from that you have the service sector ( the biggest sector in all first world countries) which gives millions of jobs and a good proportion of these are those who sell music and art among other things. So if you get rid of art and music then you get rid of millions of jobs worldwide.

Next: You want to get rid of history? Do you realise how stupid that is? Without hstory we cannot learn from the past of mistakes. If we hadn't learnt about the World Wars, there would probably be a lot more conflict.

if people dont work, they would make money, your logic is flawed.

Goddamn, does it take practice to be that stupid? I said work less time, but more efficiently. You know what "efficiently" means, right? I said some other stuff too, but I won't tax your mind by going into that.

Homelessness is most often, in major cities, a result of a mental illness. It's not for the most part "laziness" or "unwillingness to work".

Do you have any statistics with which to back up this assertion? I should very much like to see them.

Perhaps MTAE means that noone should take courses beyond what will help the government/economy... so they all obey. ;)

Goddamn, does it take practice to be that stupid? I said work less time, but more efficiently. You know what "efficiently" means, right? I said some other stuff too, but I won't tax your mind by going into that.

you can work as efficently as you want, but if you dont work a lot of hours you aint gonna be paid as much. doesnt take a genius to figure that out.

If you take those away, there are two jobs: teaching economics, and being an investor.

Are you being intentionally thick? In school, nobody is taught rocket science. Does that mean there are no rocket scientists? Nobody learns how to flip a hamburger at a fast food chain. Does that mean that there are no employees at fast food chains? Of course not.

Do you have any statistics with which to back up this assertion? I should very much like to see them.
Simple google search:

National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental IllnessTrainings, publications, bibliographies, referral lists, fact sheets and resource library.
www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages


National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental ...The National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, under contract to the US Center for Mental Health Services, provides technical assistance, ...
www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/search/default.asp - 16k - Cached - Similar pages


Fact Sheet: HomelessnessAs part of a 1992 study in England, for example, investigators collected data for 18 months on 48 homeless people who also had a severe mental illness. ...
www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages


[PDF] Mental Illness and HomelessnessFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2003). Findings also reveal that persons. with mental disorder and persons with addictive disorders ...
www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Mental_Illness.pdf - Similar pages


Mental Illness and Pathways into Homelessness: Findings and ...The Clarke Institute of Psychiatry is an institute in Canada exclusively dedicated to research, education and care relating to mental illness and mental ...
www.camh.net/hsrcu/html_documents/pathways_proceedings.html - 164k - Cached - Similar pages


ADE: Causes of Homelessness - Mental IllnessComprehensive information about homelessness and educating homeless children.
coe.west.asu.edu/homeless/mental.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


Homelessness: Ending Homelessness for People With Mental Illnesses ...... organization addressing all aspects of mental health and mental illness - working to ... In fact, people who are homeless and have mental illnesses or ...
www.nmha.org/homeless/housingAndHomelessness.cfm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages


PA-04-024: HIV/AIDS, SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS AND HOMELESSNESSNIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: HIV/AIDS, SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS AND HOMELESSNESS PA-04-024. NIMH.
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-04-024.html - 45k - Cached - Similar pages


Journal and Courier Online - News - Mental illness, homelessness ...Selected local news, local sports, opinions from the Journal and Courier newspaper in Lafayette, Indiana.
epics.ecn.purdue.edu/hpn/Archives/Newspaper_Articles/JC_article1.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages


ScienceDaily: More Homeless Mentally Ill Than Expected According ...The prevalence of homelessness in persons with serious mental illness is 15 percent, a higher percentage than suggested in previous studies, according to ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050201101738.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages


"Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless population (total homeless population statistic based on data from Department of Health and Human Services). These 200,000 individuals comprise more than the entire population of many U.S. cities, such as Hartford, Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; Reno, Nevada; Boise, Idaho; Scottsdale, Arizona; Orlando, Florida; Winston Salem, North Carolina; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Abilene, Texas or Topeka, Kansas.
At any given time, there are more people with untreated severe psychiatric illnesses living on America’s streets than are receiving care in hospitals. Approximately 90,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are in hospitals receiving treatment for their disease.
In many cities such as New York, these people are now an accepted part of the urban landscape and make up a significant percentage of the homeless who ride subways all night, sleep on sidewalks, or sleep in the parks. These ill individuals drift into the train and bus stations, and even the airports.
Many other homeless people hide from the eyes of most citizens. They shuffle quietly through the streets by day, talking to their voices only when they think nobody is looking, and they live in shelters or abandoned buildings at night. Some shelters become known as havens for these ill wanderers and take on the appearance of a hospital psychiatric ward. Others who are psychiatrically ill live in the woods on the outskirts of cities, under bridges, and even in the tunnels that carry subway trains beneath cities.
The New York Times recently reported that in Berkeley, California, "on any given night there are 1,000 to 1,200 people sleeping on the streets. Half of them are deinstitutionalized mentally ill people. It’s like a mental ward on the streets." (E. Nieves. Fed Up, Berkeley Begins Crackdown on Homeless. New York Times, November 3, 1998, p. A19.) "
http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

Well, here's the main idea: By presenting a diversified curriculum, you allow students to discover their interests and thereby choose their careers. Our economy requires a highly diversified workforce, and focusing on one field will seriously cripple to diversity that makes us trong.

Also, the future of the economy will ultimately become more right-brain anyways, as more and more left-brain fields are taken over by various forms of artificial intelligence and computing. Machine intelligence is the future of left-brain fields, and there's nothing that will change that. Of course, once self-aware computing is attained (or human are able to augment their intelligence artificially, whichever comes first) this will expand the machine realm to both left and right brain fields...and that will happen within a few decades at most.

Are you being intentionally thick? In school, nobody is taught rocket science. Does that mean there are no rocket scientists?

Physics and mathematics are taught.

Nobody learns how to flip a hamburger at a fast food chain. Does that mean that there are no employees at fast food chains? Of course not.

Highly skilled labor, isn't it?

you can work as efficently as you want, but if you dont work a lot of hours you aint gonna be paid as much. doesnt take a genius to figure that out.

Does it take a genius to work out that I was talking about society in general, not individual workers? Oh I really can't be arsed to explain every little thing.

I am not advocating completely doing away with those courses, but simply making them optional. For example, if you wish to become a military general, you would do well to take a history course. However, since very few people are ever going to become generals, they should not be forced to take such a class.
Nope, sorry. I could see adding economics to the list of required courses, but the point of high school is to expose students to all fields of study at least minimally.

Additionally, all people will be voting at some point, and need to understand their government. How it works, and why it is. That is history. They need to understand civil rights movements of the past to understand those of today. They need to understand the civil war, etc.

Every single job requires you to read, speak, and write clearly. That is English...exposure to complex sentence structures, syntax, argument structures, etc.

And the all important creativity.

Are you being intentionally thick? In school, nobody is taught rocket science. Does that mean there are no rocket scientists? Nobody learns how to flip a hamburger at a fast food chain. Does that mean that there are no employees at fast food chains? Of course not.

But who cares about rocket science when we need to fix our "lagging" economy? Isnt that the entire point? Get rid of all forms of culture so we have more money?

And again, where does full employment figure into your views?

Why should the objective of education be economic growth, anyway?

eew... Economics classes are the most useless pieces of garbage ever, seriously.

I have more respect for people majoring in communication studies than I do those majoring in commerce.

-snippity snip-

BALLIN'!!!! :D

nice.

Why should the objective of education be economic growth, anyway?
Because only rich people supposedly matter?

Does it take a genius to work out that I was talking about society in general, not individual workers? Oh I really can't be arsed to explain every little thing.

well if everyone in society works less, there would be less production in society and the economy would fail. what the hell are you talking about?

Why should the objective of education be economic growth, anyway?

Beats me. A society that focuses solely on growth will ultimately find itself technologically antiquated and culturally deprived. There is nothing worse than a culture without culture.

I am not advocating completely doing away with those courses, but simply making them optional. For example, if you wish to become a military general, you would do well to take a history course. However, since very few people are ever going to become generals, they should not be forced to take such a class.

And for those of us planning to work in fields where math and science are unnecessary? Should we have a choice?

Why should the objective of education be economic growth, anyway?

Because if we lack the economy, we dont have the military, and if we dont have the military the terrorists win.
:DEAR GOD SARCASM
Simple.

Does it take a genius to work out that I was talking about society in general, not individual workers? Oh I really can't be arsed to explain every little thing.
UN Ambassadorship is the devil's advocate.

And for those of us planning to work in fields where math and science are unnecessary? Should we have a choice?

You can still take English, art, music, or whatever you wish. However, not everyone will be forced to take it.

Because only rich people supposedly matter?

Even rich people desire more than material wealth, and a society where people are forced into narrow economic roles is bad for everyone.

You can still take English, art, music, or whatever you wish. However, not everyone will be forced to take it.

doesnt that waste tax dollar moneys?

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

I see you have absolutely no conception of what the true and glorious purpose of education is, which is to make us into better, broader people.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas.

I, sir, am one of those so called liberals. As an art educator in a public school I cannot tell you how wrong that sentiment is. If all of the "inconsequential" classes were taken away, I can guarantee that there would be a huge, HUGE, jump in the number of students who drop out. Also taking these classes away would produce a world of ignorant, culturally inept, money grabbers.

Art, Music, History, and Literature teach us about ourselves. Art, Music, and Literature give humans a way to express themselves, and to appreciate beautiful things. Without looking back at history we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

While I think that it is very important to understand and be able to manage money, it is not the only thing that one needs to have a successful life. I find it sad that there are people who hold the same views as you. If everyone stops learning about their creative sides what are they going to have to spend their newfound wealth on? All of your cars and computers will fail to run, hell they won't even be built. This site and the rest of the Internet will be gone (it's visual, but we don't need art). Your financial reports will get harder and harder to read, and your portfolio will go to hell over the next 12 months because we don't need no stinking history. Screw the fact that the company that you just invested in has repeatedly failed to meet its objectives over the past four months. But that's OK. You'll be living in a box in the alley, strung out on heroin or meth, being the subject of some moron's preconceived notions.

I also agree that the public school system in the US should be revised. Public education is broke, but politicians are not the way that the system will be fixed. Right now our students are being tested heavily on English and Math, but rarely anything else. For those students who want to do something else, there is no testing. Does an artist or a musician need the same math skills as a theoretical physicist? No, yet the students wanting to become artists or musicians are forced to take math courses that they don't need.

Take a look around you. Our world is filled with beautiful things. Everyone should at least have a basic understanding of these things.

And again, where does full employment figure into your views?

Full employment is impossible, and definitely does not exist in our current society. The proposals I am advocating will alleviate, although not altogether resolve, the problem. As people are more fiscally conservative, the economy will be stronger, and more jobs will be created.

You can still take English, art, music, or whatever you wish. However, not everyone will be forced to take it.

But you're still gonna waste our time in math, economics (actually, not a waste for me, but it is for some people), and science courses, eh?

As people are more fiscally conservative, the economy will be stronger, and more jobs will be created.

That doesn't follow at all.

Full employment is impossible, and definitely does not exist in our current society. The proposals I am advocating will alleviate, although not altogether resolve, the problem. As people are more fiscally conservative, the economy will be stronger, and more jobs will be created.

Full employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)

Learn a little about those economics you so lovingly admire as the saviors of America.

EDIT: Since most of you wont read it, in America, full employment exists when unemployment is >5%. (Which factors in people who are stay at home or choose not to work)
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/04/business/NA_FIN_ECO_US_Economy.php
Ooh, look, 4.4%. Hey, WE'RE AT FULL EMPLOYMENT!

Full employment is impossible, and definitely does not exist in our current society. The proposals I am advocating will alleviate, although not altogether resolve, the problem. As people are more fiscally conservative, the economy will be stronger, and more jobs will be created.
Bull-fucking-shit right there.

If people are fiscally conservative, they'll move onto machines doing work. And then where the hell does full enployment factor into that. Ten machines are only going to need one human techie.

90% loss of employment right there.

Take a look around you. Our world is filled with beautiful things. Everyone should at least have a basic understanding of these things.

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

I agree that art and music aren't important to teach, but history is a must. So is science (including evolution, regardless of what Creationists have to say about it). I also think more teaching should be devoted to economics, political science, history, and home economics.

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

Somebody still angry that that low grade in art class brought their average down?

well if everyone in society works less, there would be less production in society and the economy would fail. what the hell are you talking about?

OK, you obviously don't know what efficiency means.

Efficiency means more productivity in less time. There's only so many hours in a day. The only way to get a significant improvement in productivity is to increase efficiency (since people have to sleep, etc). The only way to increase efficiency is to plan ahead.

We use technology to increase efficiency. E.g. I can get a lot of clothes washed in a short time by using a washing machine instead of trying to scrub them by hand. If I need to do more clothes, the typical consumer method is to get more washing machines, or use twice as much electricity, water and time. The sensible method is to get a better washing machine. One that takes the same time, etc. but washes better. The only way there'll be a better one is if someone makes the effort to design a better one.

<Note that I'm only using washing machines as an example, it could have been any machine. I refuse to respond to any reply that argues about the fine details of washing machine.>

I see the economy as a huge machine. A module machine, that is, made up of smaller machines put together (and these are machines, etc.) Each one needs to be efficiently designed.

Energy for example. If we really want to have access to more energy, we can't just expect to be able to keep mining more and more oil - we have to use our fuel more efficiently. And for that there needs to be planning. Obviously people can invent more efficient engines, but people can also plan for efficiency outside of technology design. Finding ways to use less energy, for example (which wouldn't require people to live in darkness without heating, btw).

And what about paper? We've made paper obsolete with technology, but because computer software is so inefficient and buggy, it's expensive and risky to rely on electronic information.

I think what I'm trying to impress it that there are one-off efforts (design) that could replace every-day efforts.

<wow... this must be my longest post. I bet the only people who read it (if anyone) completely miss the point>

I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

For once we agree.

*hands MTAE a big cookie*

Somebody still angry that that low grade in art class brought their average down?
[/thread]

That doesn't follow at all.

yes it does. tax cuts grow the economy.

Full employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)

Learn a little about those economics you so lovingly admire as the saviors of America.

Full employment is a subjective definition -- different economist assign various unemployment figures to full employment. Since my policies would have no negative effect on the unemployment rate in the US, I assumed you were referring to the non-economic definition of full employment (namely, 0% unemployment). Apparently, I was mistaken and you asked a stupid question.

http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

So we should be forced to take an econ class (despite the fact that living within your means is one of the easiest things to learn), but not a class on lit, art, history, and music (which, as I have pointed out, have other implications within education)?
Hypocrite.

Additionally, economics is THEORY. There are holes, flaws, gaps, mistakes everywhere. Macro and Micro economic theories don't always line up, and don't account for humans to be in the system. Ironically, any English major can read through an economic theory and find the weaknesses faster than most economic majors.

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

When you teach a person to manage a bank account of ZERO and the person lives, let me know, because, so far, you have only shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you lack absolutely all skills normal people have except for English and (maybe) personal hygiene.

http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

I dunno, this is a new one on me.

Additionally, economics is THEORY.

I am not referring so much to the theoretical aspect of economics as the practical side which is easily applicable to real life. I am also using a broader definition of the term which encompasses fiscal responsibility and the like.

OK, you obviously don't know what efficiency means.

Efficiency means more productivity in less time. There's only so many hours in a day. The only way to get a significant improvement in productivity is to increase efficiency (since people have to sleep, etc). The only way to increase efficiency is to plan ahead.

We use technology to increase efficiency. E.g. I can get a lot of clothes washed in a short time by using a washing machine instead of trying to scrub them by hand. If I need to do more clothes, the typical consumer method is to get more washing machines, or use twice as much electricity, water and time. The sensible method is to get a better washing machine. One that takes the same time, etc. but washes better. The only way there'll be a better one is if someone makes the effort to design a better one.

<Note that I'm only using washing machines as an example, it could have been any machine. I refuse to respond to any reply that argues about the fine details of washing machine.>

I see the economy as a huge machine. A module machine, that is, made up of smaller machines put together (and these are machines, etc.) Each one needs to be efficiently designed.

Energy for example. If we really want to have access to more energy, we can't just expect to be able to keep mining more and more oil - we have to use our fuel more efficiently. And for that there needs to be planning. Obviously people can invent more efficient engines, but people can also plan for efficiency outside of technology design. Finding ways to use less energy, for example (which wouldn't require people to live in darkness without heating, btw).

And what about paper? We've made paper obsolete with technology, but because computer software is so inefficient and buggy, it's expensive and risky to rely on electronic information.

I think what I'm trying to impress it that there are one-off efforts (design) that could replace every-day efforts.

<wow... this must be my longest post. I bet the only people who read it (if anyone) completely miss the point>
seems like that would loss jobs. your logic fails.

Apparently, I was mistaken and you asked a stupid question.

Yes, call me stupid for wondering what happens when a majority of the people are prepped for the same job.

This is why no one debates with you. You dismiss a question as stupid once its backed up.

I dunno, this is a new one on me.
The theme that poor people can have all their problems magically solved by learning basic economics has been an MTAE theme for a while, though.

Somebody still angry that that low grade in art class brought their average down?
Low in all grades, perhaps?

I agree that art and music aren't important to teach, but history is a must. So is science (including evolution, regardless of what Creationists have to say about it). I also think more teaching should be devoted to economics, political science, history, and home economics.

Even despite the known connections between education in art and music and higher achievement within math and science?

Lets play a little game. AJ Ayer wrote out a theory that stated "Any statement that cannot be empirically backed is a worthless statement"

Where is the flaw in Ayer's argument? What is its significance to this discussion?

well if everyone in society works less, there would be less production in society and the economy would fail. what the hell are you talking about?

But we're at a point where many products can be created without human attention; automation can takle care of it all. When that happens & there's no reason to exchange an intermediary item of perceived value for them, then people are going to want to do other things, aren't they?

Full employment is impossible, and definitely does not exist in our current society. The proposals I am advocating will alleviate, although not altogether resolve, the problem. As people are more fiscally conservative, the economy will be stronger, and more jobs will be created.

But why is "full employment" so important?

Bull-fucking-shit right there.

If people are fiscally conservative, they'll move onto machines doing work. And then where the hell does full enployment factor into that. Ten machines are only going to need one human techie.

90% loss of employment right there.

Again, see above. Why do we HAVE to work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? We don't. It's cultural bullshit & it never used to be that way before this culture started spreading like a virus.

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

And if there was no need for money or funds or anything of that, what then, hm?

yes it does. tax cuts grow the economy.

Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means, in regard to people's individual actions?

I am not referring so much to the theoretical aspect of economics as the practical side which is easily applicable to real life. I am also using a broader definition of the term which encompasses fiscal responsibility and the like.

You mean the practical side that says "If you make $1000 a month, spend less than $1000 a month"? I don't need a class to teach me that.

Yes, call me stupid for wondering what happens when a majority of the people are prepped for the same job.

All people are currently prepped for English. Do they all become writers? All people are currently prepped for mathematics. Do they all become mathematicians? All people are currently prepped for history. Do they all become history? I could go on, but the point is extremely obvious. Not everybody is prepped exclusively for a single job; they are prepared in various and diverse topics, but economic knowledge is as mandatory as English or history currently are. Also, I never called you stupid.

seems like that would loss jobs. your logic fails.

If only I could have bet money that you would skim over it, not understand and post a short reply.

Why do we HAVE to work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week? We don't. It's cultural bullshit & it never used to be that way before this culture started spreading like a virus.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this.

I was simply arguing with MTAE on a purely objective basis.

Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means, in regard to people's individual actions?

yes, of course. its means keeping the tax cuts permant, if the expire the economy will drop.

yes, of course. its means keeping the tax cuts permant, if the expire the economy will drop.

No, it doesn't.

But thanks for the laugh. And welcome back.

Even despite the known connections between education in art and music and higher achievement within math and science?

Lets play a little game. AJ Ayer wrote out a theory that stated "Any statement that cannot be empirically backed is a worthless statement"

Where is the flaw in Ayer's argument? What is its significance to this discussion?

Math and science (well, math at least) are important to everyday life. Art and music are not. And I don't see how coercing people to take art and music classes is supposed to instill in them love of art or music.

I am not referring so much to the theoretical aspect of economics as the practical side which is easily applicable to real life. I am also using a broader definition of the term which encompasses fiscal responsibility and the like.

Try teaching a bunch of 16 year olds how to balance their budget, and see how many actually pay attention? We're trying that in BC, and it's failing miserably.

You mean the practical side that says "If you make $1000 a month, spend less than $1000 a month"? I don't need a class to teach me that.

No, they should also learn about various investment options, how to best utilize their money, where the best bargains are, etc.

You can still take English, art, music, or whatever you wish. However, not everyone will be forced to take it.

English should be, of course, a required course. In any field of endeavour except for maybe jobs requiring strictly manual labour, if you can't express yourself properly, you won't get far, nor should you expect to.

Art is more important than you think. Without art, everything just becomes blah!

English should be, of course, a required course. In any field of endeavour except for maybe jobs requiring strictly manual labour, if you can't express yourself properly, you won't get far, nor should you expect to.

You should learn how to speak English, of course, but you do not need to take literature courses. Basic grammar, however, is a must.

The theme that poor people can have all their problems magically solved by learning basic economics has been an MTAE theme for a while, though.

Yeah? Huh, I never noticed it. Though I haven't been following the works of MTAE all that closely.

In any case, seems to me only a very basic course in economics would be necessary for a person to get by on, so there's no need at all to totally cut any other subject totally from the curriculum.

You should learn how to speak English, of course, but you do not need to take literature courses.

They are really writing courses.

If only I could have bet money that you would skim over it, not understand and post a short reply.

I understood it perfectly, i just dont think you thought it out completely.

All people are currently prepped for English. Do they all become writers? All people are currently prepped for mathematics. Do they all become mathematicians? All people are currently prepped for history. Do they all become history? I could go on, but the point is extremely obvious. Not everybody is prepped exclusively for a single job; they are prepared in various and diverse topics, but economic knowledge is as mandatory as English or history currently are. Also, I never called you stupid.

But what happens when you take those classes away?

Math and science (well, math at least) are important to everyday life.
That really depends on what you do in life, no?
Art and music are not.
They keep life bearable. Without them, I wouldn't live through winters.
And I don't see how coercing people to take art and music classes is supposed to instill in them love of art or music.
It won't, but information is always useful.

But we're at a point where many products can be created without human attention; automation can takle care of it all. When that happens & there's no reason to exchange an intermediary item of perceived value for them, then people are going to want to do other things, aren't they?


if it means having a job, I think they would

But what happens when you take those classes away?

You don't "take them away." You simply stop forcing people to take those classes against their will; you make them optional.

You don't "take them away." You simply stop forcing people to take those classes against their will; you make them optional.

Amen.

They keep life bearable. Without them, I wouldn't live through winters.

How has an art or music class helped you? I like music without having to take a music course. I can appreciate art without taking an art course. Many poor people literally can't get through winters because they haven't learned the virtues of fiscal conservatism and proper investment and money management.

Math and science (well, math at least) are important to everyday life. Art and music are not. And I don't see how coercing people to take art and music classes is supposed to instill in them love of art or music.

I guess you missed the part where music is VERY mathmatical.

Some of the best computer people have music degrees.

Take the guy who created Perl. He plays the violin.

Art and music enhances creativity. Something we are starting to lack these days.

Science is not the end all.

If I remember right, you have a great "love" of Jimmy Carter. Well the President has a degree in Nuclear Physics.

As to making them take those classes. Not everybody will take to them. There are many that do simply because it was not part of their life let alone had a chance to see it or hear something.

Forcefeeding econ as the op suggests will solve NOTHING. Just as some people can't deal with art. Many can't deal with econ.

You don't "take them away." You simply stop forcing people to take those classes against their will; you make them optional.

And force people to take economics. No kid chooses to take lit.

And why is saving the economy worth more than art?

Is it "Down with Art" or "Well, maybe just Optional Art"

No, take a look around you. The world is filled with struggling people who cannot adequately make ends meet because they have not been educated in fiscal responsibility and proper investment of funds. I can appreciate the beauty of a sunset without taking an art class or an English course. I would not sacrifice the well-being of my community just so that I can force everybody to learn more about what I consider beautiful. If they want to understand it better, they can take a course detailing it; it is their right. However, nobody must make them take such a class against their will.

So not forcing them to take art, music, literature, or history, but forcing them to take economics is right? I think that you fail to realize that part of the problem with fiscal responsibility these days is that rich credit card companies and predatory lenders go after people of lesser means. Learning fiscal responsibility may help people use credit less, however there will still be thieves working the system.
You also fail to realize that not every person has the desire to invest, so they go to financial advisers. Is that not fiscal responsibility?

Learning about art is not about learning one person's idea of beauty. I would definitely not want to be forced to learn about what you think is beautiful!

Amen.

Why even take classes if they are all optional?

Is it "Down with Art" or "Well, maybe just Optional Art"

The latter, but that would most likely fail in the object of attracting readers to the thread.

*snip*

You win.

How has an art or music class helped you? I like music without having to take a music course. I can appreciate art without taking an art course. Many poor people literally can't get through winters because they haven't learned the virtues of fiscal conservatism and proper investment and money management.

Could it be that you suck at both?

As to the yoru fiscal conservatism comment, your ignornence is showing troll.

Try living that life before you comment on it. I have and I can tell you "fiscal conservatism" did NOTHING to improve my life and position in society.

Math and science (well, math at least) are important to everyday life. Art and music are not. And I don't see how coercing people to take art and music classes is supposed to instill in them love of art or music.

I suppose it's the difference in what a person believes for their species.

I suggest that all parties here watch the Crusade episode "The Needs Of Earth." It's exactly this debate.

Learning about art is not about learning one person's idea of beauty.

Very well, then make the case for art. Why should it be necessary for everyone to be forced to take an art class? Will it benefit the country? Will it benefit everyone who takes the course? The answer to those questions is a resounding "no."

if it means having a job, I think they would

Well. I suppose then it all comes down to how much a "job" in the sense this culture defines it IS to a person...doesn't it.

Art benefits by helping students with their creativity. Not everything in society is about business, economics, and money.

You should learn how to speak English, of course, but you do not need to take literature courses. Basic grammar, however, is a must.

And by "a must", you mean "required". I've often opined that English courses should concentrate a little less on literature and more on composition. However, you can't eliminate literature entirely from the curriculum because A) it's personally, intellectually, and spiritually edifying to study it, B) great works of literature provide us with valuable insight into human interaction, and C) there are so many good examples of written expression in world literature that it would be a waste of good writing not to use them in teaching composition; if you want to be a good writer, first you have to see what good writing is, and if you don't care about being a good writer, well, as I say, you're really not deserving of the plum jobs.

Very well, then make the case for art. Why should it be necessary for everyone to be forced to take an art class? Will it benefit the country? Will it benefit everyone who takes the course? The answer to those questions is a resounding "no."

So in essence you buy the "my mother, drunk or sober" line?

Try living that life before you comment on it. I have and I can tell you "fiscal conservatism" did NOTHING to improve my life and position in society.

Did you manage your money well? Did you stick to the basic necessities of life? Did you know how to best stretch your wealth? Did you seek employment in the most efficient way possible? Did you utilize all public resources available to you? Even if you knew all that, many people don't.

How has an art or music class helped you? I like music without having to take a music course. I can appreciate art without taking an art course.
Because it let me explore what I liked and what I did not inside those subjects...
Many poor people literally can't get through winters because they haven't learned the virtues of fiscal conservatism and proper investment and money management.
And I get horrifically bad manic depression, which music helps.

It's the welfare state in America that's at fault. Not that the poor aren't taught economics in school.

I can see your point with making art and music optional subjects, as in my view they are something one can still appreciate without having to study.

However I would differ with you with English and History. Teaching English is essential to enabling people to be able to communicate. Without it we would all be speaking more obtuse and more different local and regional dialects and communication would be very difficult. History teaches us about the mistakes of mankind in the past, and goes a way to ensuring they won't be repeated (an abject example here would be the Nazi holocaust). History also teaches us about our past glories as well as past mistakes, helping to bring us closer together. What do you think MTAE?

A) it's personally, intellectually, and spiritually edifying to study it,

If someone derives the pleasure you mentioned from studying literature, they should go ahead and study it.

B) great works of literature provide us with valuable insight into human interaction,

Interacting with people affords us with valuable insights into human interaction.

C) there are so many good examples of written expression in world literature that it would be a waste of good writing not to use them in teaching composition;

You can teach grammar without resorting to good books. For example, diagramming the sentence "Bob unwillingly hit the ball towards Sally" would be equally good a choice as "I think, therefore I am." However, pupils can choose to take the class. Are you against freedom of choice?

You win.

*Blinks*

*Looks outside for the 4 guys on horses* :p

Wow. I thought maybe I was on drugs for a moment.

The troll doesn't know much about the topic at hand. Art and Music is quickly disappearing. As we move to this teaching to the test method; those courses are being dropped.

My daughter is in kindergarten and the school was excited because they could have music time 1/2 hour a day once a week. That was all grades.

They still have art time for now.

However I would differ with you with English and History.

I made a mistake by calling it "English." I think grammar should be mandatory while literature should not. As for history: I would hope that people realize that genocide is generally not a good idea, regardless of past examples of it. If someone actually believes that ethnic cleansing is the correct course of action to take, informing his/her about the Nazis will do little to discourage them.

I made a mistake by calling it "English." I think grammar should be mandatory while literature should not. As for history: I would hope that people realize that genocide is generally not a good idea, regardless of past examples of it. If someone actually believes that ethnic cleansing is the correct course of action to take, informing his/her about the Nazis will do little to discourage them.

I was just using that as an example. There are many other lessons to be learn't from history - another one would be the failure of appeasement.

Did you manage your money well? Did you stick to the basic necessities of life? Did you know how to best stretch your wealth? Did you seek employment in the most efficient way possible? Did you utilize all public resources available to you? Even if you knew all that, many people don't.

Well troll. Here is a newsflash. People don't always become poor because they didn't know how to save money. Not all poor people don't go out buying drugs and looking for Colt 45.

Basic necessities was all mom could afford. She later admitted to using the evil welfare that cons and liberts love to hate.

I give you a challenge troll.

Take a divorced-women with zero skills and two children. Let's see you make it on your own.

Are you against freedom of choice?

Only in this. I don't believe that any class should be "elective"; all should be required -- maths, sciences, history, fine arts (which is more than just "art appreciation", by the way), civics, shops, at least two foreign languages, and above all, English to tie it all together and help explain all the other classes you've taken. No information is useless, and everyone has it in him to be a polymath if he puts in the effort. Kids just have to learn to buckle down and hit the books.

. History teaches us about the mistakes of mankind in the past, and goes a way to ensuring they won't be repeated (an abject example here would be the Nazi holocaust). History also teaches us about our past glories as well as past mistakes, helping to bring us closer together. What do you think MTAE?
Yeah, well, history also shows the colossal mistakes the party MTAE tries to promote has made, so that's a no-no.

I made a mistake by calling it "English." I think grammar should be mandatory while literature should not. As for history: I would hope that people realize that genocide is generally not a good idea, regardless of past examples of it. If someone actually believes that ethnic cleansing is the correct course of action to take, informing his/her about the Nazis will do little to discourage them.

Yet some people still think slavery is a cool option. History helps us to realize mistakes of the past and not repeat them.

Yet some people still think slavery is a cool option. History helps us to realize mistakes of the past and not repeat them.

Was that a Pollyanna moment? :p

Did everybody learn from Rwanda?

I made a mistake by calling it "English." I think grammar should be mandatory while literature should not. As for history: I would hope that people realize that genocide is generally not a good idea, regardless of past examples of it. If someone actually believes that ethnic cleansing is the correct course of action to take, informing his/her about the Nazis will do little to discourage them.

English is our language. What else would they call it. I once saw an old girl's friends grade sheet in Germany.

Guess what they called their "english" classes?

Don't like Literature. Hmmm I suspect there are deeper reasons at play. Fail that class did we?

I made a mistake by calling it "English." I think grammar should be mandatory while literature should not. As for history: I would hope that people realize that genocide is generally not a good idea, regardless of past examples of it. If someone actually believes that ethnic cleansing is the correct course of action to take, informing his/her about the Nazis will do little to discourage them.

History teaches us to understand the workings of peoples, societies, and governments. It is therefore a necessity for any democratic society. Political Science is also a necessity (although we under-teach it). Basic Micro and Macro-Economics are also a necessity (unfortunately, we we don't teach them at all, which is a pity).

Litterature is a necessity for reading comprehension. Without it, our understanding of what has been written is weakened greatly. The interpretation of written documents is critical in all fields including written communications, and in any democratic society.

Art and Music have both been shown to have major effects on other academic skills. They have a net-utility for students. If anything, we should make classes like "Music History" and "Art History" optional, and make required art-classes be hands on.

Environmental Science may be a necessity in a democratic society. Physics, Biology, and Chemistry? Less so. So why do we teach them? Similarly, math is critical for personal success, but why should we require everything up to complex trigonometry for students? It has no social utility to do so.

Was that a Pollyanna moment? :p

Did everybody learn from Rwanda?

History will decide. :)

I can see your point with making art and music optional subjects, as in my view they are something one can still appreciate without having to study.

However I would differ with you with English and History. Teaching English is essential to enabling people to be able to communicate. Without it we would all be speaking more obtuse and more different local and regional dialects and communication would be very difficult. History teaches us about the mistakes of mankind in the past, and goes a way to ensuring they won't be repeated (an abject example here would be the Nazi holocaust). History also teaches us about our past glories as well as past mistakes, helping to bring us closer together. What do you think MTAE?


That example is pretty abject...

Don't like Literature. Hmmm I suspect there are deeper reasons at play. Fail that class did we?

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.

Maybe the troll could learn something from this song.


And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart

Blacksmith and the Artist
Reflect it in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart

Philosophers and Ploughmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart

Closer to the Heart...

You can be the Captain
And I will draw the chart
Sailing into destiny
Closer to the Heart...


Though, being a troll, it's not within the bounds of the puppet master to allow his or her puppet to develop... Unless it's an entirely new breed of well-written troll.

Very well, then make the case for art. Why should it be necessary for everyone to be forced to take an art class? Will it benefit the country? Will it benefit everyone who takes the course? The answer to those questions is a resounding "no."

Art helps students develop problem solving skills and it helps them to reflect on their actions. For example in the classes that I teach I present the students with a project (a problem). I review the Elements & Principles of Art with them so that they have tools and strategies to use in solving the problem. I show them how others have gone about completing the project and solving the problem. Then they work on their project.
After the students have completed their projects they fill out a rubric for the project. They must look back at what they did and decide if they solved the problem well. They also learn about critiquing their work. In a critique they have to describe their work using descriptive words and using course terminology. They analyze how they applied the elements and principles to their work to make it stronger. They interpret what feelings or emotions are expressed in their work. Finally they must judge their work. Was it successful? Did they create something unique and interesting?

These two things alone are skills that everyone entering the work force should know. If you have a business you aren't going to hire someone who doesn't know how to problem solve. Being able to constructively criticize your own work and others work is a valuable tool to use in the world.

I have had students that excel in my art classes but don't do as well with math or science. My class gives them a sense of accomplishment that they don't always get elsewhere. I guess that isn't important though.

People who can problem solve and reflect on their work are valuable to society and the economy.

Why should the objective of education be economic growth, anyway?

Beats me. A society that focuses solely on growth will ultimately find itself technologically antiquated and culturally deprived. There is nothing worse than a culture without culture.

History teaches us to understand the workings of peoples, societies, and governments.

In that case, it needs to be restricted to modern history. Policies which were widely implemented centuries ago would be ridiculed in modern society and are pointless if your goal is to understand the inner workings of a modern people or society.

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.

I think your missing the point. What your teacher was probably trying to do was teach you to be able to express a view point you might not agree with in as eloquent a way as you would one that you do agree with. In this way you would be enhancing your ability to express points to others.

I think your missing the point. What your teacher was probably trying to do was teach you to be able to express a view point you might not agree with in as eloquent a way as you would one that you do agree with. In this way you would be enhancing your ability to express points to others.

Would that he had done those excercises... we might not be calling him a troll all the time.

We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.Actually, I am speaking German right now...

In that case, it needs to be restricted to modern history. Policies which were widely implemented centuries ago would be ridiculed in modern society and are pointless if your goal is to understand the inner workings of a modern people or society.
History repeats itself. It's all relevant.

Actually, I am speaking German right now...

Well, obviously, you didn't go to war.

History repeats itself. It's all relevant.

How will a worker knowing history prevent it from being repeated?

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.

1: No, I'm willing to guess that you did poorly in that class because you just plain sucked at it.

2: Perhaps they were. A mess of occurances can drive one to insanity, through no fault of their own. Murder in that case still isn't "right", though under certain circumstances, pity would be deserved.

3: Actually, wars tend to be a senseless waste of human life. The Great War and World War II (The Empire Strikes Back!) were possibly the most senseless wars in history, with the former being started because of political espionage (in the form of assassination, no less), and the latter being brought about by who could be considered the most despicable man in history. Millions died in the Great War, and tens of millions more died in the war thereafter. All because of a few people.

4: I doubt it, because the Soviets had the Germans in check long before the Normandy invasion, and the English weren't doing so bad themselves.

Well, obviously, you didn't go to war.Neither did my German grandfather and great-grandfather.

In this way you would be enhancing your ability to express points to others.

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.

In that case, it needs to be restricted to modern history. Policies which were widely implemented centuries ago would be ridiculed in modern society and are pointless if your goal is to understand the inner workings of a modern people or society.

How can you understand what we are now, without understanding what we have done in the past. "Modern" history is not so different from the history of the past. There is more similarity between the US and Rome than you would beleive.

I beleive that one philosopher put it best, when he said. "He who lives without history, lives from hand to mouth."

Neither did my German grandfather and great-grandfather.

See?

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.I've been up in arms for less. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do the assignment, though.

Wait, I understand now:

MTAE wants us to disregard the two things that gave rise to Hitler: art and history.

How will a worker knowing history prevent it from being repeated?

Workers vote.

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.

I'd see an excellent opportunity to utilize irony in my writing.

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.
So, you failed? You weren't able to write an essay contrary to your beliefs? Why the fuck is that? You show so much imagination in NSG! You better get your priorities straight.

Workers vote.

They don't vote on events which transpired centuries ago.

I beleive that one philosopher put it best, when he said. "He who lives without history, lives from hand to mouth.""Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it." But considering MTAE's opinions on slavery, perhaps that's exactly what he's after. He wants to keep people stupid because that's the only way you can keep them making idiotic mistakes and follow his agenda of moral leprosy.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Heres the crux of the argument. School should be about education, not preparing robots for factories. Of course, all the necassary things for living in the real world need to be taught (handling money, social responsibilty, personal health etc) but school should also be about expanding ones horizons and opening one to new ideas and concepts, not just liberal or conservative ones, but ALL ideas and concepts.

I'd see an excellent opportunity to utilize irony in my writing.

And I'd write the best political satire in the history of humankind.

They don't vote on events which transpired centuries ago.

No, but a person with a solid grasp of history can see similar parallels between events and vote accordingly.

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.

Not if it was explained why the essay was being written

They don't vote on events which transpired centuries ago.

What limits are you trying to stretch our sensibilities to now?

Heres the crux of the argument. School should be about education, not preparing robots for factories.

I say that it should be about education and the preparing for the building of robots for those factories, so we no longer have to work. :p

So, you failed? You weren't able to write an essay contrary to your beliefs? Why the fuck is that?

I could not put my heart behind an idea which so revolted me. It would be equivalent to a liberal trying to write an essay about why liberalism is a flawed ideology -- it can't be done enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.

How will a worker knowing history prevent it from being repeated?A worker that know's how horrible an institution like slavery was will not vote for an idiot that tries to reinstate it.
A worker that knows what Absolute Monarchy was will not vote to abandon democracy.
A worker that knows how the Nazis came to power will be better prepared to let something similar happen again.

What limits are you trying to stretch our sensibilities to now?

What are you talking about? Someone claimed that ancient history would factor into the considerations of modern voters. I called bullshit on that.

No, but a person with a solid grasp of history can see similar parallels between events and vote accordingly.

Even leaving aside the parallels, in order to just understand present-day events a good grasp of history is necessary.

I say that it should be about education and the preparing for the building of robots for those factories, so we no longer have to work. :p

Just wait until the robots start designing their successors...then we really don't have to work.

Just wait until the robots start designing their successors...then we really don't have to work.

Great Scott! We're onto something, here!

I could not put my heart behind an idea which so revolted me.Of course not. Someone who considers economic gain the most important function of human beings probably doesn't even have one.

I could not put my heart behind an idea which so revolted me. It would be equivalent to a liberal trying to write an essay about why liberalism is a flawed ideology -- it can't be done enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.

'Liberalism is a flawed ideology based on it's inherent inability to see the world from a point of realism. Liberals deal with issues from an idealistic position..."

Is one way in which I'd start my essay. How about the rest of you liberals?

How will a worker knowing history prevent it from being repeated?
By taking steps to prevent it being so. Political action. Actions related to civil disobedience.

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.

Liberal ideals? :rolleyes:

It sounds more like trying to make you think broader. The hardest thing to do is to defend something you don't believe in. Really smart people can do that. I am not one of those. :) It's hit and miss for me.

Anyway. Her "liberal" stances mean nothing. It sounds like the classic nature vs nurture argument.

You got the grade you deserved. You didn't do the assignment. Even if she was an arch-con spouting crap. I would have still done the assignment.

As to the war comment? Do you even have any combat vets in your family? My two families are loaded with them.

So the fighting in Dafur isn't senseless and a waste of life?
What about the 20 years of fighting that has gone on in Afghanistan?

What great reward is going to come from Iraq?

Combat soldiers don't celibrate the glory of battle. Most are happy to have simply survived. Happy to see others made it too.

As to the German thing? Well even without our direct military effort, Germany was doomed to defeat. It just would have taken a couple years longer.

Even leaving aside the parallels, in order to just understand present-day events a good grasp of history is necessary.

Absolutely. It's impossible, for example, to understand why the Middle East is such a volatile area or why China and Taiwan are so hostile to each other without a basic grasp of history.

This applies to other areas as well; the more background you know, the richer an experience tends to be because you can really examine it in depth. Taking a literary example, knowledge of 1920's America and Europe, greatly enhances your ability to interpret F. Scott Fitzgerald's work...you're just not going to get the same depth or insight without solid background information.

A worker that know's how horrible an institution like slavery was will not vote for an idiot that tries to reinstate it.
A worker that knows what Absolute Monarchy was will not vote to abandon democracy.
A worker that knows how the Nazis came to power will be better prepared to let something similar happen again.

Pwnage.

I could not put my heart behind an idea which so revolted me. It would be equivalent to a liberal trying to write an essay about why liberalism is a flawed ideology -- it can't be done enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.
It could be easily done, you boob. We call it 'imagination', this muscle that lets our mind wonder.

They don't vote on events which transpired centuries ago.

No, but without understanding of those events, they do not have a sufficient grasp on the issues of today to make a truly informed descision.

Great Scott! We're onto something, here!

Nanofactories and nanomedicine..that's all that needs to be said.

Of course not. Someone who considers economic gain the most important function of human beings probably doesn't even have one.

Actually, I consider the overall quality of life the most important function of society. I see a good economy as a means of accomplishing this end.

It could be easily done, you boob. We call it 'imagination', this muscle that lets our mind wonder.

Well, I found it disgusting that I was forced to renounce my beliefs in an essay, especially when people claim that our schools are not liberally biased.

'Liberalism is a flawed ideology based on it's inherent inability to see the world from a point of realism. Liberals deal with issues from an idealistic position..."

Is one way in which I'd start my essay. How about the rest of you liberals?

"A shadow is rising over Europe."

<.<

>.>


:D

Well, I found it disgusting that I was forced to renounce my beliefs in an essay, especially when people claim that our schools are not liberally biased.

Your still missing the point. Its LITERATURE, you were being asked to right a piece of FICTION, not renounce your beliefs! Its what your imagination is for

They don't vote on events which transpired centuries ago.
Yes they do...

'Liberalism is a flawed ideology based on it's inherent inability to see the world from a point of realism. Liberals deal with issues from an idealistic position..."

Is one way in which I'd start my essay. How about the rest of you liberals?I'm no liberal, but I'd probably start off with "Neo-liberalism is a flawed concept because it is more focussed on monetary gain and economic efficiency than social accountability..."

Ironically, liberals would be up in arms if a teacher asked students to write an essay detailing why Bush was the best president in the history of the US.

Actually no they wouldn't. An assignment is an assignment.

Actually, I consider the overall quality of life the most important function of society. I see a good economy as a means of accomplishing this end.The "trickle down effect" has been proven a neo-liberal wet dream that never came to fruition.

Absolutely. It's impossible, for example, to understand why the Middle East is such a volatile area or why China and Taiwan are so hostile to each other without a basic grasp of history.

The Middle East example was running through my mind when I wrote that. We would probably have a public less willing to tolerate foreign policy incompetence there if it were more educated on the history of that region. That would solve a whole lot of problems.

This applies to other areas as well; the more background you know, the richer an experience tends to be because you can really examine it in depth. Taking a literary example, knowledge of 1920's America and Europe, greatly enhances your ability to interpret F. Scott Fitzgerald's work...you're just not going to get the same depth or insight without solid background information.

The same applies to ancient literature and philosophy, all of which had its own historical contexts, and which has strongly influenced modern society up to the present day.

There really are no short-cuts in terms of knowledge.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

You're so sensitive. :( :( :( Poor widdo guy!

Your still missing the point. Its LITERATURE, you were being asked to right a piece of FICTION, not renounce your beliefs! Its what your imagination is for

No, I was forced to defend two disgusting murders and say how it was the fault of society that those murders transpired when it was evidently the fault of the individuals. I also had to say why war is so horrible and senseless when it can serve some useful functions, like bringing freedom and democracy to a region. I could, theoretically, write such an essay, but it would be offensive and despicable for me to do so. I preferred an act of "civil disobedience," so to speak, and defended my views. I'm not going to give in to the liberal bias in education just so I can get a good grade -- screw that.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

well you shouldnt spout such shit then. Either you are doing it for attention, ie trolling, or you are a child, which means you are doing it for attention, ie trolling.

No, I was forced to defend two disgusting murders and say how it was the fault of society that those murders transpired when it was evidently the fault of the individuals. I also had to say why war is so horrible and senseless when it can serve some useful functions, like bringing freedom and democracy to a region. I could, theoretically, write such an essay, but it would be offensive and despicable for me to do so. I preferred an act of "civil disobedience," so to speak, and defended my views. I'm not going to give in to the liberal bias in education just so I can get a good grade -- screw that.What assignments exactly are we talking about?

Well, I found it disgusting that I was forced to renounce my beliefs in an essay, especially when people claim that our schools are not liberally biased.Yeh, well, I'd like to answer, but my Missus says I'm not allowed to talk with kiddies online. So sorry.

No, I was forced to defend two disgusting murders and say how it was the fault of society that those murders transpired when it was evidently the fault of the individuals. I also had to say why war is so horrible and senseless when it can serve some useful functions, like bringing freedom and democracy to a region. I could, theoretically, write such an essay, but it would be offensive and despicable for me to do so. I preferred an act of "civil disobedience," so to speak, and defended my views. I'm not going to give in to the liberal bias in education just so I can get a good grade -- screw that.

You weren't forced to defend them. You were forced to write a piece of FICTION. FICTION, something you find NOT TRUE. Its easy really. Not everything in life is an extension of your personal beliefs

Well, I found it disgusting that I was forced to renounce my beliefs in an essay, especially when people claim that our schools are not liberally biased.

She was the devil and you had to sign in blood?

As to the liberal bias crap, guess the liberals aren't doing that great of a job since there are many cons out there.

You weren't forced to defend them. You were forced to write a piece of FICTION. FICTION, something you find NOT TRUE.

No, I was forced to write an essay, not fiction.

No, I was forced to write an essay, not fiction.

Essays can't be works of fiction? Keep on trolling!

The Middle East example was running through my mind when I wrote that. We would probably have a public less willing to tolerate foreign policy incompetence there if it were more educated on the history of that region. That would solve a whole lot of problems.

Very true. Even the study of MTAE's "economics" are greatly enhanced by historical analysis; there's an entire branch of German economic thought that depends on historical analysis in order to describe current conditions. And, before people marginalize it, remember that the Historical School is the backbone of almost all of the social-market states in Europe. It's hardly a marginalized field, especially when it comes to understanding Europe.


The same applies to ancient literature and philosophy, all of which had its own historical contexts, and which has strongly influenced modern society up to the present day.

Anything that exists within the sphere of human culture requires a solid historical background in order to interpret it properly. Without that, you run the risk of seriously misinterpreting something and causing serious harm to the study of that particular concept.

I mean, look at all of the nationalist movements throughout history that were able to dupe people who lacked that kind of knowledge by selectively interpreting cultural works and philosophies according to their worldview.

There really are no short-cuts in terms of knowledge.

All the short cuts do is close off knowledge, not focus it.

Essays can't be works of fiction? Keep on trolling!

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.

No, I was forced to write an essay, not fiction.
Are you a bit slow..?

I could not put my heart behind an idea which so revolted me. It would be equivalent to a liberal trying to write an essay about why liberalism is a flawed ideology -- it can't be done enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.

Stephen Colbert does it four nights a week, a liberal taking the persona and adopting the voice of a Republican shill, and he does so enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.

All it takes is imagination, sonny. And talent, of course.

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.
Maybe you should think about what you wrote first, and show that you could write satire better than putting 'not' at the end...

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.

It's an assignment. You do it. You got the grades you deserved.

The fact the teacher is liberal means NOTHING.

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.

Then you deserved to fail. Whatever.

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.

No you just write the essay in as ham fisted and unapologetic way as you can, being so absurdlly over the top that you disprove the point. Its called IMAGINATION, and without literature most of us wouldn't have it.

They can, but this was not supposed to be a fictional essay. I couldn't very well write essay and append a "not" at the end. I would not stoop down to writing falsehoods to satisfy my liberal teacher.Which explains why you want to get rid of creative writing and art. You refuse to cultivate your imagination.

Stephen Colbert does it four nights a week, a liberal taking the persona and adopting the voice of a Republican shill, and he does so enthusiastically, diligently, and thoroughly.

No, he makes it patently obvious that he is a liberal by ridiculing conservatives instead of adequately trying to represent their views. He makes many inane, anti-Republican comments under the guise of a conservative news host. He is certainly not diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly trying to express the views of a conservative. In fact, he makes fun of conservatives.

No you just write the essay in as ham fisted and unapologetic way as you can, being so absurdlly over the top that you disprove the point. Its called IMAGINATION, and without literature most of us wouldn't have it.

If I wrote an essay that was absurdly over the top, then I wouldn't get a good grade, now would I? That would bring us back to the original dilemma.

No, he makes it patently obvious that he is a liberal by ridiculing conservatives instead of adequately trying to represent their views. He makes many inane, anti-Republican comments under the guise of a conservative news host. He is certainly not diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly trying to express the views of a conservative. In fact, he makes fun of conservatives.

THATS THE POINT! DUH! :headbang:

I didn't do particularly well in that class because I did not conform with my teacher's strict liberal ideals. For example, we had to write an essay expressing pity for not one, but two murderers, and how their deeds were the fault of society in general. Bullshit. We also had to write an essay about how terrible war is and how senseless a waste of human life it is. Yeah, right. We'd be speaking German right now if we weren't willing to go to war.

You dont agree that war is a senseless waste of human life? People fighting over arbitrary lines on a map because some mentalist wants to make himself more important? Being willing to fight for your country is a noble thing, but being made to do it is a senseless waste.

No, he makes it patently obvious that he is a liberal by ridiculing conservatives instead of adequately trying to represent their views. He makes many inane, anti-Republican comments under the guise of a conservative news host. He is certainly not diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly trying to express the views of a conservative. In fact, he makes fun of conservatives.

The fact that you cannot "diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly" express the views of your ideological opponents is a fairly clear indicator that you do not understand them.

Then you deserved to fail. Whatever.

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral. Oh, wait! Liberals would be up in arms about that, wouldn't they? Hell, they're already up in arms about being forced to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They might burn down churches if something even more extreme happened.

If I wrote an essay that was absurdly over the top, then I wouldn't get a good grade, now would I? That would bring us back to the original dilemma.

What the hell class was this that you'd be judged for the opinion expressed, however subtly, over actual writing prowess?

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral. Oh, wait! Liberals would be up in arms about that, wouldn't they? Hell, they're already up in arms about being forced to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They might burn down churches if something even more extreme happened.Yeah, if I wanted to get rid of every subject that I'm bad in, we wouldn't have to do math anymore.

The fact that you cannot "diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly" express the views of your ideological opponents is a fairly clear indicator that you do not understand them.

Or that they are flawed. Can you explain to me why evolution is flawed, like your ideological opponents believe? Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral. Oh, wait! Liberals would be up in arms about that, wouldn't they? Hell, they're already up in arms about being forced to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They might burn down churches if something even more extreme happened.

Know thy enemy.

Very well. I guess nobody's going to complain when a teacher asks their students to write an essay on why atheists are immoral.

Actually, that would be a very interesting essay to write, and I would have no problem with a teacher assigning it in a religion class.

Actually, that would be a very interesting essay to write, and I would have no problem with a teacher assigning it in a religion class.

Or a writing class. Or an english class. A history class would be a bit frightening.

Actually, that would be a very interesting essay to write, and I would have no problem with a teacher assigning it in a religion class.

However, English is not a religion class. It is not an airing ground for someone's political ideology.

Math and science (well, math at least) are important to everyday life. Art and music are not. And I don't see how coercing people to take art and music classes is supposed to instill in them love of art or music.
Once again, I state: There are PROVEN correlations between music and math, art and science. An increased education including the arts correlates to higher success in math and science. It has very little to do with instilling a love of art and music. Music is known to be mathmatical. Ask a math major or math professor what his favorite composer is. 9 out of 10 times, they will say Bach. Why? He is incredibly mathematical. The ones who don't will usually say someone of the modern grouping, which is, again, mathematical.

Art helps with physics, geometry, etc. Spacial knowledge, interaction between bodies, all that.

Subjects are not learned independently. They impact eachother. THAT is why we function on an "Educate the whole child" system.

Or that they are flawed. Can you explain to me why evolution is flawed, like your ideological opponents believe? Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Yes... yes, I can.

Simple objects simply cannot produce, in and of themselves, more complex structures. Take a pile of multicolored sand, move it around randomly, and see if a design ever takes shape. Take the materials for making a watch and see if, without your careful labor to put it in an ordered form, a watch will ever form. Yet you expect me to believe that highly complex organisms formed from the unguided processes of far simpler structures?

No, some kind of intelligent designer was necessary. Nothing else makes sense.

Or that they are flawed. Can you explain to me why evolution is flawed, like your ideological opponents believe? Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Yep, because science is the work of the Devil and because the Bible is God's true word, and he created all around us in six days.

Simple objects simply cannot produce, in and of themselves, more complex structures.

Sure they can. Proto-cells have been synthesized in laboratories.

However, English is not a religion class. It is not an airing ground for someone's political ideology.

Yet someone's political ideology has no bearing on learning to compose an essay. You encountered an adult who you disagreed with and were asked to act in a mature, professional manner and you failed. Maybe because you were a kid. But I'm not sure you learned from the experience.

Sure they can. Proto-cells have been synthesized in laboratories.

Um... I accept the tenets of evolution.

You asked me to present the other side's argument seriously. I did.

We should remove language, history, geography, art, music and PE as mandatory subjects. They should still be offered as elective classes. The only mandatory subjects should be maths,science, english (however not as it currently is), economics. With 3 electives. English should be changed focusing much like in elementary school on spelling grammar and the like. I actually know someone in 9th form that cannot spell "table" for christ sake! I suppose some writing may be helpful like essay writing but poetry wont help the average person. Thus there should be a creative writing elective. Art class completely put me off drawing for 2 years when I had to do it in 7 and 8 forms.

We should remove language, history, geography, art, music and PE as mandatory subjects. They should still be offered as elective classes. The only mandatory subjects should be maths,science, english (however not as it currently is), economics. With 3 electives. English should be changed focusing much like in elementary school on spelling grammar and the like. I actually know someone in 9th form that cannot spell "table" for christ sake! I suppose some writing may be helpful like essay writing but poetry wont help the average person. Thus there should be a creative writing elective. Art class completely put me off drawing for 2 years when I had to do it in 7 and 8 forms.

Together... we can make America as fat and uncultured as possible.

You asked me to present the other side's argument seriously. I did.

Yet it is a flawed argument because simple things have formed more complex things, as is evidenced by the creation of proto-cells from simple amino acids without any human interaction. You are justing spouting falsehoods if you say that.

Yet it is a flawed argument because simple things have formed more complex things, as is evidenced by the creation of proto-cells from simple amino acids without any human interaction. You are justing spouting falsehoods if you say that.

So?

If I don't understand it, I will never be able to understand why it fails.

Yet it is a flawed argument because simple things have formed more complex things, as is evidenced by the creation of proto-cells from simple amino acids without any human interaction. You are justing spouting falsehoods if you say that.

In learning to write an essay, you are not asked to verify what you write.

So? If I don't understand it, I will never be able to understand why it fails.

You stated that "the fact that you cannot 'diligently, enthusiastically, or thoroughly' express the views of your ideological opponents is a fairly clear indicator that you do not understand them." There are some views which cannot so express because they are false. Can you "understand" why 1 + 1 = 3? Of course not.

Can you "understand" why 1 + 1 = 3? Of course not.

How many people hold that 1 + 1 = 3?

And 1 + 1 = 3 is a statement, not an argument.