NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6234607.stm

For once, some good news! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6234607.stm

For once, some good news! :D

Communist.



;)

Communist.



;)

Who, me!? :eek:

*hides red flag*



;)

Who, me!? :eek:

*hides red flag*



;)

Your secret is safe with me...comrade. :p

But on topic; yes, I agree, its certainly a step in the right direction towards improving the lives of Ugandans. Here's hoping it catches on in other African nations. :)

Here's hoping it catches on. :)

I'll drink to that. :p

I'd like to see it enlarge in the future, but definatly a step in the right direction.

If you find me a link to donate I'll throw a few dollars in the pot. Won't chap my taint non, and it won't chap other peoples either.

Glad they're getting an education. Not so glad it's state sponsored, but I guess they'll take (or ought to take) what they can get. I wish more of those "wonderful, benevolent" millionaires (like Madonna) would put more money in over there to set up schools (not state-funded) for these people without having the state pulling the strings. But, then I wouldn't want people like Madonna in control of my education either.

Glad they're getting an education. Not so glad it's state sponsored, but I guess they'll take (or ought to take) what they can get. I wish more of those "wonderful, benevolent" millionaires (like Madonna) would put more money in over there to set up schools (not state-funded) for these people without having the state pulling the strings. But, then I wouldn't want people like Madonna in control of my education either.

why shouldn't schools be state-funded?

why shouldn't schools be state-funded?

It's the parents' responsibility to educate their children. They should send them to schools that they want them to be sent to. If we eliminate state-funded schools, that means less taxes which also means that parents have more money to send their children to the schools they want them to go to. And it also means that there is more money for people to donate to schools which can educate those to poor to pay for schooling.

Example: My parents wanted me and my brother to go to Christian schools. But, we didn't have the money. If there were no school/property tax we would have had the funds for us to go EVERY YEAR! (my parents were very angry about this this past summer and my mom took a week after work until the wee hours doing the math).

Also, it's simply a matter of the state taking over where it's the people's responsibility. Like welfare: that's the responsibility of charities, not the government.

Dontate linky please.

It's the parents' responsibility to educate their children. They should send them to schools that they want them to be sent to. If we eliminate state-funded schools, that means less taxes which also means that parents have more money to send their children to the schools they want them to go to. And it also means that there is more money for people to donate to schools which can educate those to poor to pay for schooling.You assume too much of humanity.

Example: My parents wanted me and my brother to go to Christian schools. But, we didn't have the money. If there were no school/property tax we would have had the funds for us to go EVERY YEAR! (my parents were very angry about this this past summer and my mom took a week after work until the wee hours doing the math).scholarships, grants, loans. There are always ways.

Also, it's simply a matter of the state taking over where it's the people's responsibility. Like welfare: that's the responsibility of charities, not the government.Education needs to be a priority for the state. If the state is not educated, it will fail. If the state cannot guarentee every child a decent education, it dooms itself to failure.

You assume too much of humanity.

I don't really think so. Once we start telling humanity: "This is what you're supposed to be doing" and saying it consistently, they'll start to catch on.

scholarships, grants, loans. There are always ways.

No, there are not. How are schools supposed to give scholarships if they have no money? They're charging just enough to meet their costs so that students can actually afford to come. There are a few churches and individuals who provide some donations, but they are few and far between. Why? Because the state is there with its "wonderful" system.

And as for loans - who in there right mind would take out 12 consecutive years of loans?

Education needs to be a priority for the state. If the state is not educated, it will fail. If the state cannot guarentee every child a decent education, it dooms itself to failure.

Well the first 150 years of the US did pretty well without it (or, in some places, a minimal amount of it), You could use your argument for everything: they need to provide health, housing, food, etc. Yes, people need those things. But if the state hands them everything, they become leeches. "Why do I need to do anything if the check and the food stamps are coming and my child's off to school?" The few people (and yes, they will soon be few) who are doing what they are supposed to be doing can't support the whole financial weight of the world.

But, if we stop providing so much, they have to do something. And if everyone who is able to do something is doing it, we will have more than enough left over to provide for those who can't do anything. But that will only work if the government get its grubby little paws out of the people's lives and does what it is supposed to do: protect through diplomacy, police, and military and that alone.

Everything else is the responsibility of the people through their own hands or through charities.

You can try to force feed the child because it refuses to eat. It might live, but after a while of that, it's going to be one messed up child. You need to teach it to eat for itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6234607.stm

For once, some good news! :D

That is most excellent news. Having educated people is one way to make a permanent improvement in a country's economic situation.

why shouldn't schools be state-funded?

Because they have no money.

But I am pissed, so if we can set up a thing to donate, I will match fifty cents on the dollar up to $500. That would give them $1500.

So someone set up the account - or I will do it tomorrow - and we can throw a few bucks in.

It seems like a worthy cause.

[QUOTE=Kanabia;12181326]
But on topic; yes, I agree, its certainly a step in the right direction towards improving the lives of Ugandans.
QUOTE]

For a second, I thought this was about the Gunguns. Jar-Jar sure could use some of that edumacation.

But seriously, it's nice to see something done without the racist folks such as Oprah jumping on it.

Can top job positions (bankers, engineers, scientists, doctors and so on) keep up with higher level of turn outs of young educated Africans or will they (African graduates) look for higher level jobs elsewhere?

For once, some good news!

Exactly my reaction when I first heard of it.

Education is essentially for a responsible society.

Also, it's simply a matter of the state taking over where it's the people's responsibility.

Why can't the people use the state (which after all is supposed to advance the common welfare) to fulfill their responsibilities?

What if it would be difficult or impossible to fulfill the responsibility without it?

they have a fucking school truck!?

I had to walk 4 miles to school and back everyday in whatever the world could throw at me:mad: :p

but to the point at hand this is good though I think it must be expanded upon to do any real good

Can top job positions (bankers, engineers, scientists, doctors and so on) keep up with higher level of turn outs of young educated Africans or will they (African graduates) look for higher level jobs elsewhere?

this is secondary education and thus it will just be to develop a barely skilled labour market (my moneys on them making a grab at the chemical production market)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6234607.stm

For once, some good news! :D
For once? Uganda isn't the first country in sub-Sahel Africa to do this.Tanzania and Kenya, also for example. People always think that the millions in aid pumped into Africa come to nothing, but it's not true. Three times the amount of people there now have access to drinking water as did in 1960. Employment and education is gradually improving in many parts of the continent.

Example: My parents wanted me and my brother to go to Christian schools. But, we didn't have the money. If there were no school/property tax we would have had the funds for us to go EVERY YEAR! (my parents were very angry about this this past summer and my mom took a week after work until the wee hours doing the math).

Also, it's simply a matter of the state taking over where it's the people's responsibility. Like welfare: that's the responsibility of charities, not the government.
You call yourself Christian, yet you express distaste for helping your fellow man through government? It's the most effective way.

Pfft,
James 2:16

Why can't the people use the state (which after all is supposed to advance the common welfare) to fulfill their responsibilities?

What if it would be difficult or impossible to fulfill the responsibility without it?

Because they are supposed to do it on their own. I go back to the illustration about the hunger-striking child.

And if it's difficult? That's what charities are for and that's why we need to be, not encouraging, but telling these people that they are tempting hell-fire for not aiding their fellow Man when they are able. And we should be saying it from the government, from the pulpit, from the street corners, and in our own homes.

You call yourself Christian, yet you express distaste for helping your fellow man through government? It's the most effective way.

Pfft,
James 2:16

No, it's not the most effective way. It increases bumbling beauracracy and increases the likeliness of a 1984 society with every responsibility the government takes on. And 1984 should be one of the last things a Christian wants.

I support, even demand, helping my fellow man: just not through the inefficient government.

It increases bumbling beauracracy and increases the likeliness of a 1984 society with every responsibility the government takes on.

Exaggeration, much? You undermine your own point with such silliness.

Exaggeration, much? You undermine your own point with such silliness.

With every list you are added to, that's one more piece of your life the government has access to. And if it has access to it, that's all the closer it is to controlling it.

With every list you are added to, that's one more piece of your life the government has access to. And if it has access to it, that's all the closer it is to controlling it.

Providing education to help people learn and think for themselves /= Orwell's 1984. Rather the reverse.

Providing education to help people learn and think for themselves /= Orwell's 1984. Rather the reverse.

Yes, that's what state-funded education does for you: it helps you think for yourself.:rolleyes:

Already they're controlling what is acceptable thought. Evolution? Far from being proven. But until it is, or until all other theories are disproven, it should be taught alongside those other theories. Or at least the other theories ought to be mentioned, right? But, no, the students are too dumb to think for themselves, so we have to teach them the right "scientific" stuff, evolution. And that's just an example. Have you read a high-school literature book lately? If you go to a public school, I would be very surprised to hear anything conservative or even moderate in it. So much for encouraging free0thinking.

Have you heard that saying: "The best way to quit is to never start"?
Well that applies to the government, too. We need to get off it to protect ourselves and the longer we are on it, the harder it will become to get off.

words

Oh dear. And there I was thinking that you were a reasonable, well-rounded individual.

How does teaching children the currently-accepted scientific standard equate in any way to removing the ideal of free thought?
I'd rather kids were taught to learn through experimentation and science than through learning every possible conceivable theory under the sun. It would take years just to teach them those theories, let alone the knowledge of them to critically judge them.

Yes, that's what state-funded education does for you: it helps you think for yourself.:rolleyes:

Already they're controlling what is acceptable thought. Evolution? Far from being proven. But until it is, or until all other theories are disproven, it should be taught alongside those other theories. Or at least the other theories ought to be mentioned, right? But, no, the students are too dumb to think for themselves, so we have to teach them the right "scientific" stuff, evolution. And that's just an example. Have you read a high-school literature book lately? If you go to a public school, I would be very surprised to hear anything conservative or even moderate in it. So much for encouraging free0thinking.

Have you heard that saying: "The best way to quit is to never start"?
Well that applies to the government, too. We need to get off it to protect ourselves and the longer we are on it, the harder it will become to get off.

I'm sure the Ugandan people are positively seething that the government dare to provide a future for their children. If the children are responsible and can think for themselves they can learn everything they needed to know on their own. Ugandans have just as many opportunities to become wealthy and successful as anyone else.

Oh dear. And there I was thinking that you were a reasonable, well-rounded individual.

How does teaching children the currently-accepted scientific standard equate in any way to removing the ideal of free thought?
I'd rather kids were taught to learn through experimentation and science than through learning every possible conceivable theory under the sun. It would take years just to teach them those theories, let alone the knowledge of them to critically judge them.

So, you provide one theory and say "This is the truth."

What is there to judge? Nothing.

I'm sure the Ugandan people are positively seething that the government dare to provide a future for their children. If the children are responsible and can think for themselves they can learn everything they needed to know on their own. Ugandans have just as many opportunities to become wealthy and successful as anyone else.

Yes, yes take me out of context.

I said on the first page that state-funded is better than nothing. What I also said is that those with means should go in and set up schools for those without means.

So, you provide one theory and say "This is the truth."


Wrong. I'm not going to go through the whole "Science is a system of peer-review etc. etc." spiel as I'm sure you've heard it before and chose to ignore it then.
What is there to judge? Nothing.

I was talking about judging the merits of other, non-scientific theories. Please try to comprehend what you've read before replying.

I said on the first page that state-funded is better than nothing. What I also said is that those with means should go in and set up schools for those without means.

Sorry. I didn't realise that was you.

Anyway. A lot of the time, public schools in nations comparable to Uganda in development are propped up by private donations, since the governments aren't really powerful enough on their own to run an efficient and streamlined education system (much less a tax system to support it). My old high-school had a sister-school arrangement with a school in Kenya and every year around $20,000 was sent over there to keep it running.

So, you provide one theory and say "This is the truth."

Why i'm jumping into this irrelevant tangent I really don't know...

Evolution is the dominant scientific theory, and contrary to your assertion, does have a vast range of evidence in support of it, everything from modern day microbial tolerance of antibiotics to that's right, transitionary fossils. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx). Creationism, being an untestable hypothesis, is not science and therefore should not be taught as such. If students want to learn creationism, they can take Religious Education or Philosophy as electives. Simple. Most kids don't pay any attention in science anyway, so i'm not sure what you're worried about.

Wrong. I'm not going to go through the whole "Science is a system of peer-review etc. etc." spiel as I'm sure you've heard it before and chose to ignore it then.

But that's what you said:

How does teaching children the currently-accepted scientific standard equate in any way to removing the ideal of free thought?
I'd rather kids were taught to learn through experimentation and science than through learning every possible conceivable theory under the sun. It would take years just to teach them those theories, let alone the knowledge of them to critically judge them.

You would teach only the currently excepted theory. If you would teach it as theory, as hypothesis, then go ahead. But that's not what I infered from your statement.

I was talking about judging the merits of other, non-scientific theories. Please try to comprehend what you've read before replying.

If they don't know they're there, how can they judge them? Answer: they can't. And if they do come across them, the majority will say "I learned A in school, so B must be wrong" without thinking about it at all. But if you present both is school as opposing theories, it will teach them to judge for themselves.

Well the first 150 years of the US did pretty well without [State sponsored education].
Yes, because you took out all of the hard bits and such of the English language.

See 'color'/'honor'/'fervor'.
See 'center'.
See your lack of 'ly' on adverbs (your wife was 'real' good in bed etc.)
And indeed 'zee'. Not only is it 'zed', but one should also use it very, very infrequently, not instead of most word endings.

*sighs*

Sorry, I sort of had to get that out of my system. No offense.


*edits*

And huzzah for the Ugandans getting some state-funded edumacation. That's what the French call 'spiffinge' or something.

You would teach only the currently excepted theory. If you would teach it as theory, as hypothesis, then go ahead. But that's not what I infered from your statement.
Another day, another person who needs the difference between "scientific theory" and "hypothesis" explained.


If they don't know they're there, how can they judge them? Answer: they can't. And if they do come across them, the majority will say "I learned A in school, so B must be wrong" without thinking about it at all. But if you present both is school as opposing theories, it will teach them to judge for themselves.

Proposition: you read my earlier posts instead of responding to key words that you picked up while skimming them. You're just making a fool out of yourself.

Sorry. I didn't realise that was you.

Anyway. A lot of the time, public schools in nations comparable to Uganda in development are propped up by private donations, since the governments aren't really powerful enough on their own to run an efficient and streamlined education system (much less a tax system to support it). My old high-school had a sister-school arrangement with a school in Kenya and every year around $20,000 was sent over there to keep it running.

I understand that, and that's better than nothing.

Why i'm jumping into this irrelevant tangent I really don't know...

Evolution is the dominant scientific theory, and contrary to your assertion, does have a vast range of evidence in support of it, everything from modern day microbial tolerance of antibiotics to that's right, transitionary fossils. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx). Creationism, being an untestable hypothesis, is not science and therefore should not be taught as such. If students want to learn creationism, they can take Religious Education or Philosophy as electives. Simple. Most kids don't pay any attention in science anyway, so i'm not sure what you're worried about.

I have to leave for church, so I'll be gone for a while.

If you look at the evidence against evolution, you would sing a different tune, maybe. Answers in Genesis is a good site and it's no more biased than the pro-evolution sites out there. The problem is that no one is saying "This is the best we know" they're saying "This is fact" which we do not know it to be.

I have to leave for church, so I'll be gone for a while.

I'll likely be in bed when you return.


If you look at the evidence against evolution, you would sing a different tune, maybe. Answers in Genesis is a good site and it's no more biased than the pro-evolution sites out there. The problem is that no one is saying "This is the best we know" they're saying "This is fact" which we do not know it to be.

I've already read Behe's theory of design. His claims are horribly flawed, but this is a topic for another thread.

For once?

It seems almost all of the news (not just from Africa, but from everywhere) lately has been negative. That's why I said, "for once, some good news."