You have not clarified your point at all. Nobody is laying claim to anything. The state is paying the teachers to teach children. The education is free (yes, I know it's paid for with tax money) for everybody. In other words, they have access to a system of education without being forced to pay a private institution. Why would the teachers refuse to teach? They have a job, they are being paid to teach. Please at least explain why that should even be a consideration.
Why should anything be a consideration? Because it's a possibility. I'm no seer, sir. I don't pretend to know everything that will happen in our future. The fact remains that you are detracting from my main point which I have clarified twice now and you have not once disagreed with.
You say nobody has laid claim to anything. This is wrong. Kukopanki has laid claim to education:
originally posted by Kukopanki: the fact remains that education is a right.
As has the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
originally posted by Convention on the Rights of the Child: States Parties recognize the right of the child to education
Yes, we are in agreement when you say that the state is paying the teachers to teach children, but what happens when all the teachers refuse to teach? This could be the case when a region experiences a brain-drain, or it could even happen in the less outlandish situation where a city council can't agree on a new budget and the teachers go on strike. In a society where education is considered a right, it is not outlandish to think that these teachers, if they are the only ones capable of providing education, could be forced at gunpoint to teach. Luckily for America, education is not considered a right, and we don't have a problem of forced-teaching here. Look, man, we also agree that the chance of somebody being forced to teach at gunpoint is pretty low, but let's not discount it as impossible.
To answer your question: situations where teachers refuse to teach can pop up in brain-drained regions or communities where a budget is not signed.
... you know, just to put in a biased, bitter quip, anyone who thinks their child is getting a valid and useful education in today's public schools is either brainless or brainwashed.
Children should be out in the fields, barefoot, tillin' the earth. gol-darnit. :P Never mind this schoolin' nonsense.
Honestly? Let the kid wear whatever he likes. Who cares? Disruptive simply stands for "the student said, did or wore something that threatened the political environment created by the faculty, and the faculty didn't like it."
Yeah, there are logical fallacies in my argument, I'm not trying to make some encompassing point. :P It just seems like a silly thing to make such a fuss over. I mean, really. This shit gets news coverage when people are dying all over the world.
Where's the real importance, ne? The idiot kid wearing the shirt?
Or the future leader of the country that will determine whether or not more people die?
Interesting stance Clover Pocky, I do disagree with you saying that the schools are not giving valid and useful education, but hey I've been going to them most of my life so maybe I am Brainwashed.
Where's the real importance, ne? The idiot kid wearing the shirt?
Well I guess it is not that important, some kid wore a shirt that offended people and got kick out of school, but hey we have differing opinions on the topic and enjoy a nice discussion. You should see some of the other things we have gotten debates about.;)
But, to some people this may be a very important topic.
John, that has nothing to do with someone owning another person's thoughts or knowledge. All it's saying is that the state will foot the bill for the education. Forget about the teachers. They have nothing to do with that part of it. I know what a teachers' strike is. I've seen a few. It is not an absolute cessation of education. And the fact that individuals contracted to perform a certain task may refuse to fulfill their obligation is in no way a contradiction or even a reflection on the document. A terrorist could drop a bomb on your house. Does that mean we shouldn't have a right to property because it might not be guaranteed? I honestly can't even tell if you're being serious or not.
Interesting stance Clover Pocky, I do disagree with you saying that the schools are not giving valid and useful education, but hey I've been going to them most of my life so maybe I am Brainwashed.
Well I guess it is not that important, some kid wore a shirt that offended people and got kick out of school, but hey we have differing opinions on the topic and enjoy a nice discussion. You should see some of the other things we have gotten debates about.;)
But, to some people this may be a very important topic.
Mmm, see, I was home-schooled up until 6th grade. Most of my formative years were spent in books, not in television and standardized testing. I'll go ahead and be a prick, and say that yes, you were brainwashed. :O Quick! Get your metal hat, the aliens are coming!
Mmm, see, I was home-schooled up until 6th grade. Most of my formative years were spent in books, not in television and standardized testing. I'll go ahead and be a prick, and say that yes, you were brainwashed. :O Quick! Get your metal hat, the aliens are coming!
... wait. >_>
Way to over-generalize a HUGE percentage of students in America. Thumbs up to you!
Hey, you know I do agree that the shirt probably didn't cause much distraction, but that this is not a big deal, thats insane.
The kid got his "right" taken because he wore a shirt. I mean... like I said, a education just doesn't come in our world without a political spin, so if the students can't comment on politics... well that just scares me.
Because the history they teach in schools is messed up. they'ed like us to think that Israelis and palisanians gathering and "making up" is not only the perfirable solution but the only solution.
Macjake, thanks in advance for the spelling corrections.
Sir, we are in an argument of semantics. We disagree on what a "right" is. This will be noted for future conversations.
I have no idea what parallel you are trying to draw when you talk about a terrorist dropping a bomb on my house. Could you clarify that please?
I am serious. =[
It's not semantics. It is a very critical point at which we are drawing the line of how far the right to pursue happiness extends. I feel that you are confusing the states responsibility to guarantee that right with the state providing free teaching aids. There are 2 separate issues here. One is the idea of being permitted to pursue education being a right. We supposedly agree on that. The second is the responsibilities outlined in that document which say nothing to augment that right, but simply say that the state will use its resources to make education available to all. Then there are some additional points of going a step further to bring primary and secondary education to those who could otherwise not afford it. But that still says nothing about the status of education being a right, it is simply a public system, funded by the public, to be used by the public, organized by the state.
The parallel was based on your reason for saying you can't have free education. You were saying that since the teachers could refuse to teach (i.e. the free education could not be guaranteed) that it was (I'm not sure what you were saying exactly, that's why i asked you to clarify) paradoxical or just plain bullshit, maybe.
My analogy was that, since I extend the right to pursue happiness to the right to pursue education (which you claim we agree on), that, by your logic, we could not offer a right to happiness in the form of property (which is actually the original meaning of "happiness", by the way) because that property could be destroyed. I consider the odds of complete failure of the education system due to teachers refusing to teach about the same as the odds of your property being destroyed, either by terrorists or natural disaster,etc.
... you know, just to put in a biased, bitter quip, anyone who thinks their child is getting a valid and useful education in today's public schools is either brainless or brainwashed.
K-7 grades are when your personalities and opinions are shaped the most. During this time your family and schooling are at their most influential. Seeing as the first and second were generally one and the same during your shaping phase, you can't necessarily prove that you're education was anymore helpful than ours, because you were taught that you couldn't learn as much in a public school.
Also: It has a lot less to do with the curriculum and surroundings than the kid’s attitude. You can home school or private school a kid all you want. If they don't want to learn they won't learn.
Typically, a child's attitude towards education will come form its parents. If the parents are willing to home-school the child, there's a good chance they hold education in high-regard.
Typically, a child's attitude towards education will come form its parents. If the parents are willing to home-school the child, there's a good chance they hold education in high-regard.
That only works in theory. In reality many homeschooled students are just idiots who didn't behave in real school, But I don't know... maybe it wasn't the parent's fault...
In reality, many home schooled kids finish highschool by the age of 15 because they don't have idiots who honestly don't care about their education and don't behave properly but don't get kicked out of school for it holding them back.
Sir, we are in an argument of semantics. We disagree on what a "right" is. This will be noted for future conversations.
/discussion
But seriously, legally speaking education is a right, whatever right might mean, as I proved with my previous post. To this I might add that I think you're understanding the meaning of "education" wrong: it's not to be understood as having the same set of knowledge that the education-provider has, but instead as participating in a process in which the person can receive new information and ways of managing said information.
So basically, John, we agree on the concepts but not on the words to enunciate them.
If I was writing it, it would go something like this:
Palin walks into the oval office and does an aging McCain, at the end of the scene he has a heart attack and dies. Hilarious. Then there's a pathetic funeral, a new (male) VP for Palin, and they do it right on top of the grave.
Then now President Palin nukes some shit. The end.
Comments
You say nobody has laid claim to anything. This is wrong. Kukopanki has laid claim to education: As has the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
Yes, we are in agreement when you say that the state is paying the teachers to teach children, but what happens when all the teachers refuse to teach? This could be the case when a region experiences a brain-drain, or it could even happen in the less outlandish situation where a city council can't agree on a new budget and the teachers go on strike. In a society where education is considered a right, it is not outlandish to think that these teachers, if they are the only ones capable of providing education, could be forced at gunpoint to teach. Luckily for America, education is not considered a right, and we don't have a problem of forced-teaching here. Look, man, we also agree that the chance of somebody being forced to teach at gunpoint is pretty low, but let's not discount it as impossible.
To answer your question: situations where teachers refuse to teach can pop up in brain-drained regions or communities where a budget is not signed.
Children should be out in the fields, barefoot, tillin' the earth. gol-darnit. :P Never mind this schoolin' nonsense.
Honestly? Let the kid wear whatever he likes. Who cares? Disruptive simply stands for "the student said, did or wore something that threatened the political environment created by the faculty, and the faculty didn't like it."
Yeah, there are logical fallacies in my argument, I'm not trying to make some encompassing point. :P It just seems like a silly thing to make such a fuss over. I mean, really. This shit gets news coverage when people are dying all over the world.
Where's the real importance, ne? The idiot kid wearing the shirt?
Or the future leader of the country that will determine whether or not more people die?
Think on it, I guess.
Well I guess it is not that important, some kid wore a shirt that offended people and got kick out of school, but hey we have differing opinions on the topic and enjoy a nice discussion. You should see some of the other things we have gotten debates about.;)
But, to some people this may be a very important topic.
Mmm, see, I was home-schooled up until 6th grade. Most of my formative years were spent in books, not in television and standardized testing.
... wait. >_>
I have no idea what parallel you are trying to draw when you talk about a terrorist dropping a bomb on my house. Could you clarify that please?
I am serious. =[
Way to over-generalize a HUGE percentage of students in America. Thumbs up to you!
The kid got his "right" taken because he wore a shirt. I mean... like I said, a education just doesn't come in our world without a political spin, so if the students can't comment on politics... well that just scares me.
Because the history they teach in schools is messed up. they'ed like us to think that Israelis and palisanians gathering and "making up" is not only the perfirable solution but the only solution.
Macjake, thanks in advance for the spelling corrections.
QUINLIN '08!
Attention duelists! Takeru's hair hates my newb-ish ass.
(probably for stuff like that.)
It's not semantics. It is a very critical point at which we are drawing the line of how far the right to pursue happiness extends. I feel that you are confusing the states responsibility to guarantee that right with the state providing free teaching aids. There are 2 separate issues here. One is the idea of being permitted to pursue education being a right. We supposedly agree on that. The second is the responsibilities outlined in that document which say nothing to augment that right, but simply say that the state will use its resources to make education available to all. Then there are some additional points of going a step further to bring primary and secondary education to those who could otherwise not afford it. But that still says nothing about the status of education being a right, it is simply a public system, funded by the public, to be used by the public, organized by the state.
The parallel was based on your reason for saying you can't have free education. You were saying that since the teachers could refuse to teach (i.e. the free education could not be guaranteed) that it was (I'm not sure what you were saying exactly, that's why i asked you to clarify) paradoxical or just plain bullshit, maybe.
My analogy was that, since I extend the right to pursue happiness to the right to pursue education (which you claim we agree on), that, by your logic, we could not offer a right to happiness in the form of property (which is actually the original meaning of "happiness", by the way) because that property could be destroyed. I consider the odds of complete failure of the education system due to teachers refusing to teach about the same as the odds of your property being destroyed, either by terrorists or natural disaster,etc.
Also: It has a lot less to do with the curriculum and surroundings than the kid’s attitude. You can home school or private school a kid all you want. If they don't want to learn they won't learn.
That only works in theory. In reality many homeschooled students are just idiots who didn't behave in real school, But I don't know... maybe it wasn't the parent's fault...
/discussion
But seriously, legally speaking education is a right, whatever right might mean, as I proved with my previous post. To this I might add that I think you're understanding the meaning of "education" wrong: it's not to be understood as having the same set of knowledge that the education-provider has, but instead as participating in a process in which the person can receive new information and ways of managing said information.
So basically, John, we agree on the concepts but not on the words to enunciate them.
Hell, if they are gonna make a movie with her at least make it right.
Palin walks into the oval office and does an aging McCain, at the end of the scene he has a heart attack and dies. Hilarious. Then there's a pathetic funeral, a new (male) VP for Palin, and they do it right on top of the grave.
Then now President Palin nukes some shit. The end.
Bow Chicka Wow Wow