This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 380381382 383384 ... 502
11431
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:15:07 PM »
where students aren't forced to learn.
Well, first of all, I didn't say that. There's a difference between being dictated to and then being "forced to learn", although I think the phrasing of that is quite malicious. Even now I have didactic teachers who sit at the front and give me data which I then write down and have to learn. Now, maybe tweaking that a little bit, giving more autonomy to the schools with a slimmed-down, standardised curriculum would encourage an environment more conducive to learning whether that involves compulsion or not.
11432
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:10:56 PM »
The education system needs to be localised again
Jesus christ no
There are a lot of things that should be left to local governments, or no government at all.
But education is not one of them.
The fuck is the matter with you? Some bureaucrat in Westminster doesn't know what's best for my education. He especially doesn't know better than my actual fucking school.
11433
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:08:48 PM »
the idea that teachers are there to provide an environment in which children can learn and flourish, instead of being just dictated to.
Localizing schooling creates an environment where kids aren't forced to learn? And that makes sense to you?
What?
11434
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:40:47 PM »
Just don't, Door.
You know people are stupid enough for this shit.
11435
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:32:09 PM »
Can you give a brief synopses? I'm interested, but can't watch the video right now.
The education system needs to be localised again, with the authority over education returned to schools instead of the government. He makes the case that instead of "command and control" - encouraging children to succeed within a narrow spectrum of standardised tests - it should be changed to "climate control", to maintain the idea that teachers are there to provide an environment in which children can learn and flourish, instead of being just dictated to.
11436
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:18:54 PM »
11437
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:27:28 PM »
You can still hold them responsible for doing something wrong, otherwise disturbed people could murder whomever they wish and constantly get away with it.
Not being morally or criminally responsible doesn't entail a lack of consequences. . . That's like saying we shouldn't put down rabid dogs because we can't hold them responsible.
11438
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:58:19 PM »
I don't see why the difference matters, and it may not be the drunk person's "choice." They may be physically addicted to alcohol. In that case they're mentally ill. That's what addiction is, and you can't hold people responsible for something they do resulting out of a fault in their perception. It's certainly more diffuse with alcoholics, since they are in control of their faculties but motivated by an anomaly, much like psychopaths, and have made the conscious, rational choice to consume that substance prior to the development of their illness in the knowledge that such was a possibility. However, schizophrenics - and often depressives - aren't in proper control of their faculties. That's why we call schizophrenics psychotics and why schizophrenia translates as "split mind" - they aren't connected to reality. Such people can't exercise liberty. If you can defer responsibility for children to an authority, you can certainly do the same for the delusional.
11439
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:51:37 PM »
I've yet to hear good reason as to how that matters.
That's like saying a schizophrenic person should be held intellectually responsible.
Why shouldn't they? Just as much as a drunk.
Because a drunk person claiming to be the King of Denmark is being an idiot as a result of his choices. A schizophrenic person invariably and actually believes they are the king of Denmark.If you want me to regress further, it's like expecting children to be legally responsible in the choices they make. You can't call a schizophrenic dumb for the statements they espouse, because their perception is so warped as to stop making sense. That's the point of classifying people as insane in the first place.
11440
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:49:21 PM »
I've yet to hear good reason as to how that matters.
That's like saying a schizophrenic person should be held intellectually responsible.
11441
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:47:29 PM »
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
>free will >existing Pick one.
11442
« on: November 01, 2014, 12:03:14 PM »
11443
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:47:06 AM »
From the Telegraph.Anyone who criticises Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.
Mrs May outlined the proposal in a speech at the Tory party conference in which she spoke about the threat from the so-called Islamic State – also known as Isis and Isil – and the Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram.
But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact.
The National Secular Society and the Christian institute – two organisations with often diametrically opposing interests – said they shared fears that the broad scope of extremism could represent a major threat to free speech.
Keith Porteous Wood, director of the NSS, said secularists might have to think twice before criticising Christianity or Islam. He said secularists risk being branded Islamophobic and racist because of their high profile campaigns against the advance of Sharia law in the UK.
“The Government should have every tool possible to tackle extremism and terrorism, but there is a huge arsenal of laws already in place and a much better case needs to be made for introducing draconian measures such as Extremism Disruption Orders, which are almost unchallengeable and deprive individuals of their liberties,” he said.
“Without precise legislative definitions, deciding what are ‘harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate’ is subjective and therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government.”
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of the Christian Institute, said traditionalist evangelicals who criticise gay marriage or even argue that all religions are not the same could find themselves accused of extremism.
“Anyone who expresses an opinion that isn’t regarded as totally compliant with the Equality Act could find themselves ranked alongside Anjem Choudary, Islamic state or Boko Haram,” he said.
He added: “How many times a day do intellectually lazy political activists accuse their opponents of ‘spreading hatred’?
“The left does it, the right does it, liberals do it, conservatives do it, it is routine.
“Hand a judge a file of a thousand Twitter postings accusing this atheist or that evangelical of ‘spreading hatred’ and they could easily rule that an EDO is needed.
“It’s a crazy idea – the Conservatives need to drop this like a hot brick.”
A Conservative spokesman said: "Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are a vital part of a democratic society.
"In Government, Conservatives have always tried to strike the right balance on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to manifest one’s religion, and the need to protect the public. We have never sought to restrict peaceful protest or free speech, provided it is within the law.
"Our proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders reflects the need to go further on challenging the threat from extremism and those who spread their hateful views so that we can keep that democratic society safe." Fuck this country and fuck the Conservatives for this bullshit. I feel betrayed by my party, and I'll be writing a letter to my MP, who happens to be the Minister for Culture. The Liberal Democrats would never have allowed this through. And, funnily enough, the Guardian has reported that the Lib Dems blocked the EDOs immediate implementation. Fuck Rupert Murdoch, too.
11444
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:35:49 AM »
Uhm...why? Doesn't seem fair of you to pass judgement on an entire mode of sociopolitical thinking based on the fact that the conservatives you've met tend to be disagreeable, or even stupid, when oftentimes the same could be said of their opposites. It'd essentially be like me saying FDR must've been a bad president because he was in a wheelchair. Of course, this is only if you're interested. I wouldn't expect or want you to sit through a Thomas Sowell book bored and reaching for a revolver.
11445
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:26:35 AM »
They're seen as toxic because they are. They're also generally pretty stupid.
lol
That's exactly the sort of tribal mentality that leads to gridlock and a lack of political progress. Conservatives aren't stupid, their psychology and moral priorities just tend to be organised differently when compared to progressives.
I said generally. I rarely encounter conservatives that have logical arguments for things beyond "muh bible" and "muh constitution"
So read some conservative scholars? Pick up books by the likes of Thomas Sowell, or even Ron Paul. It's not at all confusing that conservatives would rely on documents of political and moral authority, since their moral ideas focus around respect, sanctity and order much more than the likes of progressives.
11446
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:16:47 AM »
They're seen as toxic because they are. They're also generally pretty stupid.
lol That's exactly the sort of tribal mentality that leads to gridlock and a lack of political progress. Conservatives aren't stupid, their psychology and moral priorities just tend to be organised differently when compared to progressives.
11447
« on: October 31, 2014, 04:14:31 PM »
Despite not being exceptionally conservative in nature, the Conservative Party over here (of which I'm a member >.>) has quite a serious image problem. It's seen as toxic, essentially, the party of big business. While the other parties and their leaders also have image problems, it's endemic for the Tories. If you consider yourself a conservative, what do you think of your "side's" image and, conversely, what do you think of progressives?
11448
« on: October 31, 2014, 12:18:51 PM »
Well, it certainly shouldn't be a crime.
11449
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:33:30 PM »
it 1930's germany up in here
I mean have you seen my nameplate?
Do you think that's just coincidence?
2sp00py4me
11450
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:27:58 PM »
fite me
11451
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:09:50 PM »
What happened to the days when we trusted our neighbours, and felt at home in our community? But no, nowadays pretty much every house along the street is locked out of fear for ourselves and our children, despite the fact that kidnappings are statistically much more likely to happen within families.
How did we get to this place in society, guys? With so many locks.
11452
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:05:34 PM »
Yeah, good work. Have a pat in the back. You win. 
11453
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:04:10 PM »
You're only 22? Shit.
What? You thought I was ancient?
I don't know, man. You just seem way to chilled and mature to be a 22-year-old.
11454
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:02:28 PM »
11455
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:01:16 PM »
You're only 22? Shit.
11456
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:00:43 PM »
WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LET IT GO YOU RAT FUCK? WHAT IF IT TURNS UP AT MY FUCKING HOUSE?
11457
« on: October 30, 2014, 12:59:10 PM »
11458
« on: October 30, 2014, 12:53:03 PM »
Right, so fuck feminism and focus on equality. Feminism is a loaded term in itself.
11459
« on: October 30, 2014, 12:39:41 PM »
Somebody who self-identifies as a feminist in a civil, western country is doing it either out of pure ignorance or wanting to earn brownie points. Both, if said feminist is a man.
Being a feminist in Islamic and African nations? Fucking go for it. I got your back.
11460
« on: October 30, 2014, 11:46:27 AM »
illumarty cunfirmed
Pages: 1 ... 380381382 383384 ... 502
|
Show Posts
