![]() |
Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
I'm sorry but this is bloody ridiculous. It should be about the quality of learning, not quantity. If I had children and they were forced to go to school for 10 hours per day I would seriously consider homeschooling. They won't be able to concentrate that well because they'll be knackered.
The main reason Private schools do so well is because they have more funding. I also don't like him talking about poor behaviour as opposed to good behaviour. Why don't we focus on good behaviour more? Teachers work enough as it is. http://news.sky.com/story/1205596/mi...ur-school-days |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
I'm loving this comment below the article. XD
Quote:
On the note of behaviour, having something that acts as a deterrent for misbehaviour is all well and good, but I have to agree with Princess Luna that we should focus more on good behaviour. Where's the incentive for good behaviour? I feel it can be more effective to encourage good behaviour than discourage poor behaviour. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with but one thing I'm curious about is this :
Quote:
I'm also sick of so much pressure being put on children to do exams. Not all students are good exam takers and exams can only show certain areas of intelligence in people. I feel quite lucky that I'm good at taking exams but I've seen people breakdown crying in the middle of exams and had full blown panic attacks due to them so adding more into the system isn't helping. Also, maybe if the freaking government didn't cut all the funding to state schools then they could actually afford better equipment, private tutors, more teachers so that there wouldn't be a big inequality between private and state schools. I find it hilarious that these government officials who probably went to private schools can't seem to make the link between funding and how well a school does...perhaps their private education wasn't so good afterall. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
If people have a hard time sitting through six hours of school, why are they going to be any more motivated to go through ten hours of school?
Plus, Cara, you're SO right about the testing. My English teacher's retiring next year. Why? Because she's tired of all the testing and realizes the tests don't accurately measure anything. One test doesn't help anything. My teacher is tired of being chained down, teaching to a test. She said the tests are more for making money than anything, and that's probably what the entire system is. It's a shame, though, we're losing great teachers like her and others who want to get out before they screw up the system more. The ones who realize that ten hour days and testing aren't going tro work. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Good luck getting a kid to concentrate for 10 hours a day, that's all I'm saying...
Actually, no, I'm going to add a bit more. I went to a private school (I know, boo hiss and all that), and most people used the time outside of lessons to socialise or muck about, quite frankly. Some people went to clubs and societies, yes, but no more than could be achieved if they went to an afterschool club or society elsewhere (and I actually had to drop out of one such club because of my school hours, which was a bit counterproductive in light of what Gove wants). Rather than stretch the day out, perhaps they should look at actually giving people opportunities to attend things in the community - but that requires funding, so it'll never happen with this government... And yes, the obsession with testing is getting beyond a joke. Let kids be kids and actually enjoy their childhood, for Christ's sake. The adult world is enough of a grind as it is. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
You learn two things in school imo:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
This is insane. Most of these kids parents will be working less than they're in school. Great for babysitting costs, but it'll drive the kids mad. Literally.
The amount of testing right now is ridiculous. When I was in my 5th and 6th year of high school we did Highers, and that was almost a good system. Throughout the year you take tests called NABs, if you pass them all you get to sit the exam. If you fail the exam they look back at your NABs and you can challenge the result and have it changed based on your previous results. If we had a system like this where kids CAN challenge exam results and their coursework IS important, it'd take a lot of stress off on exam day if they can go in and say "I'll try my best, but if it doesn't go well I have something to fall back on" Then again, that's almost a sensible idea and would cost money so it's not something that would ever occur to our government. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Agree. There needs to be a lot more coursework or controlled assessments. When I was doing GCSE English a few years ago I knew I didn't do too bad in my assessments so I wasn't that worried about the exams. Exams stress me out so I will do worse.
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Oh, come on, he's a moron and everyone knows it.
The whole education system in this country is a worsening mess, and teachers are doing their best to prop it up and give children what they can to get somewhere in life. I don't think Gove actually solely went to a public school, but I have no idea why anyone's keeping him in his position. 10-hour days are not happening. They won't make anything better, and although Mr. Gove may not be aware of it, it would drive teachers' free time down to approximately 4 and a half picoseconds per year. In addition to this, I would be highly critical of the system's measuring methods (he claims things are improving, simply by moving the goalposts), especially exams. We are not educated in anything but exam technique. Lovely as this is, it's worth nothing to us. As a classmate of mine summed it up: Quote:
But, whatever, Michael Gove is an imbecile, and everyone knows it. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
The only way this would work in my book is if they gave them more frequent breaks and chances to run around. Overall, not worth it. Yes it'll help with parents who have to work but I don't think that it will help prepare the students better.
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Actually, private schools have turned out very intelligent people. The problem is that ALL schools should be privatized and left up to the decisions of parents and their kids. Some politician doesn't know what's good for Jim, John, Jack, or Susie. But I bet those kids and their parents have a better idea than someone who just steals their money and calls it "tax" to make theft legal. Privatized education would encourage children to become entrepreneurs, and not be make them into squares who can only fill a bubble on some sheet for an answer that a teacher indoctrinated into them.
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
I may be a foreigner who has no single idea about who Michael Gove is, but I find his idea to be extremely ridiculous.
What, so now he wants to make school as hectic as it is in Asia? Well, that may benefit the parents who have jobs with long shift, but what about the students? Can't he take the students' ability to learn and their need for relaxation into account? School is already horrible right now with excessive tests and homework, so there is no need to make the students break down even worse with 10 hours of school per day, right? |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
I don't agree with this. If all schools were privatized there would be a bigger likelihood that a big portion of students wouldn't be able to afford the cost of going to the private schools and would end up uneducated. Public education is a good thing in my eyes. And, as Cara said, not all parents know what is right for their child. They may think that they do but in the end that isn't always the case. I think the idea of a 10 hour school day is ridiculous. This will put even more pressure on the kids and they will have less time to do activities in there life. School already takes up a lot of a child's life and the normal school day (at least where I am from) is 6 hours. If kids had to start going to school for 10 hours they would have no social life and while school is important having a social life of some kind is just as important. I honestly don't think it would be healthy. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
I personally feel widespread public education has been my country's most successful social advancement of the last century, and not just for allowing all us ordinary kids to be educated. The truth is, our educational system, while far from perfect, allows schools a certain amount of freedom which is quite beneficial for the standard of education received by students. As well as allowing freedom, our education is pragmatic, for the most part, encouraging personal development. Our standardised examinations don't consist of filling in boxes, because that's not much of an education, like you've rightly portrayed. I know people who attend a private school around the corner from my own school, their curriculum is essentially the same as ours. Parents send their kids there either because they feel the standard of education is better, or, more likely, because Heaven forbid upper-middle class children attend the same public school as your normal Joe Sixpack's child. In short...does education need an overhaul? Hell, yes, it does. Is privatisation the answer? I don't think so. I feel the education I have received in my public school is as good as it would have been if Dad earned three times the wage he does and I ended up going to a private school. I've learned to think for myself, which seems to be the key skill you're trying not to blatantly refer to. Part of my school's ethos, a public school, is to develop the student's capability to do so. Public education is great, when it's well-executed. After all, I'm sure not every anti-establishment knobhead was privately educated, I happen to sit next to one in my Maths class at Ballygobackwards Community Comprehensive. :bleh: |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
You're also committing a fallacy. You're implying that creationism is indoctrinating a child to a false belief. While I agree with this, you're assuming the DoE does not use education to indoctrinate children within public schools. The DoE uses education to indoctrinate children. This has been known for a long time. Quote:
If the free market created only privatized schools, the cost in education would actually drop. Lets say it currently costs 400$ for a kid to go to a K-12 private school with 400 students. So, let's say Then, public schools close, and all that is left is private schools. Enrollment at the school triples. Would the cost of education DROP or go UP? It'd drop. Why? Because more enrollments means they don't need as much money to keep operating. Of course, they'd have to hire more staff, etc. but the cost of staff per student wouldn't keep the cost at 400$. I can do the math, but it wouldn't cost that much. What else would we see? We'd see competitive schools try to lower costs even further. We wouldn't have federal standards which means that we would not be trained for a test. What would we be trained for? We'd be trained for whatever our local economy requires. We'd be taught to be entrepreneurs in order to maintain a stable local economy. So, what if a school teaches creationism? Schools are already doing that. Don't like it? Well, guess what? The government isn't FORCING you to go to a school within a certain district. It's privatized. So you can find yourself a school that doesn't teach creationism. Quote:
Quote:
As far as being able to think for yourself, I think part of being able to think for yourself is being able to make free educational choices. Education, on all sides of the political spectrum, has been shown to create people who are relatively incapable of free thinking. I do not say, "Well then, only private schools are capable of producing free thinking students." I think that would be misunderstanding what I'm after. Private schools are not free in their curriculum. They still have to adhere to DoE educational standards, which is what's wrong. The DoE doesn't know whats best. The government never does, and it's a fallacy to think so. Look at college. What's the average college debt in the US? Do you know why it's so much? It's because of the government. Why? Because these colleges can make a lot of money off the government. The government is granting loans and aid to students without any reason at all. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars. Well, let's be oh-so-silly for a second and assume the government NEVER granted any money, or loaned ANY money to students. What would happen? Prices would drop. Why? Because without those massive loans no one could even afford to attend school. Well, colleges want to stay open, right? So what would they do? Drop prices. Look at the correlation of federal aid and college prices. You'll see what I mean. All I'm saying is the federal government doesn't need to be involved. It should be ran at state and local levels. And one last thing, a free market educational system would create a competitive market in education. In other words, the quality of education would improve (not to mention teachers would be paid the wages they deserve). |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
We don't need a competitive market in education. This is education not a corporation.
What we need is fair and equal education for all and quite frankly using a capitalist system isn't going to achieve that. How exactly do you propose we measure the quality of education? As of now it's primarily based on grades and what universities students get in to. If everything was privatised I can only see this getting worse and students being pushed to achieve higher and higher grades no matter what the cost. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
What makes you think our current education system isn't ran by corporations? What makes you think the government running the education system makes it "fair?" Equality can only occur in free market economics. As far as measuring the quality of education, we already do that as consumers. The difference is in a free market, when a company goes under, the tax payers don't owe the government billions of dollars for saving a company. Rather, consumers choose who survives and who doesn't. What makes you think government regulated services means quality? Have you looked at the DMV? Have you look at the economic beliefs of our current and previous administrations? If you can't trust the federal government in small matters, why should we trust them in large matters? You also mistakenly assume that we have no way to measure the quality without government. The government is made up of people, correct? What if we regulated a privatized DoE that rated educational systems? My point is, anything the public does, the privatized sector can do better. Look at healthcare website. We hired the private sector to fix it. The NSA hires private sector employees to do NSA jobs. Why? The problem with one formulated education path is that you get the current result of our society. Over 60% of adults 18-26 are unemployed. A lot of these kids graduating colleges are finding themselves unemployed and in-debt. Why? Because they've all been raised under the same system and put into the same box as every other college grad. Employers are beginning to value work experience over education. A simple google search will show you what I mean. Look at any news source. That's what happens when you live in a coporatist country, not a capitalist one. If you think we are capitalist, my point of indoctrination in my previous post proves accurate. I hope you don't dismiss my questions, but answer them. Last thing, can I ask you, am I free to disagree with you? Also sorry for grammar and spelling errors. My tablet likes to miscorrect things. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
Also, responsibility for education funding and governance is primarily at state level, with limited intervention from the federal government and most decisions made at school board level. So even if we were to assume that the DoE is indeed "corrupted by corporations", they would have limited impact upon the education system proper. Quote:
Quote:
As for the NSA and the healthcare website, it's probably a combination of requiring particular expertise on a short-term basis and Congress not exactly giving the current administration much money to work with... Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
Anyway, I did not confuse my terms. Corporatocracy is relatively similar to the way some (independents, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) people use the word corporatism. In corporatism, the society, or "state" is controlled by large interest groups. These large interest groups are maintained and funded by large corporations. We refer to it as corporatism, because our country is controlled by these interest groups, which then the government funds the corporations that fund these select groups. The government spends roughly 50% more on corporation subsidies than on individual welfare. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, in defense of this, the DMV out where I live is good. :) I just use this as an example, because I know how some people feel about it. I'm more about people having options, rather than being held at the threat of arrest for not wanting to do or pay for something they don't want or use. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at debating especially at a topic I don't know as much as I'd like to about but I'll try my best to reply to the parts of your argument that I feel I can debate on.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The reason this is better is because these companies are subjected to the people. The federal government, in the US, was designed to be limited. People were supposed to be able to choose who they support, and who they don't. It was never intended to be a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The government was supposed to operate similar to the free market. If we don't agree with them, we aren't required to abide. The problem is that the government is getting more and more power, and you are forced to agree with them because they can use their power over you if you do not abide by their rules, and if you use force against them, it's considered a crime. It's hypocritical. Our early government even stated that mankind should be able to bear arms, not as protection against criminals, but as protection against their own government. Here's where it comes down to. In a free market, if I don't like something, I don't have to support it. Within a democracy, if the majority likes it, it destroys the freedom of the minority, and even the minority are demanded to support it, or else. THAT'S the problem! However, if in a free market you only have the people to support you, then you're more inclined to do what the people want. And if other people disagree with that decision, they're free to go to your competitor, or simply ignore you altogether. They aren't forced to fund you with the threat of jail. That's why in a free market, you're more likely to persuade people. The government doesn't fear the people, and the government should because the government is supposed to be the servants to the people, not the rulers (at least in the US, but the philosophy still doesn't change, a large government causes tyranny). Think of it this way, is genocide in history is more likely to happen from a free market? Or large governments? http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Let me note, I do not agree with everything he says. It's simply a resource to show you what I mean. So, you see, the big picture issue is MUCH, MUCH bigger than just public education. Quote:
So, for example, lets takes roads. Say we removed the government. Who would fund the roads? In fact, I've seen this argument in a textbook for Universities (We the People), however, they said without the government we'd have no roads. This isn't true. In the early 1900s we had roads. Who funded them? The free market. How? Purchasing from companies. In other words, lets say I own a pharmacy. I want people to be able to conveniently get to my pharmacy. How would I accomplish this? Build roads. I'd even argue that these roads would be better maintained than public roads. Why? Because, I want people to get to my store safely, because you can be sure as shit that if Sally over here crashes her car because of a pothole, that she won't be coming to my pharmacy again, AND she'll tell all her friends, and I'll lose business. Now, obviously the price of these roads would have to be reflected in the cost of my services, but here's the thing, if I don't go to that pharmacy, I shouldn't need to pay for their roads. My point is, think outside the box. Take something, anything, and say, "If I removed the government from this task, how could we get it to function without?" I'll tell you this, anything the government does, the private sector can do. Quote:
I think we agree entirely on the point that you brought up. All I'm saying is, if we disagree with the way the government runs things, why should we run to them to fix it? Because you know what it will cost to fix it? More tax payer money. And you know what else? There's no incentive for the government to actually fix it. Why? Because the government will get your money by force. You don't have the right to choose whether you agree with their methods or not. Which is my point, I'd rather have a system where WE choose the methods. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, as I've said, you're also free to disagree with me. I think that's one of the greatest things is the ability to freely disagree without punishment. I would never even think of using force against you for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, as well? In other words, I would never send armed and masked men over to harm you or throw you in a chamber for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, too? |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Just...wow.
I work 10 hour shifts 4 days a week and it is exhausting even with the day off. I don't understand how they expect school students to sit in class for that long, then go home and study for an exam. I think they are forgetting that some students, parents and teachers have to travel to get to and from school. As well as having teachers work 50 hour weeks. That's just ridiculous. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Sorry for being slow to reply - have been travelling a lot this week with work so haven't had chance to sit down and compose a full response.
Quote:
1) I always add in "with respect" where my response could be construed as being otherwise (for instance in this case, where someone less accommodating might think I was being snarky by pointing out the difference in terminology). Written communication of this sort is notorious for being misconstrued, and having been accused of attacks in the past when I have intended nothing of the sort I always err on the side of caution. It also acts as a helpful reminder to people that I am courteous in my reply, however much it challenges what they are saying. 2) Ignoring my posts simply because you have failed to convince me on arguments regarding religion is exceptionally narrow-minded of you, in my opinion. If you have failed to change my mind on a topic in the past, including religion, it is for no other reason than that your arguments haven't been up to scratch. That is not my fault. I am perfectly happy to consider positions contrary to my own, and do so on their own merits, and have changed my opinions on a number of topics in light of considered arguments. To claim otherwise on my part shows how little you actually know about me. In light of my background majoring in Law, I am going to go over such arguments with a fine-tooth comb and challenge them where I find reason to. Likewise, I expect people to do so with mine and am happy to respond to challenges where they are raised (and I expect them to be - if people agree with everything I say, it puts me on edge frankly). If you are unhappy with that notion, then I would say you need to reconsider why you are engaging in debates in the first place - which is, by definition, what you are doing by posting in a Debates forum (and by proxy the Religion etc forum), despite claims to the contrary. 3) You are posting on a public forum where all posts are open to reply both from the intended recipient and the wider community on this forum. Your reply contained no specific restriction on who could reply, and your claims were general enough that anyone would be within their rights to comment on them. If you sought a specific reply from one person, and one person only, then you should either say so in your reply or take it to a PM instead. When you post on a public forum instead, it's open to anyone to choose to reply. That's how these things work. Again, if you are unhappy with this notion some further thought about why you are posting may be required. Moving on... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) Company A is an established consumer technology company. An entrepreneur, B, comes up with a product in the same sector as A's but with some distinct differences and improvements. A uses its superior resources to not only write a cease-and-desist letter to B alleging theft of its intellectual property, but also to ensure all its distribution agreements prevent its partners from stocking competing products, including B's. As a result, B's product fails to reach the market as he cannot afford to fight the legal battle or find a stockist. 2) Mr C and his family have run a successful, popular Mexican restaurant for over fifty years in their home town. D, a national chain of Mexican restaurants, opens a new restaurant on the same street as Mr C's. D cuts its prices aggressively and engages in a marketing blitz, funded by its head office, in order to force Mr C out of the market. Despite several mixed and negative reviews of D's products, Mr C's restaurant is marginalised such that it cannot make a profit, and closes. D then raises their prices back to existing levels, citing the earlier levels as an "opening discount". 3) Two candidates, E and F, apply for the same job. Both have very impressive academic records, E from well-established schools and colleges in affluent areas and F from schools and colleges in more deprived areas. However, whereas E's neighbourhood was serviced by a number of providers of extracurricular activities such as sports and social clubs funded by private businesses, F's was not as the businesses behind such schemes did not view it as viable. E gets the job over F, for no reason other than his membership of these sports and social clubs. 4) G is a large car manufacturer, with a significant share of its domestic market and sizeable operations overseas. One of its competitors overseas, H, decides to start selling cars in G's home market, in the belief that its more reliable and cheaper-to-run models will be popular with consumers in G's country. In response, G threatens its dealers that it will withdraw their franchises if they stock H's models as well, and engages in a marketing campaign bad-mouthing H's products and using selective reviews to make their own (inferior) products sound better. As such, H cannot establish a stable foothold in G's home market and withdraws. Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal. Parties can choose to enter into contracts of exclusivity if they so wish, and do so on a regular basis. However, those participants in the free market with access to higher levels of resources, and market reach, will always be in a more powerful position than those starting up, and more often than not will use that position to stifle competition. The examples I give above are all based on fairly typical occurrences in the business world. Supply and demand may form the fundamental component of the free market, but it is not immune to external influence and on its own cannot create a level playing field. Indeed, the notion of truly perfect competition within a free market tends to be regarded as utopian, and - perhaps counterintuitively - a certain amount of state intervention in the market is in fact aimed at trying to improve competition (for example the Competition Commission in the UK and the core economic freedoms within the EU). Quote:
Aside from that, one issue I can see with your argument is that it assumes all services can benefit from competition. This is not in fact the case. Some systems require such a high degree of coordination, or inherent guarantees from the state, that the only effective way to administer them on a national level is to have a monopoly provider; the very fact that such systems developed in this manner rather than each state or province having its own way is proof of this. Again, a few examples: 1) All United States citizens (lawful ones, anyway) who wish to travel overseas require a passport, issued by the State Department. The form of this is the same for all US citizens - as is, no doubt, the cost. Imagine now that the State Department is dissolved, and a number of private companies decide to create their own versions, all with different degrees of information and format and priced competitively in order to get citizens to adopt them. However, a passport operates on the basis of the mutuality of obligations between states - namely, citizens from one country won't be blocked from entering the other and vice versa. That's straightforward enough with one provider - but how does a state provide such a guarantee without knowing whether the passports are backed by the state of origin? All they know is it's a document produced by a private organisation, ostensibly identifying where they are from but with no guarantees therein. So other states have to try and coordinate different sets of information and try and work out whether all the passports should be treated the same, increasing the bureaucracy and the cost involved. The only way to ensure they are all treated the same is to have some oversight by the government, such as an underwriting process or standardised format, but that entails inspection and verification procedures which again cost money. So where is the inherent benefit of competition? 2) The FDA provides a lot of regulation in the USA in the field of public health, particularly in relation to food standards and drugs. Imagine this agency is dissolved, and instead two large private agencies assume their responsibilities on the basis of more efficient and effective testing and oversight at competitive rates. A new drug, product X, is submitted to both for verification. Agency A conducts its tests and determines that the product is not safe for public use, and refuses verification. Agency B conducts its tests and determines that the product is safe for public use and grants a licence. Both sets of tests are valid - it is a question of the criteria each use in determining safety. Retailers are therefore left with Agency A refusing to allow the product on sale, and Agency B giving the go ahead. Which one should consumers listen to? 3) In Europe (seeing as my examples thus far have been US-based), crash testing for cars (and vans) is carried out by a body called Euro NCAP. This is an association backed by a combination of automotive groups and governmental departments, and is independent from the automotive industry. Imagine that, instead of this body carrying out testing, it is instead tendered out to a group of private companies. With profitability and shareholder interests to contend with, plus potential influence by the industry, it is conceivable that the testing methodology may not be as rigorous across all the companies, yet they may produce their results in a very similar format (e.g. star ratings). Consumers may be unaware as to the difference, and assume that a good rating from one company is equivalent to a good rating from another company. Does this amount to an improvement of the service to consumers? I suppose I should hold my hand up at this point and admit that all of these examples are of government bodies which developed in response to a particular need - free passage of its citizens in foreign lands, food adulteration and vehicle safety respectively. But that is part of the point. Some services by their very nature need to be free from market forces in order to serve their end users properly - much as it may be unpopular to hand such functions over to central governments, with some things (e.g. foreign affairs) they are best suited to the role. That isn't to say they are to all things, and I would agree there are many functions which governments should keep clear of, but to say that competition and the free market always improves services is not something I can agree with. Quote:
Quote:
Out of curiosity, where did you find the $55,000 assistance from the government figure? I must confess I have not encountered that one before, and it sounds somewhat out of kilter with the US approach to state welfare generally. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
OH GOD >.<! The old saying "quality over quantity" really shows here. We need BETTER education, not LONGER education.
|
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
I can only respond to part of this as I am busy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also disagree with this being narrow-minded. I choose my fights. There becomes a certain point when people appear too dogmatic that debating is virtually useless. I still read your posts, and I still consider what you have to say. Choosing not to debate is not being narrow-minded. Not reading the post or considering what you had to say, would be. The argument is a tad fallacious. If we had to debate with everyone we disagree with, we'd never get anything else done. There comes a point when you know not to respond, but to still listen to what someone says because there is always potential to learn. If we take your implied definition of narrow-mindedness, everyone is then narrow-minded for not debating. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. My point is over the federally funded DoE. The rest in response is also misunderstood because I did not get my point across clear enough. I think you're overlooking the point. The DoE encourages various ideas that nearly eliminate individual choice when it comes to schooling. You're also underestimating the power of the federal governments influence on the states education system. Again, I can write a book about this, and in fact there have been books already written on this. Countless articles, studies, etc. have been documented on this, and even politicians outright talk about this. My point being, it's useless to debate this when officials can't even agree. Quote:
2) This lawsuit wouldn't take place in a free market. Cease-and-desists create unfair competition. 3) You're assuming that if this law suit took place, there'd be no one to help the entrepreneur with the lawsuit, and financial obligations that may come up, which is easier than every given our access on the web. 4) You're assuming there isn't any other option for the entrepreneur, but to give up. 5) In a free market, a corporation, "company a," woudn't be granted special privileges (copyright, limited liability, patents, etc.) from the government in exchange for taxes. Company B would be allowed to create an identical product without the fear of a lawsuit. Corporations are a product of a statist society, not a free market. 6) This example is based on a fallacy and a misunderstanding of how the free market works. http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/how-fear-...minishes-life/ Quote:
This is also a false assumption that this doesn't happen in our current society. In fact, the government typically grants privileges to the corporations and larger companies over the smaller companies. The free market offers better opportunity allowing consumers to pick the winner. Quote:
Quote:
I think a lot of your understanding of the free market is misunderstood. The free market wouldn't operate in anyway like it does today because the current market isn't free. Quote:
While I do not believe the free market is infallible, I believe it is a far better system, and the only system that brings equality to the table. The other problem I see is that you're assuming the government HAS to give money in order to create equality. I disagree. The government doesn't create equality, it stifles it. People should be able to freely grant money to businesses they want at a local and national level, and NOT rely on the government to decide what is best for their money. This is the problem I see in the two-party mindset. They cannot fathom another way of operating without the government. They largely assume "human is fallible, so we have to have a government." The problem is the government is made up of (fallible) people and those (fallible) people are determining how to spend other (fallible) people's money from a detached perspective not relevant to the people, but rather being controlled by (fallible) lobbying interest groups. Rather, because humankind is fallible, I find it better to leave the money with the (fallible) people to wisely determine what is best for THEIR money, since they probably have a better idea than an external party choosing what's best and where there is no consequences for ill spending of their money. Where, if left to the people, there would be consequences for the spending of their own money. I'd like to ask you the same question I asked another poster. First of all, as I've said, you're free to your own beliefs. And because of that, I would never seek to harm you by any external force via weapons, hired men to hunt you down, or sending someone to torture you and lock you away. I think you ought to be free to have your own beliefs without fear of persecution. Would you grant me the same? |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-fda...-bed-together/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9sfT0Teqw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uursKkzV-7o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezBh4V-K7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw Quote:
Quote:
While I'm not done responding, this is all I can get to for now. Your questions are similar to what I've heard before, but fun to think over. I hope that you don't take my ignorant responses and ignore them, but that they at least help you research your own beliefs in the government, as I'm certain you do. |
Re: Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days
Mike: I realise I owe you 2 replies, and this thread is on the verge of timing out because I haven't had chance to as yet. If you would prefer, and seeing as we've divulged from the topic at hand anyway, I can send you my response to your points by PM. Alternatively, if you prefer here I will aim to post something this week.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
All material copyright ©1998-2025, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints | Mobile