It isn't the school's job to teach good citizenship; that is the parents' job.
Life revolves around the family, not the school. The school's job is simply to provide specialists to teach certain subjects. That is very inefficient when teaching classes of many children, especially as huge swathes of the teaching are not needed and misdirected. Home schooling can overcome these problems.
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
Well, now that we have a better idea how this whole thing happened, it really had nothing to do with iCloud security being compromised.
iCloud was apparently compromised with computer password generators. From what is understood, and from Apple's update, it seems as though iCloud hasn't prevented rapid password generators from having their passwords read, and when the correct one came up, it would be accepted.
I'm surprised at that, but so far, that's what seems to have happened. It's not compromised by someone getting into the software itself with malware.
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
It's not clear to me, but are you stating the facts surrounding the matter (that the state promotes its own interests in the school curricula via propaganda), or is it your personal view that abiding the will of the state is ultimately beneficial to society versus the individual? Or do you believe that "society" and the "individual" are indivisible?
Because it's my view that what's good for the state is seldom good for the individual and the only thing we as individuals in America still have going for us is our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The predations of the state know no bounds otherwise.
iCloud was apparently compromised with computer password generators. From what is understood, and from Apple's update, it seems as though iCloud hasn't prevented rapid password generators from having their passwords read, and when the correct one came up, it would be accepted.
I'm surprised at that, but so far, that's what seems to have happened. It's not compromised by someone getting into the software itself with malware.
From which source did you divine the use of password generators? Apple said iCloud security was not compromised.
I don't think they're saying that the victim is at fault. But what is being said, and I agree, is that people SHOULD know that no system dealing with software and the Internet is secure. Therefor, if they don't want pictures, or other personal information to get stolen, they shouldn't put it there. This is common sense. It doesn't make them responsible for getting breached, because there will always be people looking for this type of thing, even if someone doesn't have it online. They will still get breached.
This was the quote to which I was responding. And if this isn't victim blaming, I really don't know what is:
Quote:
Ok, answer me this- why the **** are these people so obsessed with taking naked photos of themselves? I'm sorry, but I can manage very little sympathy to these celebs when their nude photos get "hacked", since they decided to be so narcissistic in the first place, and take compromising photos because they love whoring themselves out. Whats wrong with having a tad of self respect and NOT taking photos like these, on devices that auto-upload to the cloud and connected to the internet? I've never taken a self nude photo in my life, nor have I ever been inclined to. So yeah, you're a celebrity want to take photos of yourself looking like a whore and a pornstar, please spare me the self-righteous outrage when these inevitably get released. They know the risks and they do it anyway, because they're self-obsessed twats, and deep down, love acting like cheap sluts.
"But the difference there is when someone like Jayden James or Alexis Texas makes a movie, it's her choice. This, on the other hand, was more or less an assault."
No, it's not an "assault". J-Law CHOSE to take nude photos of herself. She CHOSE to take them to a device that uploads them to the internet. Noone fucking put a gun to her head and forced her to take those ridiculous, classless, trashy photos. If my own sister was trashy and idiotic enough to do that, then I also wouldn't have sympathy if those photos got out.
That, to me, is beyond offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Um, actually... Yeah, there are people interested in that. Just like some guys take up skirt photos and videos, as well as down blouse photos and videos and post them on pay sites, there are people who put cameras where they can video people in their bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. then, there are amateur sex sites where people take part in the filming.
Why? Because there is a big audience for this.
Well, when I said "no one" I was exaggerating. I meant "very few people compared to how many people are interested in pics of Kate Upton or Jennifer Lawrence." I was attempting to be concise, but it ended up being at the cost of being precise.
It isn't the school's job to teach good citizenship; that is the parents' job.
Life revolves around the family, not the school. The school's job is simply to provide specialists to teach certain subjects. That is very inefficient when teaching classes of many children, especially as huge swathes of the teaching are not needed and misdirected. Home schooling can overcome these problems.
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
No; that's why society has gone so wrong today.
People like you think that parents are absolved of their responsibility to turn their children into good citizens because it's the job of schools. It's not the job of schools; it's the job of families.
This is the great failing of the second half of the twentieth century, that has yet to be resolved.
It's not clear to me, but are you stating the facts surrounding the matter (that the state promotes its own interests in the school curricula via propaganda), or is it your personal view that abiding the will of the state is ultimately beneficial to society versus the individual? Or do you believe that "society" and the "individual" are indivisible?
Because it's my view that what's good for the state is seldom good for the individual and the only thing we as individuals in America still have going for us is our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The predations of the state know no bounds otherwise.
Firstly, I'm stating the facts as they are. But it's up to you to determine if the state is doing a good job or not. All states use propaganda to further their needs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I was taught in school that a democracy was a good thing, and that voting and other community affairs were important in furthering that. It's the fault of people who haven't been doing their job in voting that are a big part of the problem. The state failed in educating them about the importance of getting involved.
But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were originated by the state itself. It's political parties and their concepts of money flow into politics that has subverted much of the process. And it's the fault of the voters, and non voters, for not understanding that.
We. Eyed to understand that the original system set up in voting wasn't very good, and much of it failed quickly. We went and ended some of those practices by simple alignments of parties and voting, and the rest by amendments. It's still got problems. One is the question of why small states should have two senators. Yes, they demanded that, but it's not really good for democracy overall.
The founders never could see how technology and commerce would change the country as much as it did. That's not a fault of theirs, as it was impossible. But things have changed so much they wouldn't recognize us.
There are a lot of things that need changing, but with the parties so far apart these days, it likely won't happen.
From which source did you divine the use of password generators? Apple said iCloud security was not compromised.
I read that in a number of sites. Apple has said that it was a small number of people who had their user names and passwords compromised. They did update iCloud security. By password generator I mean computers making up passwords at a rapid rate and feeding it into the box until one hits. I'm not talking about a password generator like the one Adobe gave me to generate a specific password for their software when I was beta testing. It wasn't the best term to use. It just came to mind first.
This was the quote to which I was responding. And if this isn't victim blaming, I really don't know what
If you think that what I said was blaming the victim, then you don't know what it means to blame a victim. If you won't acknowledge that people can do things that aren't the smartest, then there is no way to hold a conversation. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that people should do something that will make them vulnerable because it won't be their fault if something happens? Is that what you're saying?
I don't walk in known bad neighborhoods at night if I can avoid it. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry about it and do it because if I'm robbed, it's not my fault for not being cautious? Would it be blaming the victim if I was later told that I shouldn't have done that? I don't get it.
Are you saying that even if YOU wouldn't do it, it doesn't matter if others do, and get caught because it's not their fault?
You need to be very careful in explaining your position here. The real world takes into account that there are bad actors, and that we have to be careful of engaging with them. That means that we shouldn't do something that could be compromised because compromise is very possible. That's not blaming the victim. That's acting intelligently. You seem to be saying that chiding someone for not acting intelligently is blaming them. It's not. It's being realistic. If you don't want nude pics of yourself circulating around the Internet, then you don't put them where that could happen.
Firstly, I'm stating the facts as they are. But it's up to you to determine if the state is doing a good job or not. All states use propaganda to further their needs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I was taught in school that a democracy was a good thing, and that voting and other community affairs were important in furthering that. It's the fault of people who haven't been doing their job in voting that are a big part of the problem. The state failed in educating them about the importance of getting involved.
But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were originated by the state itself. It's political parties and their concepts of money flow into politics that has subverted much of the process. And it's the fault of the voters, and non voters, for not understanding that.
We. Eyed to understand that the original system set up in voting wasn't very good, and much of it failed quickly. We went and ended some of those practices by simple alignments of parties and voting, and the rest by amendments. It's still got problems. One is the question of why small states should have two senators. Yes, they demanded that, but it's not really good for democracy overall.
The founders never could see how technology and commerce would change the country as much as it did. That's not a fault of theirs, as it was impossible. But things have changed so much they wouldn't recognize us.
There are a lot of things that need changing, but with the parties so far apart these days, it likely won't happen.
Firstly, a few corrections... The Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised by "the states" via their representatives, not the Federal government. The Constitution is a "check" against potentially unlimited powers of the Federal government.
Schools still teach students we have a "democracy" and this is false, yet this myth is constantly repeated. You and I both know we have a representative constitutional republic, which is different from a democracy. In national elections, the popular vote is irrelevant because the votes that really count come from the Electoral College, in the form of delegates. If you haven't got the delegates, you haven't got the votes.
Another big point that is often lost on folks... The system is not designed to work. In other words, a completely efficient system that runs without disagreement would be a dictatorship or some variation thereof. Because the federal government is confounded with disagreements and inefficiencies means that checks and balances works. The Congress battles with the President and the Senate, ideally, which results in slow, limited decision making. The only functions that are allowed to the government are clearly delineated in the Constitution and those core functions are constantly in danger of expansion, due to human nature and the attractions of power. Democrats and Republicans have more in agreement than would appear (based on what is shown on TV and in the media). Both sides seek more power and they tend to agree with each other when they each benefit, often to the detriment to the American people. Term limits should be enacted for Congress and the Senate, just as there is a term limit for the president. At least this would further protect American citizens from accumulations of power and corruption from those in office. None should be spared this limitation.
People like you think that parents are absolved of their responsibility to turn their children into good citizens because it's the job of schools. It's not the job of schools; it's the job of families.
This is the great failing of the second half of the twentieth century, that has yet to be resolved.
I think you lack the understanding of how societies work when you say that. But then, you also seem to think that home schooling is the best. That tends to lead to very unbalanced education, and a lack of social skills.
People like you think that parents are absolved of their responsibility to turn their children into good citizens because it's the job of schools. It's not the job of schools; it's the job of families.
This is the great failing of the second half of the twentieth century, that has yet to be resolved.
I think you lack the understanding of how societies work when you say that. But then, you also seem to think that home schooling is the best. That tends to lead to very unbalanced education, and a lack of social skills.
You think wrong.
Your criticism of home schooling is simply parroting of the usual mantras; these things aren't black and white. Just because one is home-schooled doesn't entail the curtailment of plenty of social activity. But for those subjects that require intense, focused concentration, it is substantially better. It is also better at fostering creative thinking, as one can have a one-on-one argument with one's teacher, something which is nigh-on impossible in classroom teaching.
One always improves quicker in any fields when working with someone much more advanced than oneself, be it sport, academia, arts or technology. Particularly in the area of debate, one is quickly lifted to a higher level if conversing with an adult; in a classroom, one is at the mercy of the same undeveloped minds, which, although of varying abilities, will not pull one up with the same speed as an adult mind, and can even drag one down to the low moral morass of one's peers.
Firstly, a few corrections... The Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised by "the states" via their representatives, not the Federal government. The Constitution is a "check" against the powers of the Federal government. That schools teach we have a "democracy" is false, yet this myth is constantly repeated. You and I both know we have a representative constitutional republic, which is different from a democracy. In national elections, the popular vote is irrelevant because the votes that really count come from the Electoral College, in the form of delegates. If you haven't got the delegates, you haven't got the votes.
Another big point that is often lost on folks... The system is not designed to work. In other words, a completely efficient system that runs without disagreement would be a dictatorship or some variation thereof. Because the federal government is confounded with disagreements and inefficiencies means that checks and balances works. The Congress battles with the President and the Senate, ideally, which results in slow, limited decision making. The only functions that are allowed to the government are clearly delineated in the Constitution and those core functions are constantly in danger, due to the nature and attractions of power.
When I say State, I'm including those who are part of that process. There is no such thing as the "state" as an independent entity. It consists of the people in it. In addition, many of the laws, including the Constitution itself, are done behind closed doors. We, The People, take no direct part in it. In fact, it's long been said that if the Constitutional Congress worked out in the open, the Constitution would never have been written. There were, and are, too many conflicting interests.
In a grand sense, there wasn't a United States until after the Constitution was written and approved. So that was a special issue as there was no federal government.
The Constitution is much more than a check, it defines the government. Remember that at first, the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to have the power it ended up defining for itself, and ever since has had a defacto power that went beyond what the Constitution seems to have set out for it. But like in so many other areas, definitions are deliberately fuzzy, and modifiable.
Ah, again I use a term that I thought was understood to mean what I meant but isn't. When I said said democracy, I was talking in the general way we all do. If you ask someone what kind if country we live in, politically speaking, most will say a democracy. I know very well that it's a republic, which is representative democracy. Yes, I do get it. In fact I responded to another post earlier saying that the UK doesn't have a democracy EITHER. If you read that post of mine, you would see that I understand this.
About delegates, as I said we've corrected some of the problems that are hangovers from the last, such as electors for senators. This harkens back to a time where people weren't trusted to elect high officials directly because they might elect someone who wasn't a Protestant, or wealthy, or a landowner, actually, all of those. I would like to see them do away with that nonsense entirely, but smaller states constantly fight against it every time it comes up. The popular vote isn't totally unimportant. If electors voted one way, but there was a fairly large majority on the other side, electors would be done away with quickly. It would be the best way to get rid of them. And generally, they vote they way the votes come in in their states. Not exactly, but nearly. Most states have been moving to require electors to vote the way the vote comes in.
Unfortunately, and I don't want to begin a political battle here, but we are getting hardening of positions. More from one side than the other. I get nervous when religious belief gets involved in the political process, and disguises itself as an economic position, or as a civil position, or otherwise. The founders were very suspicious of religion, and for good reason, it's very anti democratic. And I use that term in the general sense, as I'm sure you understand.
Your criticism of home schooling is simply parroting of the usual mantras; these things aren't black and white. Just because one is home-schooled doesn't entail the curtailment of plenty of social activity. But for those subjects that require intense, focused concentration, it is substantially better. It is also better at fostering creative thinking, as one can have a one-on-one argument with one's teacher, something which is nigh-on impossible in classroom teaching.
One always improves quicker in any fields when working with someone much more advanced than oneself, be it sport, academia, arts or technology. Particularly in the area of debate,
one is quickly lifted to a higher level if conversing with an adult; in a classroom, one is at the mercy of the same undeveloped minds, which, although of varying abilities, will not pull one up with the same speed as an adult mind, and can even drag one down to the low moral morass of one's peers.
If you're talking about parroting, you're parroting what home schoolers say. How is that different? I've worked in the NYC school system as a volunteer since my daughter was in kindergarten. I spent a lot of time working with the central board. I've got some familiarity with it.
Home schooling almost always means that ones teacher is ones parent. That alone is limiting. It's not like talking to a real, objective teacher. The parent is still the parent. And there's no guarantee that a parent is qualified to teach many subjects. Parents are also subject to their own considerable biases. But in the USA, that doesn't really matter. As it's so dependent on an individual state here, rather than the federal government, standards vary so much as to be useless. I don't know what standards there are in the UK.
I would just like to remind you that your views are just as biased as you think mine are.
If you think that what I said was blaming the victim, then you don't know what it means to blame a victim. If you won't acknowledge that people can do things that aren't the smartest, then there is no way to hold a conversation. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that people should do something that will make them vulnerable because it won't be their fault if something happens? Is that what you're saying?
I don't walk in known bad neighborhoods at night if I can avoid it. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry about it and do it because if I'm robbed, it's not my fault for not being cautious? Would it be blaming the victim if I was later told that I shouldn't have done that? I don't get it.
Are you saying that even if YOU wouldn't do it, it doesn't matter if others do, and get caught because it's not their fault?
You need to be very careful in explaining your position here. The real world takes into account that there are bad actors, and that we have to be careful of engaging with them. That means that we shouldn't do something that could be compromised because compromise is very possible. That's not blaming the victim. That's acting intelligently. You seem to be saying that chiding someone for not acting intelligently is blaming them. It's not. It's being realistic. If you don't want nude pics of yourself circulating around the Internet, then you don't put them where that could happen.
Did you read the quote I attached to my last post? It wasn't by you. THAT was the one that I was saying was victim blaming.
When I say State, I'm including those who are part of that process. There is no such thing as the "state" as an independent entity. It consists of the people in it. In addition, many of the laws, including the Constitution itself are done behind closed doors. We, The People, take no direct part in it. In fact, it's long been said that if the Constitutional Congress worked out in the open, the Constitution would never have been written. There were, and are, too many conflicting interests.
In a grand sense, there wasn't a United States until after the Constitution was written and approved. So that was a special issue.
The Declaration of Independence signaled the intent of the "New World's" political intent to England. I'm familiar with the Federal government being referred to as "the state". Just my experience.
The Constitution is much more than a check, it defines the government. Remember that at first, the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to have the power it ended up defining for itself, and ever since has had a defacto power that went beyond what the Constitution seems to have set out for it. But like in so many other areas, definitions are deliberately fuzzy, and modifiable.
Ah, again I use a term that I thought was understood to mean what I meant but isn't. When I said said democracy, I was talking in the general way we all do. If you ask so done what kind if country we live in, politically speaking, most will say a democracy. I know very well that it's a republic, which is representative democracy. Yes, I do get it. In fact I responded to another post earlier saying that the UK doesn't have a democracy EITHER. If you read that post of mine, you would see that I understand this.
Understood.
About delegates, as I said we've corrected some of the problems that are hangovers from the last, such as electors for senators. This hardens back to a time where people weren't trusted to elect high officials directly because they might elect so done who wasn't a Protestant, or wealthy, or a landowner, actually, all of those. I would like to see them do away with that nonsense entirely, but smaller states constantly fight against it every time it comes up. The popular vote isn't totally unimportant. If electors voted one way, but there was a fairly large majority on the other side, electors would be done away with quickly. It would be the best way to get rid of them. And generally, they vote they way the votes come in in their states. Not exactly, but nearly. Most states have been moving to require electors to vote the way the vote comes in.
The biggest embarrassment and affront to the electoral process, IMO (regarding the political parties) is that they have colluded to exclude third parties and candidates from debates and from being listed on ballots. THAT is a major threat to the republic.
Unfortunately, and I don't want to begin a political battle here, but we are getting hardening of positions. More from one side than the other. I get nervous when religious belief gets involved in the political process, and disguises itself as an economic position, or as a civil position, or otherwise. The founders were very suspicious of religion, and for good reason, it's very anti democratic. And I use that term in the general sense, as I'm sure you understand.
I think we have too much respect for each other to launch into impassioned attacks over personal points of view, so we can leave it where we are. I prefer a political system that respects a clear division between church and state. There is always room for respectful disagreement.
If you're talking about parroting, you're parroting what home schoolers say. How is that different? I've worked in the NYC school system as a volunteer since my daughter was in kindergarten. I spent a lot of time working with the central board. I've got some familiarity with it.
Home schooling almost always means that ones teacher is ones parent. That alone is limiting. It's not like talking to a real, objective teacher. The parent is still the parent. And there's no guarantee that a parent is qualified to teach many subjects. Parents are also subject to their own considerable biases. But in the USA, that doesn't really matter. As it's so dependent on an individual state here, rather than the federal government, standards vary so much as to be useless. I don't know what standards there are in the UK.
I would just like to remind you that your views are just as biased as you think mine are.
Sorry for inserting myself into this discussion (I apologize if I'm getting on your nerves), but you must also admit that teachers are human and harbor their own biases. There is no such thing as complete objectivity. Everyone brings to the table their own experiences and opinion.
The Declaration of Independence signaled the intent of the "New World's" political intent to England. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'm familiar with the Federal government being referred to as "the state". Just my experience.</span>
[SIZE=14px]Understood.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11px][SIZE=14px]The biggest [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=14px]embarrassment and affront to the electoral process, IMO (regarding the political parties) is that they have colluded to exclude third parties and candidates from debates and from being listed on ballots. THAT is a major threat to the republic.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]I think we have too much respect for each other to launch into impassioned attacks over personal points of view, so we can leave it where we are. I prefer a political system that respects a clear division between church and state. There is always room for respectful disagreement. [/SIZE]
I don't think we disagree too much on that last part then. I also prefer clear separation between church and state. My concern is that that separation is withering away.
Comments
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
Yeah, I've done some interesting things over the decades.
iCloud was apparently compromised with computer password generators. From what is understood, and from Apple's update, it seems as though iCloud hasn't prevented rapid password generators from having their passwords read, and when the correct one came up, it would be accepted.
I'm surprised at that, but so far, that's what seems to have happened. It's not compromised by someone getting into the software itself with malware.
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
It's not clear to me, but are you stating the facts surrounding the matter (that the state promotes its own interests in the school curricula via propaganda), or is it your personal view that abiding the will of the state is ultimately beneficial to society versus the individual? Or do you believe that "society" and the "individual" are indivisible?
Because it's my view that what's good for the state is seldom good for the individual and the only thing we as individuals in America still have going for us is our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The predations of the state know no bounds otherwise.
iCloud was apparently compromised with computer password generators. From what is understood, and from Apple's update, it seems as though iCloud hasn't prevented rapid password generators from having their passwords read, and when the correct one came up, it would be accepted.
I'm surprised at that, but so far, that's what seems to have happened. It's not compromised by someone getting into the software itself with malware.
From which source did you divine the use of password generators? Apple said iCloud security was not compromised.
I don't think they're saying that the victim is at fault. But what is being said, and I agree, is that people SHOULD know that no system dealing with software and the Internet is secure. Therefor, if they don't want pictures, or other personal information to get stolen, they shouldn't put it there. This is common sense. It doesn't make them responsible for getting breached, because there will always be people looking for this type of thing, even if someone doesn't have it online. They will still get breached.
This was the quote to which I was responding. And if this isn't victim blaming, I really don't know what is:
Ok, answer me this- why the **** are these people so obsessed with taking naked photos of themselves? I'm sorry, but I can manage very little sympathy to these celebs when their nude photos get "hacked", since they decided to be so narcissistic in the first place, and take compromising photos because they love whoring themselves out. Whats wrong with having a tad of self respect and NOT taking photos like these, on devices that auto-upload to the cloud and connected to the internet? I've never taken a self nude photo in my life, nor have I ever been inclined to. So yeah, you're a celebrity want to take photos of yourself looking like a whore and a pornstar, please spare me the self-righteous outrage when these inevitably get released. They know the risks and they do it anyway, because they're self-obsessed twats, and deep down, love acting like cheap sluts.
"But the difference there is when someone like Jayden James or Alexis Texas makes a movie, it's her choice. This, on the other hand, was more or less an assault."
No, it's not an "assault". J-Law CHOSE to take nude photos of herself. She CHOSE to take them to a device that uploads them to the internet. Noone fucking put a gun to her head and forced her to take those ridiculous, classless, trashy photos. If my own sister was trashy and idiotic enough to do that, then I also wouldn't have sympathy if those photos got out.
That, to me, is beyond offensive.
Um, actually... Yeah, there are people interested in that. Just like some guys take up skirt photos and videos, as well as down blouse photos and videos and post them on pay sites, there are people who put cameras where they can video people in their bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. then, there are amateur sex sites where people take part in the filming.
Why? Because there is a big audience for this.
Well, when I said "no one" I was exaggerating. I meant "very few people compared to how many people are interested in pics of Kate Upton or Jennifer Lawrence." I was attempting to be concise, but it ended up being at the cost of being precise.
It isn't the school's job to teach good citizenship; that is the parents' job.
Life revolves around the family, not the school. The school's job is simply to provide specialists to teach certain subjects. That is very inefficient when teaching classes of many children, especially as huge swathes of the teaching are not needed and misdirected. Home schooling can overcome these problems.
That's wrong. It's a parents job to teach their children to be good people, and to do well in school. The curriculum is chosen by the state for the purpose of making them good citizens.
This is something that difficult to understand for most people, but it's true. I'm not making it up as I go along.
For the UK, the terrible situations in the public schools were intended to mould leaders through adversity.
In all states, schools teach what the states want citizens to become.
No; that's why society has gone so wrong today.
People like you think that parents are absolved of their responsibility to turn their children into good citizens because it's the job of schools. It's not the job of schools; it's the job of families.
This is the great failing of the second half of the twentieth century, that has yet to be resolved.
Firstly, I'm stating the facts as they are. But it's up to you to determine if the state is doing a good job or not. All states use propaganda to further their needs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I was taught in school that a democracy was a good thing, and that voting and other community affairs were important in furthering that. It's the fault of people who haven't been doing their job in voting that are a big part of the problem. The state failed in educating them about the importance of getting involved.
But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were originated by the state itself. It's political parties and their concepts of money flow into politics that has subverted much of the process. And it's the fault of the voters, and non voters, for not understanding that.
We. Eyed to understand that the original system set up in voting wasn't very good, and much of it failed quickly. We went and ended some of those practices by simple alignments of parties and voting, and the rest by amendments. It's still got problems. One is the question of why small states should have two senators. Yes, they demanded that, but it's not really good for democracy overall.
The founders never could see how technology and commerce would change the country as much as it did. That's not a fault of theirs, as it was impossible. But things have changed so much they wouldn't recognize us.
There are a lot of things that need changing, but with the parties so far apart these days, it likely won't happen.
I read that in a number of sites. Apple has said that it was a small number of people who had their user names and passwords compromised. They did update iCloud security. By password generator I mean computers making up passwords at a rapid rate and feeding it into the box until one hits. I'm not talking about a password generator like the one Adobe gave me to generate a specific password for their software when I was beta testing. It wasn't the best term to use. It just came to mind first.
If you think that what I said was blaming the victim, then you don't know what it means to blame a victim. If you won't acknowledge that people can do things that aren't the smartest, then there is no way to hold a conversation. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that people should do something that will make them vulnerable because it won't be their fault if something happens? Is that what you're saying?
I don't walk in known bad neighborhoods at night if I can avoid it. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry about it and do it because if I'm robbed, it's not my fault for not being cautious? Would it be blaming the victim if I was later told that I shouldn't have done that? I don't get it.
Are you saying that even if YOU wouldn't do it, it doesn't matter if others do, and get caught because it's not their fault?
You need to be very careful in explaining your position here. The real world takes into account that there are bad actors, and that we have to be careful of engaging with them. That means that we shouldn't do something that could be compromised because compromise is very possible. That's not blaming the victim. That's acting intelligently. You seem to be saying that chiding someone for not acting intelligently is blaming them. It's not. It's being realistic. If you don't want nude pics of yourself circulating around the Internet, then you don't put them where that could happen.
Firstly, I'm stating the facts as they are. But it's up to you to determine if the state is doing a good job or not. All states use propaganda to further their needs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I was taught in school that a democracy was a good thing, and that voting and other community affairs were important in furthering that. It's the fault of people who haven't been doing their job in voting that are a big part of the problem. The state failed in educating them about the importance of getting involved.
But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were originated by the state itself. It's political parties and their concepts of money flow into politics that has subverted much of the process. And it's the fault of the voters, and non voters, for not understanding that.
We. Eyed to understand that the original system set up in voting wasn't very good, and much of it failed quickly. We went and ended some of those practices by simple alignments of parties and voting, and the rest by amendments. It's still got problems. One is the question of why small states should have two senators. Yes, they demanded that, but it's not really good for democracy overall.
The founders never could see how technology and commerce would change the country as much as it did. That's not a fault of theirs, as it was impossible. But things have changed so much they wouldn't recognize us.
There are a lot of things that need changing, but with the parties so far apart these days, it likely won't happen.
Firstly, a few corrections... The Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised by "the states" via their representatives, not the Federal government. The Constitution is a "check" against potentially unlimited powers of the Federal government.
Schools still teach students we have a "democracy" and this is false, yet this myth is constantly repeated. You and I both know we have a representative constitutional republic, which is different from a democracy. In national elections, the popular vote is irrelevant because the votes that really count come from the Electoral College, in the form of delegates. If you haven't got the delegates, you haven't got the votes.
Another big point that is often lost on folks... The system is not designed to work. In other words, a completely efficient system that runs without disagreement would be a dictatorship or some variation thereof. Because the federal government is confounded with disagreements and inefficiencies means that checks and balances works. The Congress battles with the President and the Senate, ideally, which results in slow, limited decision making. The only functions that are allowed to the government are clearly delineated in the Constitution and those core functions are constantly in danger of expansion, due to human nature and the attractions of power. Democrats and Republicans have more in agreement than would appear (based on what is shown on TV and in the media). Both sides seek more power and they tend to agree with each other when they each benefit, often to the detriment to the American people. Term limits should be enacted for Congress and the Senate, just as there is a term limit for the president. At least this would further protect American citizens from accumulations of power and corruption from those in office. None should be spared this limitation.
I think you lack the understanding of how societies work when you say that. But then, you also seem to think that home schooling is the best. That tends to lead to very unbalanced education, and a lack of social skills.
No; that's why society has gone so wrong today.
People like you think that parents are absolved of their responsibility to turn their children into good citizens because it's the job of schools. It's not the job of schools; it's the job of families.
This is the great failing of the second half of the twentieth century, that has yet to be resolved.
I think you lack the understanding of how societies work when you say that. But then, you also seem to think that home schooling is the best. That tends to lead to very unbalanced education, and a lack of social skills.
You think wrong.
Your criticism of home schooling is simply parroting of the usual mantras; these things aren't black and white. Just because one is home-schooled doesn't entail the curtailment of plenty of social activity. But for those subjects that require intense, focused concentration, it is substantially better. It is also better at fostering creative thinking, as one can have a one-on-one argument with one's teacher, something which is nigh-on impossible in classroom teaching.
One always improves quicker in any fields when working with someone much more advanced than oneself, be it sport, academia, arts or technology. Particularly in the area of debate, one is quickly lifted to a higher level if conversing with an adult; in a classroom, one is at the mercy of the same undeveloped minds, which, although of varying abilities, will not pull one up with the same speed as an adult mind, and can even drag one down to the low moral morass of one's peers.
When I say State, I'm including those who are part of that process. There is no such thing as the "state" as an independent entity. It consists of the people in it. In addition, many of the laws, including the Constitution itself, are done behind closed doors. We, The People, take no direct part in it. In fact, it's long been said that if the Constitutional Congress worked out in the open, the Constitution would never have been written. There were, and are, too many conflicting interests.
In a grand sense, there wasn't a United States until after the Constitution was written and approved. So that was a special issue as there was no federal government.
The Constitution is much more than a check, it defines the government. Remember that at first, the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to have the power it ended up defining for itself, and ever since has had a defacto power that went beyond what the Constitution seems to have set out for it. But like in so many other areas, definitions are deliberately fuzzy, and modifiable.
Ah, again I use a term that I thought was understood to mean what I meant but isn't. When I said said democracy, I was talking in the general way we all do. If you ask someone what kind if country we live in, politically speaking, most will say a democracy. I know very well that it's a republic, which is representative democracy. Yes, I do get it. In fact I responded to another post earlier saying that the UK doesn't have a democracy EITHER. If you read that post of mine, you would see that I understand this.
About delegates, as I said we've corrected some of the problems that are hangovers from the last, such as electors for senators. This harkens back to a time where people weren't trusted to elect high officials directly because they might elect someone who wasn't a Protestant, or wealthy, or a landowner, actually, all of those. I would like to see them do away with that nonsense entirely, but smaller states constantly fight against it every time it comes up. The popular vote isn't totally unimportant. If electors voted one way, but there was a fairly large majority on the other side, electors would be done away with quickly. It would be the best way to get rid of them. And generally, they vote they way the votes come in in their states. Not exactly, but nearly. Most states have been moving to require electors to vote the way the vote comes in.
Unfortunately, and I don't want to begin a political battle here, but we are getting hardening of positions. More from one side than the other. I get nervous when religious belief gets involved in the political process, and disguises itself as an economic position, or as a civil position, or otherwise. The founders were very suspicious of religion, and for good reason, it's very anti democratic. And I use that term in the general sense, as I'm sure you understand.
If you're talking about parroting, you're parroting what home schoolers say. How is that different? I've worked in the NYC school system as a volunteer since my daughter was in kindergarten. I spent a lot of time working with the central board. I've got some familiarity with it.
Home schooling almost always means that ones teacher is ones parent. That alone is limiting. It's not like talking to a real, objective teacher. The parent is still the parent. And there's no guarantee that a parent is qualified to teach many subjects. Parents are also subject to their own considerable biases. But in the USA, that doesn't really matter. As it's so dependent on an individual state here, rather than the federal government, standards vary so much as to be useless. I don't know what standards there are in the UK.
I would just like to remind you that your views are just as biased as you think mine are.
If you think that what I said was blaming the victim, then you don't know what it means to blame a victim. If you won't acknowledge that people can do things that aren't the smartest, then there is no way to hold a conversation. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that people should do something that will make them vulnerable because it won't be their fault if something happens? Is that what you're saying?
I don't walk in known bad neighborhoods at night if I can avoid it. Are you saying that I shouldn't worry about it and do it because if I'm robbed, it's not my fault for not being cautious? Would it be blaming the victim if I was later told that I shouldn't have done that? I don't get it.
Are you saying that even if YOU wouldn't do it, it doesn't matter if others do, and get caught because it's not their fault?
You need to be very careful in explaining your position here. The real world takes into account that there are bad actors, and that we have to be careful of engaging with them. That means that we shouldn't do something that could be compromised because compromise is very possible. That's not blaming the victim. That's acting intelligently. You seem to be saying that chiding someone for not acting intelligently is blaming them. It's not. It's being realistic. If you don't want nude pics of yourself circulating around the Internet, then you don't put them where that could happen.
Did you read the quote I attached to my last post? It wasn't by you. THAT was the one that I was saying was victim blaming.
When I say State, I'm including those who are part of that process. There is no such thing as the "state" as an independent entity. It consists of the people in it. In addition, many of the laws, including the Constitution itself are done behind closed doors. We, The People, take no direct part in it. In fact, it's long been said that if the Constitutional Congress worked out in the open, the Constitution would never have been written. There were, and are, too many conflicting interests.
In a grand sense, there wasn't a United States until after the Constitution was written and approved. So that was a special issue.
The Declaration of Independence signaled the intent of the "New World's" political intent to England. I'm familiar with the Federal government being referred to as "the state". Just my experience.
Ah, again I use a term that I thought was understood to mean what I meant but isn't. When I said said democracy, I was talking in the general way we all do. If you ask so done what kind if country we live in, politically speaking, most will say a democracy. I know very well that it's a republic, which is representative democracy. Yes, I do get it. In fact I responded to another post earlier saying that the UK doesn't have a democracy EITHER. If you read that post of mine, you would see that I understand this.
Understood.
The biggest embarrassment and affront to the electoral process, IMO (regarding the political parties) is that they have colluded to exclude third parties and candidates from debates and from being listed on ballots. THAT is a major threat to the republic.
Unfortunately, and I don't want to begin a political battle here, but we are getting hardening of positions. More from one side than the other. I get nervous when religious belief gets involved in the political process, and disguises itself as an economic position, or as a civil position, or otherwise. The founders were very suspicious of religion, and for good reason, it's very anti democratic. And I use that term in the general sense, as I'm sure you understand.
I think we have too much respect for each other to launch into impassioned attacks over personal points of view, so we can leave it where we are. I prefer a political system that respects a clear division between church and state. There is always room for respectful disagreement.
If you're talking about parroting, you're parroting what home schoolers say. How is that different? I've worked in the NYC school system as a volunteer since my daughter was in kindergarten. I spent a lot of time working with the central board. I've got some familiarity with it.
Home schooling almost always means that ones teacher is ones parent. That alone is limiting. It's not like talking to a real, objective teacher. The parent is still the parent. And there's no guarantee that a parent is qualified to teach many subjects. Parents are also subject to their own considerable biases. But in the USA, that doesn't really matter. As it's so dependent on an individual state here, rather than the federal government, standards vary so much as to be useless. I don't know what standards there are in the UK.
I would just like to remind you that your views are just as biased as you think mine are.
Sorry for inserting myself into this discussion (I apologize if I'm getting on your nerves), but you must also admit that teachers are human and harbor their own biases. There is no such thing as complete objectivity. Everyone brings to the table their own experiences and opinion.
I would just like to remind you that your views are just as biased as you think mine are.
That's okay. I didn't need to be reminded, nor did I ask to be reminded; but I guess you felt I did. ????
I don't think we disagree too much on that last part then. I also prefer clear separation between church and state. My concern is that that separation is withering away.