Official Democrat Compliment\Complaint Form

Hey, let's not leave the Frisbeetyrians out of this conversation.
 
It it similar with teaching. My wife is a teacher (Anthro Major, taught history). I once discovered in conversation that the only criteria to being a teacher is a desire to teach. There is no instruction, school, curricula, etc. where one can major or even get a certificate as "teacher". It answered my long asked question of, "how is it teacher Q is considered a "better" teacher than teacher W?" The difference?, just a knack - OMFG! Why don't we have Drs of Teaching? After all, these are the people who instruct our future races!
Click to expand...

Yup, scary what teaches our children. :yesnod:
 
These assertions are false. I can tell you firsthand that philosopy majors are taught more than the history of philosophy. New areas are explored. Old areas are explored from different points of view. In other words, philosophy is practiced.

As for teaching, there are countless schools offering education majors. Universities are not usually in the business of certifying teachers, but states and municipalities certainly are. Seeing that you are a Yankees fan, you might be aware that in NYC the newbies are subject to student teaching and observation prior to certification. Additional training and experience is required for certain certifications, such as special ed.

(BTW, I see that the Yankees are on track to go 108-54. Not bad.)
 
JerryP said:
You can "believe" anything is true but that doesn't make it "the" truth.
Click to expand...

I agree! Belief doesn't make something true!

JerryP said:
I agree history is facilitating (religious, philosophical, etc.) but so is our political system but when I say "truth" I am saying what is true for ALL. Democracy is good but if it were the "truth" there would be no discussion of how it is done. So far, in all the reaches of history the truth has never been realized and until it is we will keep on "arguing". I can't see how studying history can help find TRUTH. The history has bee "there" but truth is still being sought. It won't be found in history.
Click to expand...

I think the conversation has pretty much come to a close. Thanks for talking with me. This was fun.
 
servantofone said:
I'm guessing you haven't studied the actual Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. So you, like I, have to trust what other scholars say about them. If you don't mind, I would like to know which scholars you have read. I'd like to read what they have to say.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much a matter of which scholars agree on this, since it's pretty much all of them.
Maybe more to the point would be, which objective sources have you read which support your claim that there are no significant divergences between the Qumran texts and the Masoretic texts? It would be hard to come up with this, considering that even among the Masoretic texts there are minor differences.
 
oldgeez said:
These assertions are false. I can tell you firsthand that philosopy majors are taught more than the history of philosophy. New areas are explored. Old areas are explored from different points of view. In other words, philosophy is practiced.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Now I have a new tack that doesn't seem too different from the religious one except belief may not be a factor. So, assuming that man today is more advanced than man of the past (after all, as Douglas Adams points out we have evolved to the point of inventing the digital watch) and if philosophy is being practiced shouldn't we expect some advanced breakthroughs in this?


oldgeez said:
As for teaching, there are countless schools offering education majors. Universities are not usually in the business of certifying teachers, but states and municipalities certainly are. Seeing that you are a Yankees fan, you might be aware that in NYC the newbies are subject to student teaching and observation prior to certification. Additional training and experience is required for certain certifications, such as special ed.
Click to expand...

As you say, universities are not usually in the business of certifying teachers. Wouldn't it be something if they were, like graduate school and then before becoming certified they had to do a successful internship. Being proven accomplished as an educator of our youth they could also be paid the correct scale (such as a Dentist or a Doctor might be). As far as states and municipalities certifying? I am certified as a building Fire Safety Director in NY City. A Fire Safety Director is a $40,000 job and it took taking a $300 course and 100 question multiple choice test. I am also certified to inspect sprinkler systems and that was a 25 question test and cost $25. It's good that they DO require this certification but if the level of education of the NY youth is an example they aren't doing much more than what I did to be "certified". I just feel that this field has been given short shrift and it is passed down to the children. For lack of a better analogy, if I ride a bus, I want my bus to be driven by an accomplished and proven bus driver. I don't want to later say, "that was the worst bus driver I ever had" or even, "that was the best bus driver I ever had". That the bus driver was good and got me to my destination safely is all I'm interested in.
 
JerryP said:
... So, assuming that man today is more advanced than man of the past (after all, as Douglas Adams points out we have evolved to the point of inventing the digital watch) and if philosophy is being practiced shouldn't we expect some advanced breakthroughs in this? ...
Click to expand...

digital watches notwithstanding, your assumption may not hold. we certainly know more than past humans did about the workings of the universe, but some of those old guys -- Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, the Bernoullis, or even older like Archimedes -- I think they might be able to give a modern man a run for his money.
 
monkfish said:
digital watches notwithstanding, your assumption may not hold. we certainly know more than past humans did about the workings of the universe, but some of those old guys -- Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, the Bernoullis, or even older like Archimedes -- I think they might be able to give a modern man a run for his money.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't mean to discredit past accomplishments. They are what they are BUT if they were/are philosophical truths I would expect that there would be some universal advancements in the field. Orville and Wilbur certainly had some innovative and "crazy" ideas about being able to fly but they barely got off the ground (literally). But the next generations took their ideas to a new heights (I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a better way to say it). It just doesn't seem that our philosophy has advanced the same way.

I would think the same for political systems (getting back on topic????). Our Forefathers came up with a pretty good political system (not perfect) that one would hope would progress and improve. Instead it seems to have digressed to petty partisan bickering name-calling where one party is perfectly content with cutting off their nose to spite their face and won't even consider something like dialog. The other party doesn't have the priorities straight but the no-party are just acting like obstinate children instead ("no") instead of communicating with the goal of solving the problems of the country. Unfortunately part of the "digression" affects the candidates being offered to vote for and all we get are best of the worst (maybe). That is no choice unless the real powers just need the right people "in charge" who will forward THEIR agenda. Big money, big pharma and population control (psychiatric drugging of the population).

Who watches the watchmen?
 
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the political system put in place by the guys back in the 1770's. What we have today is far removed from what was then. Yes, some adaptations needed to be made with the growth of the country and technical innovations, but they did not set up an overarching federal nanny state. Your state government should be a much larger presence in your life than the federal government.
Two quotes from Winston Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "
Yes, I know that we are NOT a Democracy, but a Representative Republic, but the quotes still ring true to me.
 
DanC said:
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the political system put in place by the guys back in the 1770's. What we have today is far removed from what was then. Yes, some adaptations needed to be made with the growth of the country and technical innovations, but they did not set up an overarching federal nanny state. Your state government should be a much larger presence in your life than the federal government.
Two quotes from Winston Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "
Yes, I know that we are NOT a Democracy, but a Representative Republic, but the quotes still ring true to me.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
I know this would be wildly unpopular, but I believe that the right to vote should be limited to those paying taxes to the subject level of government. In other words, no Federal income tax paid, no vote in Federal elections.
It would probably work out that everyone could vote in State and local races, due to sales taxes.
 
DanC said:
I know this would be wildly unpopular, but I believe that the right to vote should be limited to those paying taxes to the subject level of government. In other words, no Federal income tax paid, no vote in Federal elections.
It would probably work out that everyone could vote in State and local races, due to sales taxes.
Click to expand...

Huh??!!
You would disenfranchise me for having a low income?

What if you took the theme of the 'party of no' to extremes? That is, if it's always a good time for a tax cut, let's cut it to zero. That way nobody could vote.
 
I would much prefer that the entire IRS structure be eliminated, replaced by a Federal sales tax at the consumer level ONLY, adjusted for the so-called 'poverty line'. Everyone would pay according to income, everyone would vote, and the deficit would be eliminated in short order. It's called the Fair Tax.
 
DanC said:
I would much prefer that the entire IRS structure be eliminated, replaced by a Federal sales tax at the consumer level ONLY, adjusted for the so-called 'poverty line'. Everyone would pay according to income, everyone would vote, and the deficit would be eliminated in short order. It's called the Fair Tax.
Click to expand...

So you still link suffrage and tax payment?
 
One of the main forces which has pushed the government to it's present overbloated, overcontrolling, unmanageable and unsustainable level has been people voting themselves increased government benefits.
I'll meet you halfway. You don't have to pay taxes to vote, but if you receive any government benefits, whether monetary or in-kind, other than Social Security RETIREMENT benefits, you surrender your right to vote. Producers who sustain (or sustained) the nation should determine the course of the nation.
 
DanC said:
One of the main forces which has pushed the government to it's present overbloated, overcontrolling, unmanageable and unsustainable level has been people voting themselves increased government benefits.
I'll meet you halfway. You don't have to pay taxes to vote, but if you receive any government benefits, whether monetary or in-kind, other than Social Security RETIREMENT benefits, you surrender your right to vote. Producers who sustain (or sustained) the nation should determine the course of the nation.
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness. Brilliant! If you are taking advantage of welfare, you can't vote your way to increased welfare.
 
servantofone said:
Oh my goodness. Brilliant! If you are taking advantage of welfare, you can't vote your way to increased welfare.
Click to expand...

I see. So my Veterans Administration benefits or educational benefits disenfranchise me. What about indirect benefits such as Federal transit subsidies? Should they count?
Exactly what problem are we solving here?


Personally, I think an IQ test should be required.
 
Broaden the terms then, VA benefits, Military Pension, if you EARNED what you're receiving, you're good. To use Servant's term, if you're on welfare, no vote.

IQ test or basic Civics test would make me happy also. Combine the two, perhaps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top