I'll just assume that he is a criminal because... nothing to hide, nothing to fear! The government or its workers can never be corrupt and/or make mistakes.
I just don't bother even so much as humoring the people who never move on. If it makes them so angry that I don't know about something that they like, then they do not sound like a person I'd like to interact with, anyway.
Except that you're wrong. Taking these classes are good because being "well-rounded" is good because I said so. You might use it in the future (even if you already know it) so you had better waste extra time and money learning something that you might use but probably won't.
You may not know it, but probably most of the techniques and methods that are core to your specialization have roots in other fields.
I don't care. If you want to, go learn to be a rocket scientist. Just leave me out of it.
My philosophy is that you never know when what you know will come in handy, so learn as much as possible.
As much as possible? That's a lot of things. In that case, you had better spend your entire life in college and work to sustain that lifestyle. Otherwise, you might come across a piece of knowledge that you don't know yet (which is just 'horrible')!
You seem to feel that that you are prescient enough to anticipate every turn and challenge in your life and know exactly what you need to and no more.
No. It's just that I don't want to waste (to me, it is a waste) tons of time learning things when there is only a minuscule chance that I will need them. Especially things I'm not even interested in to begin with. I have no desire to learn how to be a rocket scientist or anything such as that, for example.
That's fine I guess, but when someone upstages you by pulling out some crazy shit you never considered because it wasn't interesting enough, you might feel differently.
And when that doesn't happen to someone, they might feel differently (just an assumption on my part).
I also think it ceases to be an opinion when you can use a multitude of data points to prove that a broad education makes for a better life. YMMV
No. You talked about "value." Therefore, no matter how many people hold the opinion, it is still an opinion. Whether it leads to a "better life" or not is also subjective.
It is up to the individual person to decide if that is what they want (or should be, in my opinion). I find no value in such classes.
Because memorization of random facts will make you twice as smart, of course! Also, it's because some people believe that there is value in taking irrelevant courses. Therefore, that is a fact.
Not to mention that some people don't want to take the classes that they see as mere "filler" because it would take time away from the things that they do care about and will actually use. Not everyone cares so much about talking to others about things that they don't even care about/won't use.
A little off topic, but there's no such thing as a filler class. Only people who don't realize the full value of a well rounded education seem to consider breadth courses as a waste of time.
That's your own opinion. Some people find no value in some classes because they believe that they'll never use them.
I wouldn't want to bother learning things that both don't interest me and that I don't believe I will use (and I'm willing to take that risk).
Regardless, people who choose to only expose themselves to a single subject or viewpoint are almost universally boring or close minded, or some combination of the two.
The right to property is inalienable - natural, self evident and universal.
What? Care to prove that? I believe the "right to property" is nothing more than your ability to hold onto things and stop others from taking them away. And then the law gets involved and tries to prevent theft.
To me, all property rights are granted by law. I don't believe in "inalienable" rights at all.
Perhaps not for all people. But my response is, "It depends on the person/child." For me, things like that just raised further questions and I reacted as if someone used reverse psychology on me (the exact opposite of what they wanted). Even if it works in some cases, I don't believe it should be done.
but if they were about to step in front of a truck
That's not really what I meant. I meant that I don't believe that the universe (or some deity whose morals are absolute) thinks that I "should" do something.
It's called an analogy. I did not compare it to murder, but the fact that the people in both scenarios thought that their punishment was "justified" (which, seemingly according to your post, means that the punishment is "okay").
So if someone knew they would be murdered for, say, talking back to their parents, and they thought it was justified (the victim), nothing should be done about it if they were murdered?
Whether I "should" do something or not is up to me to decide. And unless they're attacking me and are capable of harming me, I wouldn't hit them (in other words, only in self-defense). They can touch the oven if they want. Smacking them doesn't teach them why they shouldn't touch the oven. What hurt them was your hand, not the oven.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't actually say "all," so no, he's not telling you that they can't afford a movie.
Still, I'd like to know how he knows that they "usually" can't afford it.
I'll just assume that he is a criminal because... nothing to hide, nothing to fear! The government or its workers can never be corrupt and/or make mistakes.
How is bribing someone with money speech?
It's really true that highschool never ends.
I just don't bother even so much as humoring the people who never move on. If it makes them so angry that I don't know about something that they like, then they do not sound like a person I'd like to interact with, anyway.
I don't see the point in forcing everyone to take classes that they don't want to take just to make them go to vocational institutes, either.
Except that you're wrong. Taking these classes are good because being "well-rounded" is good because I said so. You might use it in the future (even if you already know it) so you had better waste extra time and money learning something that you might use but probably won't.
And he'll probably just forget most of it even if he had to take some class, anyway.
wasting my time exclusively studying things that felt natural to me.
Uh... I don't think that most people would say that they wasted their time. Nice anecdotal evidence, though.
And that is their folly.
That depends on who you ask.
You may not know it, but probably most of the techniques and methods that are core to your specialization have roots in other fields.
I don't care. If you want to, go learn to be a rocket scientist. Just leave me out of it.
My philosophy is that you never know when what you know will come in handy, so learn as much as possible.
As much as possible? That's a lot of things. In that case, you had better spend your entire life in college and work to sustain that lifestyle. Otherwise, you might come across a piece of knowledge that you don't know yet (which is just 'horrible')!
You seem to feel that that you are prescient enough to anticipate every turn and challenge in your life and know exactly what you need to and no more.
No. It's just that I don't want to waste (to me, it is a waste) tons of time learning things when there is only a minuscule chance that I will need them. Especially things I'm not even interested in to begin with. I have no desire to learn how to be a rocket scientist or anything such as that, for example.
That's fine I guess, but when someone upstages you by pulling out some crazy shit you never considered because it wasn't interesting enough, you might feel differently.
And when that doesn't happen to someone, they might feel differently (just an assumption on my part).
I also think it ceases to be an opinion when you can use a multitude of data points to prove that a broad education makes for a better life. YMMV
No. You talked about "value." Therefore, no matter how many people hold the opinion, it is still an opinion. Whether it leads to a "better life" or not is also subjective.
It is up to the individual person to decide if that is what they want (or should be, in my opinion). I find no value in such classes.
Because memorization of random facts will make you twice as smart, of course! Also, it's because some people believe that there is value in taking irrelevant courses. Therefore, that is a fact.
it used to be having a degree was a certification that you had knowledge and skill
I don't think that was ever the case. Even if they didn't cheat, it is still possible that they are poor at solving problems in the real world.
Whose morality? Not everyone has the same moral code.
Not to mention that some people don't want to take the classes that they see as mere "filler" because it would take time away from the things that they do care about and will actually use. Not everyone cares so much about talking to others about things that they don't even care about/won't use.
A little off topic, but there's no such thing as a filler class. Only people who don't realize the full value of a well rounded education seem to consider breadth courses as a waste of time.
That's your own opinion. Some people find no value in some classes because they believe that they'll never use them.
I wouldn't want to bother learning things that both don't interest me and that I don't believe I will use (and I'm willing to take that risk).
Regardless, people who choose to only expose themselves to a single subject or viewpoint are almost universally boring or close minded, or some combination of the two.
Again, your own opinion.
The right to property is inalienable - natural, self evident and universal.
What? Care to prove that? I believe the "right to property" is nothing more than your ability to hold onto things and stop others from taking them away. And then the law gets involved and tries to prevent theft.
To me, all property rights are granted by law. I don't believe in "inalienable" rights at all.
Not true.
Perhaps not for all people. But my response is, "It depends on the person/child." For me, things like that just raised further questions and I reacted as if someone used reverse psychology on me (the exact opposite of what they wanted). Even if it works in some cases, I don't believe it should be done.
but if they were about to step in front of a truck
If you can hit them, then you can pull them away.
That's not really what I meant. I meant that I don't believe that the universe (or some deity whose morals are absolute) thinks that I "should" do something.
It's called an analogy. I did not compare it to murder, but the fact that the people in both scenarios thought that their punishment was "justified" (which, seemingly according to your post, means that the punishment is "okay").
repeated lectures on morality
Not sure what stating your personal morals as a fact would accomplish.
So if someone knew they would be murdered for, say, talking back to their parents, and they thought it was justified (the victim), nothing should be done about it if they were murdered?
What she thought is irrelevant.
and should
Whether I "should" do something or not is up to me to decide. And unless they're attacking me and are capable of harming me, I wouldn't hit them (in other words, only in self-defense). They can touch the oven if they want. Smacking them doesn't teach them why they shouldn't touch the oven. What hurt them was your hand, not the oven.
You'll understand why all of your arguments are completely incorrect when you're older.
Everyone who downloads paid for content without paying for it posts their:
If they want to post it, then they can. No one is going to stop them or force them to. But I don't see how information can "want" anything.
Why wouldn't they? The credit unions are stealing money from them! A potential loss is actually theft.