Has many unjust laws, and is ruled by complete morons.
The laws of the US and UK do everything possible to make it painless to rectify the mistake and even go so far as to place virtually the entire burden (retrieval, payment for storage, etc.) on the person making the mistake.
They try, but I only I can decide whether or not they succeed.
I don't understand how refraining from explicitly teaching critical thinking skills as a formal doctrine at an early age, and allowing a child to come up with their own tools for dealing with the world first, equates to suppression. You act as if I were suggesting some Orwellian indoctrination process into a belief in the state.
This entire time, you've been suggesting that we hold off on 'teaching' critical thinking skills because people might question authority figures and interrupt the rote memorization process, or something to that effect. I don't care for that.
You don't give children access to power tools when they turn 5.
Education is far from a power tool, and is only dangerous if you have an agenda of promoting ignorance.
But I know parents who do show their kids how to use such things at such early ages. A good learning experience, I say.
I don't know how many people have that specific 'problem', but I've found many who care about what clothes you wear, or whether or not you say "curse words", for example.
So yeah, I'm completely opposed to the idea that we should hold off on encouraging critical thinking because people might actually think about things and question things, if that wasn't already apparent. If that means people will challenge some of this rote memorization education, then so be it; I'm fine with that.
The idea that we need to suppress people's critical thinking skills early on because people might question authority figures is something I find positively absurd. People are going to question things either way, and again, if you're teaching by rote, chances are, you screwed up.
or example, that "being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly" is *very* important to knowing whether you have enough money in your pocket to buy the things you have in your shopping basket when you get to the checkout
Nonsense. That has nothing to do with multiplication tables or anything of the sort. I think this is part of the reason math 'education' in this country is so abysmal; people treat it as nothing more than a tool they can use to complete mundane tasks. We have tools to do such boring, repetitive nonsense. In fact, you don't need multiplication tables or a rote memorization education to do such simple things. This is just garbage.
I think you really need to look up the term "Cultural Relativism"
I don't think I do.
not everyone wants to live in an apartment with cable TV, within walking distance of a Walmart, a McDonald's, and a Pizza Hut.
So don't. But if enough people don't want to be part of some culture, then I don't think we should force them to do so. Holding back education so people remain ignorant and obedient to keep certain cultures alive... I find that idea absolutely disgusting.
But I've never had to make that choice, and it comes down to a long list of people to chose from that have demonstrated technical skills necessary for programming and engineering positions.
It seems rather unlikely to me that any two candidates could have the same amount of experience, talent, and knowledge. Was this merely used to conveniently filter out people to save time?
as most people are to some degree
Then it seems we as a society have a problem on our hands.
I feel that the sooner you teach children to THINK, the smarter they will be as adults-- and, the more profound and varied their educational underpinning at that time, the more empowered their minds will be.
That much I agree with. I think many people would be smarter, though not necessarily what I'd call truly intelligent. I do not deny that having an educational system that isn't complete garbage would help most people.
Everyone has a brain suitable for critical thinking
Everyone (With very few exceptions...) has a brain that's at least capable of it to some extent, but whether or not they're actually intelligent is another matter.
I think you missed the part where I said that some critical thinking skills are formed on their own
I don't think I missed anything.
It's counter productive to impair the ability to teach children rote information by teaching them to doubt the source before attempting to teach them the rote information.
You're not teaching them to doubt a source. You're teaching them to use their brains. If you're teaching by rote, chances are (though not always), you're not teaching much of anything. Multiplication tables are garbage, for instance; math is not about being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly, but even if it were, people will naturally memorize things they see often.
is effectively cultural genocide.
Education is not about skill sets, or keeping certain cultures that rely on obedience alive.
Exactly. Why would we ever want to 'teach' people to have critical thinking skills? Schooling is all about indoctrination and rote memorization, and actual thoughts would just get in the way of that.
I'd guess that about half the population (IQ below 100) will never get programming no matter how hard you try to teach them.
That depends on what you mean by "get programming." If you're merely talking about making any sort of program and the quality of the code doesn't matter at all, then I disagree. If you're talking about being competent, then I think far less than half could "get programming." IQ also has nothing to do with it.
Whether I am or am not is 100% irrelevant to whether I am correct. Even a complete moron could notice what I did.
But yes, it's entirely possible for someone who says such things to be "different" (more intelligent, in this case). Then there's the fact that most people don't make it very difficult to be more intelligent than them, and you have a situation where even people of mediocre intelligence appear intelligent compared to the majority.
Even people of below average intelligence are still pretty darn smart
I don't care about averages or IQs. I care about someone's level of intelligence (and IQ measures no such thing), and I find that a grand majority of people are absolutely unintelligent. They're not very capable of logical reasoning; complicated abstract thought is foreign to them; and they're highly unaware.
If you don't trust them with your private information, don't share it with them
That doesn't sound like a good solution to me. People can take completely unexpected courses of action sometimes, and you can't honestly expect people to be on guard with people are supposedly their friends in the fear that their 'friends' will release information to slimy companies. It's just not a viable solution. In fact, even after you stop giving them information, they already have some of it.
Clearly not. Many people were alive in times when even the US government was ignoring people's rights, and yet they don't seem to have any problem giving the government powers that it will easily abuse.
Maybe you don't understand the historical context here.
No, I do. Bogeymen largely don't exist, though, and going back to WW2 isn't going to convince me otherwise.
That said, it would also be foolish to operate this program without oversight and transparency.
The TSA operates in broad daylight, and yet its very existence necessitates that people's rights be infringed upon. Transparency and oversight, while helpful, do not alone fix the problem; they must be stopped from 'merely' collecting this information to begin with.
We did give up for a while after 9/11, but it's not permanent, bad government never is.
But I think it shows that most people are unintelligent and easily manipulated that they'd so readily give up their freedoms in exchange for safety, real or not. Even if the fear is weakening, this is a recurring problem that we'll see time and time again. People, by and large, do not learn from history.
Ignoring reality (that most people are sheep) and letting people get away with crimes/having sympathy for people who commit crimes are different things.
The reality is, more likely than not, you would do the SAME thing in their shoes. Most people would.
Slashdot Mirror
The law is intended to provide a fair and moral framework for humans to live by
Considering the state of the world, I don't think that's working out too well.
No, this is about you being an ass.
I disagree about who's the "ass".
You live in a society which
Has many unjust laws, and is ruled by complete morons.
The laws of the US and UK do everything possible to make it painless to rectify the mistake and even go so far as to place virtually the entire burden (retrieval, payment for storage, etc.) on the person making the mistake.
They try, but I only I can decide whether or not they succeed.
The 60k people listening to phone calls and reading your emails/tweets whatever are supposed to stop atrocities.
And you trust them, despise the fact that every government in history abused its powers?
When the huge net they cast actually catches a bad fish, nobody will ever know.
Nor do I care. Freedom and privacy are more important to me than safety, real or imagined.
I don't understand how refraining from explicitly teaching critical thinking skills as a formal doctrine at an early age, and allowing a child to come up with their own tools for dealing with the world first, equates to suppression. You act as if I were suggesting some Orwellian indoctrination process into a belief in the state.
This entire time, you've been suggesting that we hold off on 'teaching' critical thinking skills because people might question authority figures and interrupt the rote memorization process, or something to that effect. I don't care for that.
You don't give children access to power tools when they turn 5.
Education is far from a power tool, and is only dangerous if you have an agenda of promoting ignorance.
But I know parents who do show their kids how to use such things at such early ages. A good learning experience, I say.
I don't really think so.
I don't know how many people have that specific 'problem', but I've found many who care about what clothes you wear, or whether or not you say "curse words", for example.
So yeah, I'm completely opposed to the idea that we should hold off on encouraging critical thinking because people might actually think about things and question things, if that wasn't already apparent. If that means people will challenge some of this rote memorization education, then so be it; I'm fine with that.
The idea that we need to suppress people's critical thinking skills early on because people might question authority figures is something I find positively absurd. People are going to question things either way, and again, if you're teaching by rote, chances are, you screwed up.
or example, that "being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly" is *very* important to knowing whether you have enough money in your pocket to buy the things you have in your shopping basket when you get to the checkout
Nonsense. That has nothing to do with multiplication tables or anything of the sort. I think this is part of the reason math 'education' in this country is so abysmal; people treat it as nothing more than a tool they can use to complete mundane tasks. We have tools to do such boring, repetitive nonsense. In fact, you don't need multiplication tables or a rote memorization education to do such simple things. This is just garbage.
I think you really need to look up the term "Cultural Relativism"
I don't think I do.
not everyone wants to live in an apartment with cable TV, within walking distance of a Walmart, a McDonald's, and a Pizza Hut.
So don't. But if enough people don't want to be part of some culture, then I don't think we should force them to do so. Holding back education so people remain ignorant and obedient to keep certain cultures alive... I find that idea absolutely disgusting.
But I've never had to make that choice, and it comes down to a long list of people to chose from that have demonstrated technical skills necessary for programming and engineering positions.
It seems rather unlikely to me that any two candidates could have the same amount of experience, talent, and knowledge. Was this merely used to conveniently filter out people to save time?
as most people are to some degree
Then it seems we as a society have a problem on our hands.
I feel that the sooner you teach children to THINK, the smarter they will be as adults-- and, the more profound and varied their educational underpinning at that time, the more empowered their minds will be.
That much I agree with. I think many people would be smarter, though not necessarily what I'd call truly intelligent. I do not deny that having an educational system that isn't complete garbage would help most people.
Everyone has a brain suitable for critical thinking
Everyone (With very few exceptions...) has a brain that's at least capable of it to some extent, but whether or not they're actually intelligent is another matter.
How can you possibly be good at critical thinking if you don't realize this and try to take this minimal step to assuage them?
Perhaps they don't want to be sheep. Perhaps this is their way of eliminating worthless, incompetent, and superficial employers.
You're teaching them to use their brains.
But then again, that's something you can only facilitate for the elite few who actually have worthwhile brains.
I think you missed the part where I said that some critical thinking skills are formed on their own
I don't think I missed anything.
It's counter productive to impair the ability to teach children rote information by teaching them to doubt the source before attempting to teach them the rote information.
You're not teaching them to doubt a source. You're teaching them to use their brains. If you're teaching by rote, chances are (though not always), you're not teaching much of anything. Multiplication tables are garbage, for instance; math is not about being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly, but even if it were, people will naturally memorize things they see often.
is effectively cultural genocide.
Education is not about skill sets, or keeping certain cultures that rely on obedience alive.
Exactly. Why would we ever want to 'teach' people to have critical thinking skills? Schooling is all about indoctrination and rote memorization, and actual thoughts would just get in the way of that.
I'd guess that about half the population (IQ below 100) will never get programming no matter how hard you try to teach them.
That depends on what you mean by "get programming." If you're merely talking about making any sort of program and the quality of the code doesn't matter at all, then I disagree. If you're talking about being competent, then I think far less than half could "get programming." IQ also has nothing to do with it.
But of course, you are different, right?
Whether I am or am not is 100% irrelevant to whether I am correct. Even a complete moron could notice what I did.
But yes, it's entirely possible for someone who says such things to be "different" (more intelligent, in this case). Then there's the fact that most people don't make it very difficult to be more intelligent than them, and you have a situation where even people of mediocre intelligence appear intelligent compared to the majority.
Even people of below average intelligence are still pretty darn smart
I don't care about averages or IQs. I care about someone's level of intelligence (and IQ measures no such thing), and I find that a grand majority of people are absolutely unintelligent. They're not very capable of logical reasoning; complicated abstract thought is foreign to them; and they're highly unaware.
Probably true. It's not necessarily that we're in any sort of decline; a grand majority of people have always been unintelligent.
50% of people are practically morons.
More like 99.99%.
If you don't trust them with your private information, don't share it with them
That doesn't sound like a good solution to me. People can take completely unexpected courses of action sometimes, and you can't honestly expect people to be on guard with people are supposedly their friends in the fear that their 'friends' will release information to slimy companies. It's just not a viable solution. In fact, even after you stop giving them information, they already have some of it.
People learn just fine from history.
Clearly not. Many people were alive in times when even the US government was ignoring people's rights, and yet they don't seem to have any problem giving the government powers that it will easily abuse.
Maybe you don't understand the historical context here.
No, I do. Bogeymen largely don't exist, though, and going back to WW2 isn't going to convince me otherwise.
That said, it would also be foolish to operate this program without oversight and transparency.
The TSA operates in broad daylight, and yet its very existence necessitates that people's rights be infringed upon. Transparency and oversight, while helpful, do not alone fix the problem; they must be stopped from 'merely' collecting this information to begin with.
I'll take that as acquiescence to my arguments. Thanks dude!
I'll take that as an admission that your previous comment was incorrect. Thanks dude!
We did give up for a while after 9/11, but it's not permanent, bad government never is.
But I think it shows that most people are unintelligent and easily manipulated that they'd so readily give up their freedoms in exchange for safety, real or not. Even if the fear is weakening, this is a recurring problem that we'll see time and time again. People, by and large, do not learn from history.
So we are just going to ignore reality?
Ignoring reality (that most people are sheep) and letting people get away with crimes/having sympathy for people who commit crimes are different things.
The reality is, more likely than not, you would do the SAME thing in their shoes. Most people would.
That's irrelevant, even if true.