Me, and my loved ones are doing fine thank you. They are paying more than their share for the health care. It's not them or myself that I'm worried about, but the man on the street. The unemployed and the very least payed people. Those are the people that have no (or very limited) insurance in the USA and pay the most for getting sick or unemployed.
It's not good enough to say that even they already have it better than people used to. If you're living in one of the richest countries in the world you're entitled to expect that your fellow citizens will take care of you when you most need it. Of course that also means that they also have a duty to help their fellow men and women. That kind of duty is best done through a state health insurance and unemployment compensation. That way everyone in the community pays a little to help those who need it - and know that if they in turn should ever need health insurance or get unemployed they'de be covered.
Otherwise your society is just a fancy form of every man for himself and let only the fittest survive. My belief is that men have evolved past that point, but then maybe I'm a dreamer.
Who says what the job of the government is? You? God? The constitution? I claim that the job of the government is to do what the people want it to do. In wellfare states that means that people willingly pay a bit more taxes to provide basic services for everyone. It means there's less poor, less homeless, less crime, less safelessness. In a wellfare state you don't NEED to own a gun to protect yourself, because the system isn't such that it makes people into criminals. (There will always be crime, but the system need not breed it.)
You say if government does anything beyond minimal regulation people suffer because of loss of "freedom". What kind of freedom is it to let your near ones go without food, shelter, health care? That's no freedom, that's cruelty.
I say, if the state does not some how guarantee a minimum of health care and social support a part of the populace suffer a real loss, a loss of dignity, a loss of life worth living. I am happy to pay taxes so that people around me can live a dignified life. I don't think it's okay for people to live on the streets, starve to death, be treated as criminals for simply existing at all. It's the task of the strong to take care of the weak, not to push them around.
What good is it being rich if people around you suffer?
Umm, I was making a generalization about the relation of how you learn a language and what aspects of language you are good in. There is no value judgement there, whatsoever. I just know that many, who can write pretty good English are still quite bad in talking it. That includes me to some extent. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
Judging how people talk is always subjective, yes. Nonetheless most English varities share some common sounds. IMO you can argue that a non-native who can't make required distinctions between sounds is just speaking plain wrong. That is not a value judgement, it just means that more practice is required.
It is a fact that speaking a thick dialect will put you at disadvantage in job interviews etc. Some dialects more than others. That's people discriminating, not me. I know (and I keep that firmly in mind) that if I have to struggle to understand what someone is saying (in English or in Finnish) it affects how I think about their mental abilities. That is appalling, THERE IS NO CONNECTION, I know, but I bet that most people feel the same way. That is also why it's stupid to see foreign state heads etc. speaking in foreign accents in English dubbings. The people look like uneducated idiots.
To finish off with, I would like to say that the problem with people like you is that you are too quick to jump to conclusion about people you do not know.
Also, you seem to value yourself quite high by implying that you, unlike most of the humanity can think outside the box. IMO The greater the man, the humbler he ought to be.
You laud the ability of foreigners to write English. Have you ever heard them talk? They are so fluent in writing because it is primarily how they have learned the language. English has a horrible writing system, because the writing does not reflect the pronunciation. That is why people who speak English natively make more errors in their writing. That is why SMS speak is so widespread. That is also why people who mainly learn English through texts are often so horrible in pronouncing it.
As for the discipline, I'd say that earning the kids' respect goes a long way. Not treating them like they'd all be little criminals who need constant supervision and fear of punishment in order to keep them in line.
At least here in Finland the emphasis is moving from being a distant authority figure to being respected, but not feared. That kind of respect you have to earn. That also means that the children are partly responsible for their own learning.
Maybe that's just pipe dreams and my education is of no real value. But one thing I know, I wouldn't want my kids in a school where the main emphasis of the whole thing was to keep the kids in line. You know, being just another brick in the wall.
(Not necessary just for the parent) From Wikipedia: "Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
This does not mean that anybody ever who mentions Hitler is wrong and automatically lost! If I say some dork on Usenet is like Hitler then sure, I'm dead wrong. But is my argument totally unfounded if I say that Stalin was almost as bad (or worse) than Hitler? No. Both engaged in terrible atrocities. China is also violating human rights so there is some ground for comparison here.
It is certainly true that the longer the thread, the greater the chance that Hitler will be mentioned (one could also say that about wanking pink monkeys). It is not a law in any real sense of the word that you automatically lose, it is a tradition which is IMO bandied around too much in situation where there is room for legitimate comparison. I think people just want to prove their internet savvines by reminding of Godwin's law every time Hitler is mentioned. You don't need no Godwin to tell a wanker who's comparing your granma to Hitler that his wrong. Bringing the guy up in situations like this is pointless.
Godwin - preventing legitimate discussion in the 'net since 1990!
I say it is vitally important that SOME people challenge the current reality, even if it sounds unreasonable. In effect you are saying that basically the situation is right, if we are not to suggest any big changes to it? I think we have to acknowledge that real change is only possible if we challenge the current consensus that is wrong. Without communism there wouldn't be 8 hour work days, pensions or public health care. Without Richard Stallman there wouldn't be OS operating systems as we know it today. It all started with his GNU. He maybe a bit crazy, but that's why he's needed. If you start paying too much heed to the main stream then you stop being a force for change. YOU be the middle man if you feel one is necessary. Let Richard preach, he has earned that right. When his ideas go too far beyond reason people will stop listening. I suspect many already have.
Slashdot Mirror
Me, and my loved ones are doing fine thank you. They are paying more than their share for the health care. It's not them or myself that I'm worried about, but the man on the street. The unemployed and the very least payed people. Those are the people that have no (or very limited) insurance in the USA and pay the most for getting sick or unemployed.
It's not good enough to say that even they already have it better than people used to. If you're living in one of the richest countries in the world you're entitled to expect that your fellow citizens will take care of you when you most need it. Of course that also means that they also have a duty to help their fellow men and women. That kind of duty is best done through a state health insurance and unemployment compensation. That way everyone in the community pays a little to help those who need it - and know that if they in turn should ever need health insurance or get unemployed they'de be covered.
Otherwise your society is just a fancy form of every man for himself and let only the fittest survive. My belief is that men have evolved past that point, but then maybe I'm a dreamer.
Who says what the job of the government is? You? God? The constitution? I claim that the job of the government is to do what the people want it to do. In wellfare states that means that people willingly pay a bit more taxes to provide basic services for everyone. It means there's less poor, less homeless, less crime, less safelessness. In a wellfare state you don't NEED to own a gun to protect yourself, because the system isn't such that it makes people into criminals. (There will always be crime, but the system need not breed it.)
You say if government does anything beyond minimal regulation people suffer because of loss of "freedom". What kind of freedom is it to let your near ones go without food, shelter, health care? That's no freedom, that's cruelty.
I say, if the state does not some how guarantee a minimum of health care and social support a part of the populace suffer a real loss, a loss of dignity, a loss of life worth living. I am happy to pay taxes so that people around me can live a dignified life. I don't think it's okay for people to live on the streets, starve to death, be treated as criminals for simply existing at all. It's the task of the strong to take care of the weak, not to push them around.
What good is it being rich if people around you suffer?
Umm, I was making a generalization about the relation of how you learn a language and what aspects of language you are good in. There is no value judgement there, whatsoever. I just know that many, who can write pretty good English are still quite bad in talking it. That includes me to some extent. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
Judging how people talk is always subjective, yes. Nonetheless most English varities share some common sounds. IMO you can argue that a non-native who can't make required distinctions between sounds is just speaking plain wrong. That is not a value judgement, it just means that more practice is required.
It is a fact that speaking a thick dialect will put you at disadvantage in job interviews etc. Some dialects more than others. That's people discriminating, not me. I know (and I keep that firmly in mind) that if I have to struggle to understand what someone is saying (in English or in Finnish) it affects how I think about their mental abilities. That is appalling, THERE IS NO CONNECTION, I know, but I bet that most people feel the same way. That is also why it's stupid to see foreign state heads etc. speaking in foreign accents in English dubbings. The people look like uneducated idiots.
To finish off with, I would like to say that the problem with people like you is that you are too quick to jump to conclusion about people you do not know.
Also, you seem to value yourself quite high by implying that you, unlike most of the humanity can think outside the box. IMO The greater the man, the humbler he ought to be.
You laud the ability of foreigners to write English. Have you ever heard them talk? They are so fluent in writing because it is primarily how they have learned the language. English has a horrible writing system, because the writing does not reflect the pronunciation. That is why people who speak English natively make more errors in their writing. That is why SMS speak is so widespread. That is also why people who mainly learn English through texts are often so horrible in pronouncing it.
As for the discipline, I'd say that earning the kids' respect goes a long way. Not treating them like they'd all be little criminals who need constant supervision and fear of punishment in order to keep them in line.
At least here in Finland the emphasis is moving from being a distant authority figure to being respected, but not feared. That kind of respect you have to earn. That also means that the children are partly responsible for their own learning.
Maybe that's just pipe dreams and my education is of no real value. But one thing I know, I wouldn't want my kids in a school where the main emphasis of the whole thing was to keep the kids in line. You know, being just another brick in the wall.
(Not necessary just for the parent)
From Wikipedia: "Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
This does not mean that anybody ever who mentions Hitler is wrong and automatically lost! If I say some dork on Usenet is like Hitler then sure, I'm dead wrong. But is my argument totally unfounded if I say that Stalin was almost as bad (or worse) than Hitler? No. Both engaged in terrible atrocities. China is also violating human rights so there is some ground for comparison here.
It is certainly true that the longer the thread, the greater the chance that Hitler will be mentioned (one could also say that about wanking pink monkeys). It is not a law in any real sense of the word that you automatically lose, it is a tradition which is IMO bandied around too much in situation where there is room for legitimate comparison. I think people just want to prove their internet savvines by reminding of Godwin's law every time Hitler is mentioned. You don't need no Godwin to tell a wanker who's comparing your granma to Hitler that his wrong. Bringing the guy up in situations like this is pointless.
Godwin - preventing legitimate discussion in the 'net since 1990!
I say it is vitally important that SOME people challenge the current reality, even if it sounds unreasonable. In effect you are saying that basically the situation is right, if we are not to suggest any big changes to it? I think we have to acknowledge that real change is only possible if we challenge the current consensus that is wrong. Without communism there wouldn't be 8 hour work days, pensions or public health care. Without Richard Stallman there wouldn't be OS operating systems as we know it today. It all started with his GNU. He maybe a bit crazy, but that's why he's needed. If you start paying too much heed to the main stream then you stop being a force for change. YOU be the middle man if you feel one is necessary. Let Richard preach, he has earned that right. When his ideas go too far beyond reason people will stop listening. I suspect many already have.