While a basic subsistence level of food is not only important but NECESSARY, I’d rather live on gruel and be well educated than live on the finest cuisine and be a moron.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
While a basic subsistence level of food is not only important but NECESSARY, I’d rather live on gruel and be well educated than live on the finest cuisine and be a moron.[/quote]
“Moron” is a subjective term, regardless of what you fill your belly with.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
knewsom wrote:
While a basic subsistence level of food is not only important but NECESSARY, I’d rather live on gruel and be well educated than live on the finest cuisine and be a moron.
“Moron” is a subjective term, regardless of what you fill your belly with. [/quote]
Symmantics asside, you get my point.
…I’m guessing you’ve NEVER EVER had a scab you didn’t pick, am I right?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Eh, Knewsome knows he a closet socialist anyway. He loves Sweden.
Too bad Sweden’s not looking as hot these days:
Interesting article, BB…
it makes some good points, but I’m pretty sure they’ll regain a good balance of incentive based earning and social welfare before their work ethic COMPLETLEY erodes… Once quality of life begins to be affected, and noticably so, action will be taken.
I’m not a proponent of duplicating Sweden’s system everywhere - it’s true that they were pretty well set up to go the route they did, but at the same time, there’s a REASON they trust their government more than most people do - because the government has repeatedly given them damn good reason to be trusted. If other countries want to look to Sweden as an example of what can be done well, they also need to take a good look at the groundwork that was laid in ORDER for their system to work.
I seriously doubt that Swedens system is going to fail outright and send the country into poverty… things might change a little bit to regain some balance, but saying the whole country is doomed because people take sick days is a bit silly. The solution to that one is simple - give people fewer paid sick days, and make sure they’re taking proper measures to maintain mental health through the long winters (I suspect that depression is a big factor in the number of sick days they take).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Eh, Knewsome knows he a closet socialist anyway. He loves Sweden.
Too bad Sweden’s not looking as hot these days:
[/quote]
PS: what the heck do you mean “closet”!? I AM a socialist.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
knewsom wrote:
While a basic subsistence level of food is not only important but NECESSARY, I’d rather live on gruel and be well educated than live on the finest cuisine and be a moron.
“Moron” is a subjective term, regardless of what you fill your belly with.
Symmantics asside, you get my point.
…I’m guessing you’ve NEVER EVER had a scab you didn’t pick, am I right?[/quote]
I would rather have food when I am hungry. Only after the necessities are met does it matter what your IQ is. You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Only after the necessities are met does it matter what your IQ is.[/quote]
Oh, come on.
Does it really matter ever?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Only after the necessities are met does it matter what your IQ is.
Oh, come on.
Does it really matter ever?[/quote]
Evidently to knewsom, it matters more than nutrition.
no, EDUCATION is more important, NOT IQ…
jeez, do I have to spell everything out in point form?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
no, EDUCATION is more important, NOT IQ…
jeez, do I have to spell everything out in point form?[/quote]
Whatever. I think what I said stands whether you call it IQ, or grade level.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country. [/quote]
PS, it’s extremeley rude to call someone you don’t even know fat and lazy.
ironic, however, that I’m neither.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country.
PS, it’s extremeley rude to call someone you don’t even know fat and lazy.
ironic, however, that I’m neither.[/quote]
It’s not really ironic, I don’t think. It’s not even coincidental. It’s just counterfactual or incorrect, unless you really were a posterchild for the fat, lazy state of our country. That would be ironic.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country.
PS, it’s extremeley rude to call someone you don’t even know fat and lazy.
ironic, however, that I’m neither.
It’s not really ironic, I don’t think. It’s not even coincidental. It’s just counterfactual or incorrect, unless you really were a posterchild for the fat, lazy state of our country. That would be ironic.[/quote]
you must be REALLY bored.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
you must be REALLY bored.[/quote]
What, aren’t you having fun?
well, yeah, of course…
…but you do realize… this has become the silliest thread on the board.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
well, yeah, of course…
…but you do realize… this has become the silliest thread on the board.[/quote]
And you were the one that started it. Now, that’s ironic.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country.
PS, it’s extremeley rude to call someone you don’t even know fat and lazy.
ironic, however, that I’m neither.[/quote]
It was a metaphorical fat and lazy. Think Animal Farm.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You are a poster child for the fat, lazy state of our country.
PS, it’s extremeley rude to call someone you don’t even know fat and lazy.
ironic, however, that I’m neither.
It was a metaphorical fat and lazy. Think Animal Farm. [/quote]
It?s the book where Orwell and Raynd shake hands…
Rainjack wrote:
“Bring back flunking the dumb kids. Reward the smart ones. Outcome based education is an abysmal failure mainly because feelings and self-image have dick to do with memorizing the multiplication tables.”
Hear, hear.
(I am going to stop agreeing with you if it kills me.)
On a related note, some of the school districts around me have stopped teaching the multiplication tables by rote. They now want the kids to “understand” why 7 times 5 equals 35.
Which, of course, leads to dumdums who can’t figure out a simple math problem without their calculators.
I’m all for progressive methods of pedagogy, but sitting there for an hour chanting the times tables en masse like zombies WORKS. You shouldn’t have to think about 8x6: you should just fucking know it’s 48.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
They now want the kids to “understand” why 7 times 5 equals 35.
[/quote]
They should. Understanding that will help them understand abstract concepts in algebra a few years later.
We could argue back and forth over whether or not they should be taught the “reasons why” before they learn the tables rote, but I think we will agree that they SHOULD learn both.