I'm a member of the Common Sense Party. That means that I hate Liberals & Conservatives with an equal amount of passion.
Well everyones definition of common sense is different. Where do you stand on issues? Iraq? Economy? etc
its all very well to hate parties with a passion, but without offering an alternative?? come on man, answer ewans quetstion
That's a very twisted and bias way of looking at things. In society everyone lives and makes wealth off each other, that is why communism is taken on board by so amny. At school people are only working for themselves.
also, school is about your education so you are able to further your knowledge, and people cheating are not furthering there knowledge
people cheat in life as well, not just "education". I pay for a lot of lazy people by paying taxes that go to welfare, so gilligans little comparison makes perfect sense and does not leave much to skew...
I pay for a lot of lazy people by paying taxes that go to welfare, so gilligans little comparison makes perfect sense and does not leave much to skew... What about people that can't work? What about people who have two jobs and still need the money. It's not unkown. I guess they're lazy too.
Gilligan what about all the sons of the rich who spend their lifes jerking off? Were they successful? Did they earn their wealth?
Gilligan Ok first up under the libertarian ideas typified by such people as Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged etc) education would be based on the ability to pay. This would mean that only those children with parents with the means in resources and time would be educated. ** I also find it funny that someone is pushing a novel (and one as unrealistic as Atlas Shrugged) as a means of discovering “reality”? ** It then needs to be asked why you are here? I mean it seems to me that Rand and her ilk argue that humans do (and should) do things only for their financial advantage that it the motivator, so are you getting paid to write here or is their another purpose that is not financial and if so why are you in opposition to Rand’s thesis? ** And so we come to an analysis of your thought experiment – You postulate that in a given class one person should do the studying and the other copy of that one person, Yes? Well in socialist thought education is very important but it is about assisting people in the realising of potential. Under this principal it is known that some are going to be good at certain subjects and not in others. So some people are going to have an interest in mechanics, metal work or art and others in philosophy, history or languages, just as on these very forums there are those that like talking (and teaching) about computers and other who like to debate the relative merits of objectivism and communism. Education would be about helping people with these interests and yes even in getting them to pass on their knowledge to others. So Gill you are in a way right, but so wrong. I’ll explain. Nearly everyone has interests, some subjects or activities that they like to learn about. (if they don’t that usually is a sign of some other problems that need an educators help possibly with social or medical assistance) Socialist education stresses the co-operative nature of learning, it does not abolish competition but understands that too much emphasis in competition can lead to the exclusion. So let us go back and correct you biased viewpoint – now a socialist educator would not allow the class to just copy off one person because that is not realising the potential of the pupils involved. But they might stress a co-operative approach to the subject. So let us say the subject is George Washington, they might ask pupils what they would like to study about him, some might be interested in the military part others the political and still others the social. The educator thereby finds aspects of the subject that they all find interesting. And then they present the parts of the subject they have learnt about so that the others can learn about it also. In this way they learn the nature of co-operation and that they are a community in which people have different levels of ability and interests but which together can achieve its goal. ** Now let us look at what seems to be your image of education. First up it is only open to those who can afford it so your society is at once divided, it is then further divided because their will be different levels of education with the richer being taught in exclusive premium institutions and others getting what they can afford. You also seem to think that competition is the basis of education so again you divide the pupils within schools into ‘achievers’ and ‘failures’ dependent on subject and grade. This means you end up with a segregated society where the exploitation of ‘inferiors’ is seen as acceptable.
