What a travisty

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

As I understand it (most if not all) US states don't really have a splitting of high school types regarding curriculum and workload depending primarily on student IQ, correct?

This would IMO be one of the most predominant reasons why results could lack with respect to other nations. The average performance of students when both good and bad students are lumped together should be lower after all. On top of that I can also well imagine it holds back a lot of good students when they're surrounded by less than bright other students and they have to keep the same pace as those around them. Similarly, those that are lagging behind could do better with a school type that's more suited and stimulating for them.

So wouldn't you say that a school system (whether public or not, though public is easier to facilitate for all and education being in the interest of everyone) should take in account the educational potential and capacity of students?


Of course that does require proper non-religious brainwashing education and the capacity on the end of the teacher to recognise potential. Including in those students and children who may have a social handicap like a language deficiency.


Oh and it encourages individual freedom to get ahead further in life, of course.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Figment

As I understand it (most if not all) US states don't really have a splitting of high school types regarding curriculum and workload depending primarily on student IQ, correct?

Depends. To an extent we do that. When I was in HS we had AP classes for english, math, chemistry, and physics that separated smart students from average students. For really intelligent students they had them dual enroll at the local university which a few students did. We also had vocational education in very specific trades like computer programming, networking, culinary arts, machining, and tons of other very specialized classes. I imagine it varies widely across the US though. Some schools give students tons of options like mine did.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

So would you say that system could use more work, or at the very least be more properly enforced throughout the public school system if 'local culture' holds people back? Because there's not much choice in being part of a local culture.

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Figment

Of course that does require proper non-religious brainwashing education and the capacity on the end of the teacher to recognise potential. Including in those students and children who may have a social handicap like a language deficiency.

Why..thats racist!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ziegler

Why..thats racist!

I notice the ironic undertone and intention, but for the sake of argument: How is applying the same standard of intellect to recognise a person who simply has a certain intellectual potential, but needs more time to compensate for having a false social start?

Meaning that just because someone doesn't speak a language sufficiently, though IQ being equaly high, they get told they simply need to find a way to overcome that, rather than dismissed as incapable. For example by working harder in extra language classes.

Note, I've seen it happen to a dutch chinese girl who herself was fully integrated, speaks perfect dutch, had a similar grammar school test result as me. Despite already helping in the restaurant of her parents who spoke next to no dutch. But because of her parents 'not being able to support her with homework', the teacher recommended her to go to mavo, instead of gymnasium or atheneum level. At the time that was three levels lower. Despite working in the restaurant every day, she ended up acing Havo (level higher) with ease, but that is too low a level to get directly into university. She could have done even better, but parents and teacher held her back.

Parents in part also because she was the second eldest. With the third being a boy and the eldest being most important she got less support. Mostly a culture determined priority thing.


So is it racist to make that analysis properly so she could have done much better?

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Figment

So is it racist to make that analysis properly so she could have done much better?

Of course it isnt. But that wont keep it from being labeled as such. I so hate hearing how so much stuff is racist. These people need to go back and talk to people who lived under real racism, what we have today is not even close.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by ziegler

Of course it isnt. But that wont keep it from being labeled as such. I so hate hearing how so much stuff is racist. These people need to go back and talk to people who lived under real racism, what we have today is not even close.

So because things were worse before, they aren't bad now?

We used to jail and execute homosexuals in the past, so merely discriminating against them today is alright?

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

So because things were worse before, they aren't bad now?

We used to jail and execute homosexuals in the past, so merely discriminating against them today is alright?

No it means quit acting like nothing has gotten better, and take advantage of the leveled playing field.

So far as that is concerned, everyone is discriminated against. I live in the bible belt and have long hair. I get discriminated against all the time.
Gay is something else all together in my mind....when I interview someone, how would I know they are gay? Their looks? It's possible to look "normal" and be gay. Who at work needs to know you are gay? ....nobody.
If you are speaking of gay marriage, I am all for that as soon as I can marry my girlfriend so me and my wife have a play partner we can carry insurance on and claim on our taxes. If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by ziegler

No it means quit acting like nothing has gotten better, and take advantage of the leveled playing field.

So far as that is concerned, everyone is discriminated against. I live in the bible belt and have long hair. I get discriminated against all the time.
Gay is something else all together in my mind....when I interview someone, how would I know they are gay? Their looks? It's possible to look "normal" and be gay. Who at work needs to know you are gay? ....nobody.
If you are speaking of gay marriage, I am all for that as soon as I can marry my girlfriend so me and my wife have a play partner we can carry insurance on and claim on our taxes. If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.

I just have one question for you, how do you equate polygamy to gay marriage? Its more like if a straight couple can get married a gay one should be too.

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by ziegler

text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

Apparently the early roman empire had allowed same sex marriage in the form of "Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles." Well damn looks like there was a case of same sex marriage. Plus there was other cases of it in the early roman empire, before the good christian emperors Constantius II and Constans outlawed it.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by ziegler

If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.

1. Why would legalizing gay marriage make polygamy viable? That's like saying if we legalize pot, we should also legalize heroin. They're two different things, and require individual perspectives and conversations. That's a logical fallacy and shame on you for not knowing better.

Most instances of polygamy that we have observed have involved abusive situations.Observe the FLDS. We have not seen any pattern of abuse, domestic or otherwise, in homosexual marriages that in any way make them different from heterosexual marriages.

2. Why are we looking at cultures of the past for our moral barometer? Just a few hundred years ago it was legal to own other human beings as property in large portions of the western world. I'm not sure we should be looking to these societies as ethical examples. Rather, I feel we should instead be setting the example for future generations.

[ziegler]

You're really going to say there isnt contraversy with gay and pedophilia? Besides that though, as there are perverts everywhere. NAMBLA...google it if you dont know what it is.

What is the difference between 2 consenting adults and 3 consenting adults? The FLDS was an excommunicated Cult of the Mormons. What about Islam? They are the religion of peace and condone polygamy. So long as everyone involved is there of their own free will, why does the government get to say if I can be married to only one person? What ill comes of it? None, it is the bigotry of society that keeps me from being able to bring our girlfriend completely into the folds of our family?

I would point out that California is now considering or has made it to where a child can have more than two parents....

Originally Posted by therandomone

I just have one question for you, how do you equate polygamy to gay marriage? Its more like if a straight couple can get married a gay one should be too.

If marriage is a civil contract, and it is about loving partnership, then why should you or anyone else be allowed to define the constraints of the relationship between consenting adults?

Can three people not love each other equally? Check out sisterwives.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by ziegler

You're really going to say there isnt contraversy with gay and pedophilia? Besides that though, as there are perverts everywhere. NAMBLA...google it if you dont know what it is.

Do your homework. The connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is a myth and has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked. This is old information. Your ignorance is showing; cover it up.

What is the difference between 2 consenting adults and 3 consenting adults? The FLDS was an excommunicated Cult of the Mormons. What about Islam? They are the religion of peace and condone polygamy. So long as everyone involved is there of their own free will, why does the government get to say if I can be married to only one person? What ill comes of it? None, it is the bigotry of society that keeps me from being able to bring our girlfriend completely into the folds of our family?

[...]

If marriage is a civil contract, and it is about loving partnership, then why should you or anyone else be allowed to define the constraints of the relationship between consenting adults?

Can three people not love each other equally? Check out sisterwives.

I will state again that the conversation about homosexual marriage legality, and polygamist legality, are two separate conversations. Homosexuality is a mind-state you can be born with. Polygamy is not. It's an entirely different social contract and your attempts to link the two are a fallacy and just go to show how little actual evidence you have to suggest that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

There is comprehensive research to suggest that polygamy can be harmful. It's not a slam-dunk, of course... there are certainly scenarios that could be cited where all parties are consenting and healthy; the research does not claim that polygamy is negative in an absolute sense. Rather, it suggests that polygamy trends towards harmful scenarios and the reasonable expectation would be that it would not be a healthy lifestyle for all parties, and that consent may not be a deciding factor.

Moreover, it's important to realize that the issues with polygamy that make it morally questionable are entirely unique to the practice of polygamy. A line cannot be drawn between the morality of gay marriage and the morality of polygamy, because polygamy is so different and poses it's own unique challenges. You're comparing apples and oranges.