Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles

(+) Yeah! (+)

babylonian numerals or bust
---

I'd say one major problem of our education system is actually that so many people believe it's primary focus should be preparing people for the workforce. I remember so many people back in college, and even me back in school thinking "When am I ever going to use this?"

But our education system should be more than that. Schools shouldn't be job factories. The idea that knowledge is only useful if you can profit off of it is a mistake. There's an inherent benefit to knowing something, even if it provides no practical use.
---

Ashethan posted...

I'd say one major problem of our education system is actually that so many people believe it's primary focus should be preparing people for the workforce. I remember so many people back in college, and even me back in school thinking "When am I ever going to use this?"

But our education system should be more than that. Schools shouldn't be job factories. The idea that knowledge is only useful if you can profit off of it is a mistake. There's an inherent benefit to knowing something, even if it provides no practical use.

This would unfortunately be a worldview much more compatible in a world where our inherent sense of worth isn't tied to how much value we can create for capitalists

red sox 777 posted...

Ashethan posted...

https://www.wfla.com/national/survey-most-americans-say-arabic-numerals-should-not-be-taught-in-school/2012373609

56% of Americans think Arabic Numerals should not be taught in schools.

I blame the dumbing down of our education system. Instead of teaching students about the difference between a number and a numeral, and teaching them about different classes of numbers like natural numbers, whole numbers, integers, fractions, decimals, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc., our dumbed-down schools just teach students that there are just "numbers" and they are objective, universal, and real, rather than abstract imaginary objects. I bet most students don't even know that decimals are a way of expressing sums of fractions.

Please stop pretending that you know what schools do.
---

Ashethan posted...

I'd say one major problem of our education system is actually that so many people believe it's primary focus should be preparing people for the workforce. I remember so many people back in college, and even me back in school thinking "When am I ever going to use this?"

But our education system should be more than that. Schools shouldn't be job factories. The idea that knowledge is only useful if you can profit off of it is a mistake. There's an inherent benefit to knowing something, even if it provides no practical use.

I absolutely agree with this, just think that right now there are a lot of predatory schools out there who are just in it for the money and hide behind being "schools." They don't offer students a good liberal education (not politically liberal, liberal as in liberal arts) or good job prospects, they mainly offer a piece of paper.

For my proposal, I think it's important that this not be used to discriminate based on major. So I would limit it to schools that don't require students to choose a major at the time of enrollment. Also the rates can't change midway through school based on major choice.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Ashethan posted...

https://www.wfla.com/national/survey-most-americans-say-arabic-numerals-should-not-be-taught-in-school/2012373609

56% of Americans think Arabic Numerals should not be taught in schools.

I blame the dumbing down of our education system. Instead of teaching students about the difference between a number and a numeral, and teaching them about different classes of numbers like natural numbers, whole numbers, integers, fractions, decimals, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc., our dumbed-down schools just teach students that there are just "numbers" and they are objective, universal, and real, rather than abstract imaginary objects. I bet most students don't even know that decimals are a way of expressing sums of fractions.

Please stop pretending that you know what schools do.

I'm not pretending. I know.
---

You're saying schools arent teaching different classes of numbers and that's just not true.

You're making stuff up to try to reinforce your point.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You're saying schools arent teaching different classes of numbers and that's just not true.

You're making stuff up to try to reinforce your point.

I'm saying they aren't doing a good job of it. And the evidence for that is that 56% of people apparently don't know what Arabic numerals are.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You're making stuff up to try to reinforce your point

Hi have you seen who you're talking to? This is perfectly normal for that user.

Not knowing what Arabic numerals are is not the same as not knowing the difference between whole numbers, integers, etc...
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You're saying schools arent teaching different classes of numbers and that's just not true.

I'd say it depends very much on the school. My daughter learned the different classes of numbers in 8th grade.
---

Tag
---

What blows my mind about the gun debate is that people can look at all of the problems our current society has with guns and seriously try and argue that it's okay based on what the founding fathers said almost 250 years ago, before any of the technology causing our current problems even existed. Especially when the Constitution was explicitly designed to be a malleable document specifically for the reason that times change and it's impossible for the creators to have known about and accounted for everything. Can anyone explain that in a way that makes it sound rational?

I suppose you can claim that "enacting gun control laws" and "repealing/changing the 2nd amendment" are 2 different debates and that the first can't happen until the 2nd happens. That has some degree of legitimacy I guess, but it's a level of nuance that doesn't seem like it reflects how actual discussions on the issue take place?
---

Ashethan posted...

it's

---

pyresword posted...

Can anyone explain that in a way that makes it sound rational?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!
---

NFUN posted...

pyresword posted...

Can anyone explain that in a way that makes it sound rational?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

SHALL NOT

NOT

NO
---

pyresword posted...

Especially when the Constitution was explicitly designed to be a malleable document specifically for the reason that times change and it's impossible for the creators to have known about and accounted for everything.

No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's wrong here. The founding fathers were perfect people who wrote a flawless document. How could anyone think they didn't know exactly what the Second Amendment meant, which just happens to be exactly what pro-gun people want it to mean? (PS - You have to ignore any pre-Heller precedents and gun control laws. Obviously the liberal deep state and the globalists spent 200 years trying to suppress the REAL Constitution because they hate our freedom.)
---

Xeybozn posted...

pyresword posted...

Especially when the Constitution was explicitly designed to be a malleable document specifically for the reason that times change and it's impossible for the creators to have known about and accounted for everything.

No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's wrong here. The founding fathers were perfect people who wrote a flawless document. How could anyone think they didn't know exactly what the Second Amendment meant, which just happens to be exactly what pro-gun people want it to mean? (PS - You have to ignore any pre-Heller precedents and gun control laws. Obviously the liberal deep state and the globalists spent 200 years trying to suppress the REAL Constitution because they hate our freedom.)

The similarities between the phrasing of the Second Amendment and the Second Commandment are so strikingly similar that I'm all but convinced the founders based the Second Amendment on the Second Commandment. And they knew that the Second Commandment, by the 1780s, had inspired literally thousands of years of debate as to its meaning. So I'm pretty sure they intended the founders intended the Second Amendment to be richly debated.

Second Commandment:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice how both give a very broad direct command and also give a purpose that appears to be narrower, but neither expressly says that the direct command is limited by the purpose. The plain meaning of the text of the Second Commandment appears to say that you cannot draw any pictures of anything that exists in reality, and that is indeed the interpretation followed in Islam and some Calvinist churches. But that doesn't seem to square with the purpose - why would drawing an elephant offend God's jealousy if we aren't worshiping it?

So anyway, presuming that the founders were well-read scholars of history, they surely knew about the long history of debate over the meaning of the Second Commandment, and their choice to fashion the Second Amendment after it means that they intended it to be interpreted differently by different people and hotly debated for centuries.
---

so, jerks

I know we have this debate constantly, but I'll reiterate my view on why the second amendment represents a fundamental freedom as much as speech, religion, etc.

People have a right to defend themselves and their family. They should not have to rely on the government to provide them with that protection. Having access to reasonable defense weapons is necessary to ensure this right.

For example, imagine if you are in a rural setting. A mob of people are surrounding your house, ready to drag you out and kill you. You can call 911, but by the time they arrive, you'll already be dead. Your only means of reasonable self-defense will be a semi-automatic weapon to fend off the group. If you don't have the right to own that weapon, you are essentially dead. That's not a free society.

If you think that example is extreme, this is exactly what was happening in the 1950s against black families in the Deep South (which incidentally is where much of the gun grabbing was initiated).
---

Going to defend no background checks or can we agree that the NRA is insane?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If you think that example is extreme, this is exactly what was happening in the 1950s against black families in the Deep South (which incidentally is where much of the gun grabbing was initiated).

You are concerned about this happening again but you arent concerned women would go back to coat hangers if abortion is illegal
---

Also heritage, not hate
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If you think that example is extreme, this is exactly what was happening in the 1950s against black families in the Deep South (which incidentally is where much of the gun grabbing was initiated).

You are concerned about this happening again but you arent concerned women would go back to coat hangers if abortion is illegal

That's not a counterargument
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Going to defend no background checks or can we agree that the NRA is insane?

I think common sense background checks are fine, but you have to be really careful with this. We are essentially trying to determine which citizens can't be trusted to defend themselves from harm.
---

Yes, the Second Amendment is about a fundamental distrust for government. Not sure the background check rationale makes sense either. If the right to bear arms is about self-defense, should you lose the right to defend yourself for life just because you are convicted of a crime? How about a conviction for disorderly conduct for participating at a civil rights march? Throwing a snowball at a police officer in middle school?
---

Well the counterargument is that a free society is not in societys best interest and we have to impose limits
---

I will say, I find the law in California (and maybe other states? I don't know what the rules are there) on temporary restraining orders to be very questionable. Right now, you have to turn in your firearms after being served with a temporary restraining order, before the hearing. The problem is that in issuing the TRO, the judge basically assumes everything the person requesting the restraining order says in their pleading is true, figuring that the truth will come out at the hearing.

Well, the truth won't come out at the hearing if the person requesting the restraining order murders you first, knowing that for a period of a couple weeks, you will be disarmed. I suppose in practice most criminals don't think to first apply for TROs against their victims, but they could and this would totally eviscerate the utility of firearms in self-defense.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

For example, imagine if you are in a rural setting. A mob of people are surrounding your house, ready to drag you out and kill you. You can call 911, but by the time they arrive, you'll already be dead. Your only means of reasonable self-defense will be a semi-automatic weapon to fend off the group. If you don't have the right to own that weapon, you are essentially dead. That's not a free society.

What if you have the right to something, but you can't afford it and end up "essentially dead"? Is that a free society?
---

Thats an interesting idea

If we have to have the right to defend ourselves from lynch mobs to be considered free, should the government PROVIDE for that freedom by offering guns to those who cant afford them?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats an interesting idea

If we have to have the right to defend ourselves from lynch mobs to be considered free, should the government PROVIDE for that freedom by offering guns to those who cant afford them?

Shall we ask the NRA?
---

Sure! See if theyre down with low-income minorities being armed by the government

Youve heard of Obamaphones, well here come BidenBlasters
---

there's no way you could defend your home against a mob of gun-toters with just a semi automatic rifle

you need land mines, grenades and rocket launchers at the bare minimum
---

banananor posted...

there's no way you could defend your home against a mob of gun-toters with just a semi automatic rifle

you need land mines, grenades and rocket launchers at the bare minimum

Get ready for TulsiTanks!
---

I need ICBMs with nuclear warheads for self-defense against angry mobs with military-level equipment. Also to protect myself from government tyranny. I assume this is legal, but will the government pay for it?
---

Everyone is so clever for saying bombs are necessary for self defense! I can't believe no one has ever made that joke consistently in this context!
---

Facility, proximity mines only.
---

https://twitter.com/steveholland1/status/1131221427162689537

The most pathetic thing Ive seen in a while
---

35 million!?!?!

That means that every American on average spent...*checks notes*...almost 11 cents on the investigation! I cannot even believe the nerve of those Democrats to waste 0.000875% of the national budget on this.

This is of course ignoring the often-cited peculiarity that the investigation evidently turned a profit as a result of Manafort
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/steveholland1/status/1131221427162689537

The most pathetic thing Ive seen in a while

Even more so because the investigation actually MADE money.
---

Well, the Constitution places the authority of the United States to conduct federal investigations in the hands of one single person, who, throughout the Mueller investigation, was in a position where he could have fired Mueller and terminated the investigation at any point. This person, through the deputy of his deputy, originally hired Robert Mueller as special counsel and chose not to fire him ever. Therefore, if the investigation was too expensive, I think it follows that this one person should accept responsibility for that.
---

This response to that tweet was hilarious:

https://twitter.com/barbhah/status/1131235717504479232
---

I kind of what to know how much Trump or the White House spent on the defense to the Mueller investigation. I suspect it's a lot higher than $35 million.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131537528736100352

Donald Trump is calling Rex Tillerson dumb as a rock, ill prepared, and ill equipped to be secretary of state. Now remind me again... who hired him for the position?

He only hires the best people.

*looks at Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos* Huh, what do you know they fit that description too if you replace "Secretary of State " with "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" and "Secretary of Education" respectively.
---

Ashethan posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131537528736100352

Donald Trump is calling Rex Tillerson dumb as a rock, ill prepared, and ill equipped to be secretary of state. Now remind me again... who hired him for the position?

He only hires the best people.

*looks at Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos* Huh, what do you know they fit that description too if you replace "Secretary of State " with "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" and "Secretary of Education" respectively.

All of his people are great scapegoats.
---

https://twitter.com/bernstein/status/1131610423386607617?s=21

RooshV, the most famous pickup artist blogger, well, ever, has just declared to his followers that he is now a devout Christian and no longer approves of casual sex and they can't talk about it on his website.

This is the fate that awaits ExTha
---

Sometimes you really gotta switch up the grift

'the mother of excess is not joy but joylessness'
---

Pelosi is smart and has caught on to Trump's plan to bait Democrats to impeach him so that he can be acquitted by the Senate.
---

pouring one out for the krassenstein brothers