Sorry mate, Hitler was ignorant how exactly? Mad perhaps, ignorant no..PuckMercury wrote:
spoken like someone ignorant to the meaning of ignorantRicardoBlanco wrote:
Hitler had extreme views, you could hardly call him ignorant.CameronPoe wrote:
Whatever your political persuasion, holding an extreme view either hard-left or hard-right requires a certain level of ignorance. Do you agree?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Extreme liberalism or conservatism requires ignorance.
Poll
Politically extreme views, liberal or conservative, require ignorance.
| Yes | 76% | 76% - 52 | ||||
| No | 23% | 23% - 16 | ||||
| Total: 68 | ||||||
Well for one he was ignorant to the sensitivities of minorities.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Sorry mate, Hitler was ignorant how exactly? Mad perhaps, ignorant no..PuckMercury wrote:
spoken like someone ignorant to the meaning of ignorantRicardoBlanco wrote:
Hitler had extreme views, you could hardly call him ignorant.
What people considered Moderate/Liberal views 50/100 years ago would be considered radically conservative by a lot of you enlightened liberals on this forum.
I guess our Grand parents were all ignorant, but I am glad they were "radical conservatives" because they made America strong and handed down great prosperity to our generations.
I guess our Grand parents were all ignorant, but I am glad they were "radical conservatives" because they made America strong and handed down great prosperity to our generations.
I would agree that either side of the extreme requires ignorance, but I would also add that you only need a small dose of liberalism to find ignorance. I do not believe however that christian conservatism is too extreme or ignorant.
Last edited by Deathscope (2006-07-30 09:48:46)
actually its common political knowledge.Major_Spittle wrote:
What people considered Moderate/Liberal views 50/100 years ago would be considered radically conservative by a lot of you enlightened liberals on this forum.
The political parties actually changed, over time. Lincoln was a Republican, but his views and actions were very liberal for that time.
The meaning of words is determined by how people use them. So, it's completely possible for words to change meanings, especially when it's as generalized as a word like "liberal" or "conservative".
The far-right claims the left, and most of the left is ignorant. They fail to see that John Kerry, Hillary + Bill Clinton, and tons of other democrats are actually leaning toward the middle, despite the times they say that John Kerry was too far to the left.
I don't want to have the fucking ten commandments in school, I'm not Christian, so why should I go to a school that goes by the ten commandments? Because the right wing is ignorant.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-07-30 10:05:06)
lol who votes no
extreme liberals or conservativesSpumantiii wrote:
lol who votes no
but 1 in 4 is alot...
I believe the liberal ideas of today are ignorant, but perhaps they were not in the past.
Last edited by Deathscope (2006-07-30 10:18:34)
I agree with you on school, but the PUBLIC school system is a sacred cow for the Democrats because of the teachers Union. A Government run school system seems so Nazi-ish or Socialist to me. School should be privatized and the government should stay out of what can and can't be taught. This way schools can diversify and provide each person with the education and atmosphere they wish to have.Spearhead wrote:
actually its common political knowledge.Major_Spittle wrote:
What people considered Moderate/Liberal views 50/100 years ago would be considered radically conservative by a lot of you enlightened liberals on this forum.
The political parties actually changed, over time. Lincoln was a Republican, but his views and actions were very liberal for that time.
The meaning of words is determined by how people use them. So, it's completely possible for words to change meanings, especially when it's as generalized as a word like "liberal" or "conservative".
The far-right claims the left, and most of the left is ignorant. They fail to see that John Kerry, Hillary + Bill Clinton, and tons of other democrats are actually leaning toward the middle, despite the times they say that John Kerry was too far to the left.
I don't want to have the fucking ten commandments in school, I'm not Christian, so why should I go to a school that goes by the ten commandments? Because the right wing is ignorant.
Why should I have to send my teenager to school that spend thousands on a Music/Arts program when he hates Music and Art and will never use it. I'd rather send him to a School that spent that money on Science and Technology labs. Why do school systems spend more on Athletic departments than any other department in High School???? What ever happened to Educating coming first in a School.
Public schools are for assimilation, not education.
One might think this is a Liberal point of view, mostly supported by Conservatives. Not supported by Dems and by some Republicans, but really not by either party because the public school system is a way to control how tax money is spent.
If you just give a voucher to a parent to cover $8000 a year for a child's education, it saves the governments millions a year in just administrative costs. The kids get a better education because private schools are competing for money via providing superior services. Also private schools that allow kids to be disruptive will go out of business, thus a much better atmosphere in schools and parents will face consequences for having a disruptive child because there will be no Public school system to baby sit them all day while they ruin other kids education.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-07-30 11:10:02)
I agree with you in saying that public school sucks - for the past 5 years I went to public school, each year at least half of my teachers were completely shitty. And I'm in a freaking manget program, the top 25 percent of students. I shudder to think of the vanilla public school system.Major_Spittle wrote:
I agree with you on school, but the PUBLIC school system is a sacred cow for the Democrats because of the teachers Union. A Government run school system seems so Nazi-ish or Socialist to me. School should be privatized and the government should stay out of what can and can't be taught. This way schools can diversify and provide each person with the education and atmosphere they wish to have.Spearhead wrote:
actually its common political knowledge.Major_Spittle wrote:
What people considered Moderate/Liberal views 50/100 years ago would be considered radically conservative by a lot of you enlightened liberals on this forum.
The political parties actually changed, over time. Lincoln was a Republican, but his views and actions were very liberal for that time.
The meaning of words is determined by how people use them. So, it's completely possible for words to change meanings, especially when it's as generalized as a word like "liberal" or "conservative".
The far-right claims the left, and most of the left is ignorant. They fail to see that John Kerry, Hillary + Bill Clinton, and tons of other democrats are actually leaning toward the middle, despite the times they say that John Kerry was too far to the left.
I don't want to have the fucking ten commandments in school, I'm not Christian, so why should I go to a school that goes by the ten commandments? Because the right wing is ignorant.
Why should I have to send my teenager to school that spend thousands on a Music/Arts program when he hates Music and Art and will never use it. I'd rather send him to a School that spent that money on Science and Technology labs. Why do school systems spend more on Athletic departments than any other department in High School???? What ever happened to Educating coming first in a School.
Public schools are for assimilation, not education.
One might think this is a Liberal point of view, mostly supported by Conservatives. Not supported by Dems and by some Republicans, but really not by either party because the public school system is a way to control how tax money is spent.
If you just give a voucher to a parent to cover $8000 a year for a child's education, it saves the governments millions a year in just administrative costs. The kids get a better education because private schools are competing for money via providing superior services. Also private schools that allow kids to be disruptive will go out of business, thus a much better atmosphere in schools and parents will face consequences for having a disruptive child because there will be no Public school system to baby sit them all day while they ruin other kids education.
Tho I think we ought to raise public funding and get to the bottom of the problem, while at the same time keeping the public school system.
Hypothetically, if we spent 100 percent of the money being spent on our military on public schools, how good do you think the public school system would be? I can imagine pretty damn good.
IMHO, the public school system is just as successful and complete as the amount of effort and spending we put into it.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-07-30 21:58:15)
Does the name really matter? i just tought i would have fun with the name it has no effect on my sense of truthghettoperson wrote:
How amusing coming from someone called 'Liberal Slayer'.Lib-Sl@yer wrote:
I am a conservative but parts of liberalism are correct the thing that people need to look out for is what works best for thier country and thier people and of course the TRUTH
I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't. For example, California is ranked 23rd for the ammount of money spent per student, I think it's close to $8,000 a year, but it's ranked 47th for student scores. I remember watching in highschool millions of dollars being put into the school. All new computers, that no teachers knew how to use, the students had to teach the teachers how to use em. I remember the school hiring a new teacher who wound up being fired after one semester of teaching because of her extremely sexist views, she didn't pass a single male student. Throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it. Schools have been unionized to the extreme and a lot of money is wasted on personel who perform redundant jobs. Teachers who have worked at a school over two years are almost impossible to fire. I remember having teachers who wouldn't teach anything in class, they'd just sit there and BS with students, then wonder why no one was passing his tests.Spearhead wrote:
I agree with you in saying that public school sucks - for the past 5 years I went to public school, each year at least half of my teachers were completely shitty. And I'm in a freaking manget program, the top 25 percent of students. I shudder to think of the vanilla public school system.Major_Spittle wrote:
I agree with you on school, but the PUBLIC school system is a sacred cow for the Democrats because of the teachers Union. A Government run school system seems so Nazi-ish or Socialist to me. School should be privatized and the government should stay out of what can and can't be taught. This way schools can diversify and provide each person with the education and atmosphere they wish to have.Spearhead wrote:
actually its common political knowledge.
The political parties actually changed, over time. Lincoln was a Republican, but his views and actions were very liberal for that time.
The meaning of words is determined by how people use them. So, it's completely possible for words to change meanings, especially when it's as generalized as a word like "liberal" or "conservative".
The far-right claims the left, and most of the left is ignorant. They fail to see that John Kerry, Hillary + Bill Clinton, and tons of other democrats are actually leaning toward the middle, despite the times they say that John Kerry was too far to the left.
I don't want to have the fucking ten commandments in school, I'm not Christian, so why should I go to a school that goes by the ten commandments? Because the right wing is ignorant.
Why should I have to send my teenager to school that spend thousands on a Music/Arts program when he hates Music and Art and will never use it. I'd rather send him to a School that spent that money on Science and Technology labs. Why do school systems spend more on Athletic departments than any other department in High School???? What ever happened to Educating coming first in a School.
Public schools are for assimilation, not education.
One might think this is a Liberal point of view, mostly supported by Conservatives. Not supported by Dems and by some Republicans, but really not by either party because the public school system is a way to control how tax money is spent.
If you just give a voucher to a parent to cover $8000 a year for a child's education, it saves the governments millions a year in just administrative costs. The kids get a better education because private schools are competing for money via providing superior services. Also private schools that allow kids to be disruptive will go out of business, thus a much better atmosphere in schools and parents will face consequences for having a disruptive child because there will be no Public school system to baby sit them all day while they ruin other kids education.
Tho I think we ought to raise public funding and get to the bottom of the problem, while at the same time keeping the public school system.
Hypothetically, if we spent 100 percent of the money being spent on our military on public schools, how good do you think the public school system would be? I can imagine pretty damn good.
IMHO, the public school system is just as successful and complete as the amount of effort and spending we put into it.
The public school system in the states doesn't need more money, it needs to be completely gutted and rebuilt. Or better yet, a voucher system and a complete move to private schools.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with this suggestion you made. (It would still require a LOT more money than we're spending now) While in theory a privatized school system for 100 percent of the underage population would be better than a public school system, I don't think society is ready for a nation-wide company owned school system.ts-pulsar wrote:
it needs to be completely gutted and rebuilt.
Have it like it is now -
(for the most part)Wealthy/Middle class go to private, Middle class/working go to public
Raise teacher wages - you raise the quality of the teacher. Those that aren't good enough don't make it. At least, that's the way I would want it to work.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-07-30 23:49:00)
California spends so much on schools with no return primarily due to kids that can't speak english (special needs children). A lot of that is a symtom of Illegal imigration and not having a designated language for the US. We can once again thank our government for these problems. This is the same government that created the public school system.
When every school has to pay for a Music Department, Athetic Department, Art Department, and to support Bilingual education department, the school costs a lot to run. When I was in high school I used none of these things and if there was a school that instead used the money for Math/science/history/grammar I could have got a better education that would have cost less. Now if someone wanted these things and there was a demand, I am sure that a private school would crop up with these departments and specialise in those things. Thus schools would not pay to have teachers, equipment, and facilities that are under utilized.
Free Market is a good thing and very effiecent. Just ask the USSR, oh wait they went broke.
When every school has to pay for a Music Department, Athetic Department, Art Department, and to support Bilingual education department, the school costs a lot to run. When I was in high school I used none of these things and if there was a school that instead used the money for Math/science/history/grammar I could have got a better education that would have cost less. Now if someone wanted these things and there was a demand, I am sure that a private school would crop up with these departments and specialise in those things. Thus schools would not pay to have teachers, equipment, and facilities that are under utilized.
Free Market is a good thing and very effiecent. Just ask the USSR, oh wait they went broke.
He was also probably ignorant of how to speak Chinese!!CameronPoe wrote:
Well for one he was ignorant to the sensitivities of minorities.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Sorry mate, Hitler was ignorant how exactly? Mad perhaps, ignorant no..PuckMercury wrote:
spoken like someone ignorant to the meaning of ignorant
Please define what you mean by "Requires Ignorance"...
The OP is a load of bollocks and this thread should be closed. THe only reason I created it was in response to the ridiculously one-sided and nonsensical thread 'Liberalism requires ignorance' created by Major_Spittle. Neither thread makes any sense and arguing points, etc. is useless as the OPs themselves are badly worded for a start.RicardoBlanco wrote:
He was also probably ignorant of how to speak Chinese!!CameronPoe wrote:
Well for one he was ignorant to the sensitivities of minorities.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Sorry mate, Hitler was ignorant how exactly? Mad perhaps, ignorant no..
Please define what you mean by "Requires Ignorance"...
?CameronPoe wrote:
The OP is a load of bollocks and this thread should be closed. THe only reason I created it was in response to the ridiculously one-sided and nonsensical thread 'Liberalism requires ignorance' created by Major_Spittle. Neither thread makes any sense and arguing points, etc. is useless as the OPs themselves are badly worded for a start.RicardoBlanco wrote:
He was also probably ignorant of how to speak Chinese!!CameronPoe wrote:
Well for one he was ignorant to the sensitivities of minorities.
Please define what you mean by "Requires Ignorance"...
having your own political idealogy decide on what your opinions should be on matters before having a moderate and objected view is, in my opinion, the wrong answer.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Extreme liberalism or conservatism requires ignorance.