I got a slap on the wrist for starting this thread, it'll stay open while it remains friendly.

Its all been very civil so far!

1)What kind of school are you referring too?
Overhere if you want to teach primary school you'll have to pass some school but it's just nothing. It has been proven that 10 year old kids, on average, are better at maths (aritmetics really) and language than their teachers.
And for secondary schooly it's the same as overthere: get a certain degree of the classes you want to teach and a teaching certificate.

There's not really much wrong with that. If it would be very hard to gain the certificates to be allowed to teach, no-one would be interested in teaching anymore. As long as they know what the kids need to know, it's cool.


2)That's completely different here then. Overhere, the government hands out scholarships to anyone capable of studying anything. If you perform like shit, you have to pay them back tho.
Also, the lower your parents income (they are supposed to help you out in the costs), the more funding from the government.
But you'll have to understand, proper education just is terribly expensive.

3)And I completely disagree with you on welfare. It should be done away with because of the fact that people live on it vs have it temporarily to get back on their feet again.

Well if those people wish to live on welfare, instead of getting a job, fine by me. But they shouldn't go complaining about how poor they are.[/quote]

1) The schools I am referring to are elementary to Highschool : kids age 6-18. Math teachers here, some of them only took an elementary class in college. its different. VERY rarely a teacher for math that gets a teaching degree" which is an actual degree here , have the same background in the subject they are going to teach vs sombody with an actual degree in that subject.
I.E> Person X has a teaching degree and is teaching math
Person Y has a mathmatics degree but is not allowed to teach because he doesnt do the "teaching program"
Person X only took a fraction of mathematics classes vs Person Y
Who do you want to teach your kid math? Person X or Y? Thats a no brainer, Person Y every time.
At the University I graduated from: the teaching degree had many classes that were required that were simply not pertanant (sp) to the subkject they wished to teach. My roomate who was in the school of education had to take Sociology, Psychology, etc. things that had nothing to do with the actual subject that was to be taught in the future from him. Now the arguement is " well it helps him learn more about how to deal with people" BS. you cant teach personality, character or charisma. Taking these nominal classes arent going to help somebody become a good teacher. Knowing the Subject completely at least gives the teacher a background to really start with. An education degree in my opinion simply doesnt do that.


2) good policy: I wish it were more the case here. They have affirmative action here which is more based on what flavor you come in vs what kind of student you are or potential you have.

3) I disagree. tax payers are flipping the bill for them to do absolutely nothing. I am all for helping people out. Again: if it were a program where it was only for getting them back on their feet, happy days. But that would require govt workers to actually work and do something. Why are they all so lazy? govt and welfare recipients? thats easy: because the can be.

Now, in my OPINION, if a female, no matter what age, doesn't want children, then she shouldn't engage in consentual sex. If you have consentual sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that you may conceive. Not accepting that consequence is irresponsible and immature. If you don't want to face the decision of having to abort, don't have sex. That's how I feel about it. You can disagree with me all you want; it's your right. I'm not going to shove my opinions and beliefs down your throat so please don't do so to me. And please don't try to say that I'm doing that with my stated opinion above. It's just how I feel. Everyone has their own choices to make.

Surely, by that logic, the same should apply to both males and females? If a man does not want to be faced with the prospect of being a parent/supporting a child/being involved in the abortion/adoption of a child, he should equally not be having sex?

Having said that, I agree in principle with that comment...however, the real world does not work that way for the majority of people.

I said I was going to keep a close eye on the thread. That's hardly a slap on the wrist. If people can stay civil, then there's no problem. Right?

I don't think there's anything wrong with this thread. No-one seems to be unfriendly?

And to Goat:
I didn't know you were talking on an international, worldwide level. I was thinking more nationally, which changes the whole perspective on the welfare issue.
And, maybe I'm being naive, but I can't believe the whole keep-them-dependant thing. I just don't think 'the rich' (talking on a world-wide level, I'm part of 'the rich') are up to such conspiracies (not on a consious level).

It is a structural necessity of the capitalist economy. It is subconscious, the human aspect of it all MUST be supressed, but THE CHANGES should be made on the conscious level, and so far no one is willing to make the effort. It is hard to let go of the profit. Capitalism can't stand losing the profit. And making life better for the poor means exactly that. Structurally, which means it can't be avoided. Like the jumpiness of the mods - Atari only issued a warning in advance. I hope no one gives the mods the reason to lock this one on purpose, like with some predictable shit I could also write down in advance, because we all know what kind of shit locks this kind of touchy topics. It's becoming boring, I've been on SYL and DTB boards for less than a year and pretty much every topic on politics or religion, where people's opinions SHOULD be changed, was locked. Why? Because people wouldn't give up their sometimes stupid opinions and after not being able to defend them they would simply torch the thread leaving the mods with no option but to seal it down. I'm not talking about discussions here, the discussion is when both sides are stuggling with the arguments, I'm talking about situations where someone is cornered and his last argument is "I have the right to my own opinion." This phrase should be forbidden, because it is not about "you" having "your own" opinion but about "you" having an opinion which is co-creating the atmosphere "WE ALL" are living in so it damn fucking right is important for me to be able to talk some sense into someone or have some sense talked into me by someone. It's about self reflection, I mean ... everyone has a sense of justice, it's just hard to listen to. I think I wouldn't be far off if I say that's the path Devin travels, his whole opus is built on self reflection. And what did he say he found on Synchestra? He found humility. And the non-pathetic essence of humility is being able to admit that you are/were wrong when you are/were wrong and not bailing out with boring persistence. ALL people should learn this lesson, this is where I'm being naive.

An interesting perspective...though I htink more important than being able to admit you were wrong on topics such as this is the recognition that no-one is necessarily wrong. As long as all participants in a debate recognise that, there is no need for them to get out of hand

yade yade yade

bla bla bla

No offence meant in cutting it down, it's just a long-ass story. You got me beat, you're right in this.

But I don't think people do this on purpose, on a concious level.

An interesting perspective...though I htink more important than being able to admit you were wrong on topics such as this is the recognition that no-one is necessarily wrong. As long as all participants in a debate recognise that, there is no need for them to get out of hand

You are trying to water it down. The fact is that anyone who gets out of hand is a loser in an argument. And I'm talking precisely about situations where someone is unable to defend his opinion and uses exactly the strategy you are proposing, the "leave me alone" attitude of "no one is necessarily wrong" policy. But this is wrong because two people arguing a point can't be right at the same time. It's impossible. The consensus is thus artificial and fake. And it's safe to say the policy of the mods here is: better fake consensus than chaos. And don't get me wrong, I'm down with that to some degree, many times to a lower degree, but I do know it is necessary. But I also know that the most fruitful discussions are the ones with slight bias towards the chaotic side where people are firing it up focusing on the topic itself and not digressing and bailing out with unrelated stuff, interpreting someone's post with no regards of the message the post was trying to get across and shit like that.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this thread. No-one seems to be unfriendly?

And to Goat:
I didn't know you were talking on an international, worldwide level. I was thinking more nationally, which changes the whole perspective on the welfare issue.
And, maybe I'm being naive, but I can't believe the whole keep-them-dependant thing. I just don't think 'the rich' (talking on a world-wide level, I'm part of 'the rich') are up to such conspiracies (not on a consious level).

It is a structural necessity of the capitalist economy. It is subconscious, the human aspect of it all MUST be supressed, but THE CHANGES should be made on the conscious level, and so far no one is willing to make the effort. It is hard to let go of the profit. Capitalism can't stand losing the profit. And making life better for the poor means exactly that. Structurally, which means it can't be avoided. Like the jumpiness of the mods - Atari only issued a warning in advance. I hope no one gives the mods the reason to lock this one on purpose, like with some predictable shit I could also write down in advance, because we all know what kind of shit locks this kind of touchy topics. It's becoming boring, I've been on SYL and DTB boards for less than a year and pretty much every topic on politics or religion, where people's opinions SHOULD be changed, was locked. Why? Because people wouldn't give up their sometimes stupid opinions and after not being able to defend them they would simply torch the thread leaving the mods with no option but to seal it down. I'm not talking about discussions here, the discussion is when both sides are stuggling with the arguments, I'm talking about situations where someone is cornered and his last argument is "I have the right to my own opinion." This phrase should be forbidden, because it is not about "you" having "your own" opinion but about "you" having an opinion which is co-creating the atmosphere "WE ALL" are living in so it damn fucking right is important for me to be able to talk some sense into someone or have some sense talked into me by someone. It's about self reflection, I mean ... everyone has a sense of justice, it's just hard to listen to. I think I wouldn't be far off if I say that's the path Devin travels, his whole opus is built on self reflection. And what did he say he found on Synchestra? He found humility. And the non-pathetic essence of humility is being able to admit that you are/were wrong when you are/were wrong and not bailing out with boring persistence. ALL people should learn this lesson, this is where I'm being naive.

Good post. hats off man. to me personally , arguements arent about winning and losing, its more about gaining an understanding of what people think and why they think that way. Im simply too old to try to "enighten" people or to fight for any length of time with somebody who is set in their ways from whatever indoctrination they have engaged in.. All I can do is put my view out: view the responses, then move on from there.

I said I was going to keep a close eye on the thread. That's hardly a slap on the wrist. If people can stay civil, then there's no problem. Right?

You made me cry.

Im simply opposed to the legislation of morality. there. thats my statement, Im sticking to it.

I said I was going to keep a close eye on the thread. That's hardly a slap on the wrist. If people can stay civil, then there's no problem. Right?

You made me cry.

What??? How can you cry with such a great avatar? Not possible I say.

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

This isn't a simple issue that can be fixed by a broad ruling that doesn't take individual circumstances into account.

Now, in my OPINION, if a female, no matter what age, doesn't want children, then she shouldn't engage in consentual sex. If you have consentual sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that you may conceive. Not accepting that consequence is irresponsible and immature. If you don't want to face the decision of having to abort, don't have sex. That's how I feel about it. You can disagree with me all you want; it's your right. I'm not going to shove my opinions and beliefs down your throat so please don't do so to me. And please don't try to say that I'm doing that with my stated opinion above. It's just how I feel. Everyone has their own choices to make.

Do you realize you completely changed your mind? In the first post the girl is paying for her promiscuity with pregnancy ("if you want to have unprotected sex, take into account that you may get pregnant and give birth to a child"), and in the second she's paying for her promiscuity with abortion ("if you want to have unprotected sex, take into account that you may get pregnant and have to abort the child")?

Which one is it then? Where is the line? Does the proverbial socially sensitive bureaucrat decide? Dou you really feel that way? Under what circumstances would you NOT allow a girl to abort the unwanted child? And further: how is it fair to use the conceived child as a means of punishment for the recklessness of the mother?

It may be your opinion, but my sense of justice finds your opinion offensive, so all I can do is try and find out how you justify your offensive opinion. Is that too much to ask? Am I shoving anything down your throat?

First, let me say that I never used the word punishment. That was your interpretation of my statements. I never feel a child is or should ever be "used as punishment". That's horrible and should never be a consideration.

Second, I didn't change my mind at all. The first statement was a hypothetical situation to simply show that a broad ruling can't possibly apply to all cases. I was trying to show the different questions someone might ask in the given situation, not necessarily how I regard the situation personally. Regarding the second statement, you twisted my words a bit. I didn't say the female would have to "pay for her promiscuity with abortion". I said if she doesn't want to face the possibility of having to choose between giving birth or abortion, don't have consentual sex.

What I'm trying to say is where does the responsibility lie? Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but it seems to me that abortion is too easy to use as a method of absolving yourself of any responsiblity. Again, this is simply my opinion and I'm not trying to tell others how to live.

I'm not trying to dish out punishment of any kind. I want that to be perfectly clear. I am glad that all of us are able to discuss this here in a civilized manner. Well, I was supposed to be somewhere else about an hour ago, so I should really get going. I hope this discussion remains civil. It's interesting to read others' views on this topic.

Now, in my OPINION, if a female, no matter what age, doesn't want children, then she shouldn't engage in consentual sex. If you have consentual sex, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that you may conceive. Not accepting that consequence is irresponsible and immature. If you don't want to face the decision of having to abort, don't have sex. That's how I feel about it. You can disagree with me all you want; it's your right. I'm not going to shove my opinions and beliefs down your throat so please don't do so to me. And please don't try to say that I'm doing that with my stated opinion above. It's just how I feel. Everyone has their own choices to make.

Surely, by that logic, the same should apply to both males and females? If a man does not want to be faced with the prospect of being a parent/supporting a child/being involved in the abortion/adoption of a child, he should equally not be having sex?

Having said that, I agree in principle with that comment...however, the real world does not work that way for the majority of people.

Oh yes, absolutely. I also believe the future father of the possible child should definitely have a say in the choice to abort or not. Again, this is simply my opinion. I have my choices to make on my own, so do you all.

Ugh, all this serious debate is too much for one night. College is stressful enough. Thankfully I have a full week off now to decompress.

I got a slap on the wrist for starting this thread, it'll stay open while it remains friendly.

I would say this discussion has remained more civil than almost every radio or TV program I've ever heard or seen debating this topic. People have stayed calm and relatively articulate through the whole discussion.

So, I would like to applaud this board for having more tact and maturity than the majority of people in media and government. Let's keep it that way.



....or I could just.... oh nevermind.