Elysian Shadows

aamesxdavid wrote: I never said that everyone educated enough to understand would continue going to school, just that many more would (see: lesser-of-two-evils argument). And I never said if was fool-proof - again, simply that it was better than allowing someone to ruin their own or someone else's future before they are able to make an educated decision about it. No, education is not the only factor - but it's an important one, and it's one that we can do something about. We can't make someone mature, and we can't make someone choose something. But we can require them to have an education before making a decision like that.

Are you saying that handing over the future rights of a human being to a government rather than allowing the biological parents--the ones to bring them into the world in the first place--is the less of the 2 evils?

You must have quite a loose definition of "scientifically". First of all, in your example, the only people who would be allowed to buy cigarettes are the people who don't want them.

Since everything else in that paragraph was based off these two sentences, I'm just going to address these two sentences.

My definition of scientifically is anything pertaining to the study of a science. Everything we have discussed today has a study behind it.

And no, my example didn't say the one's who didn't want something were the one's able to buy them. It said, that I believe the one's who made the right decision were overtly the one's who were mature enough to make the decision in the first place. In my example, it was the 5 year old--defying the age law by not being an imbecile like its parent(s). And yes, I will call "not smoking" the right decision. Of course fast food is the wrong decision, but there is more logic behind the decision of eating fast food then smoking. First, fast food is cheaper than healthy food, and food in general is required to survive. The logic is--> cheaper, and still survive a fairly long time = the choice I'm going to make since I don't have that much money. Cigarettes, being completely redundant and optional, are an illogical choice entirely.

Secondly, even the factors you cite are not scientific. What scientific properties of one's emotions qualifies them as mature? I know you said that you are not the one to measure maturity, but you can't just say you believe it's possible and leave it at that. Your personality and emotions are not logical by nature - in fact, just the opposite. They are the things that cause you to do illogical things; they are the counter to the logical models science accepts. So how could something innately irrational be a determining factor in your level of maturity if you level of maturity is based off of making rational decisions?

You say science, but give opinion. You talk about emotions and personality, but present logic. That aside, after you claim to not have said you were the one to measure maturity, you go ahead and do so. And the ultimate irony is that your assumption that every decision you make boils down to mature or immature based on logical outcomes actually makes you sound less mature. Things aren't that simple, and they're far from a standard to take freedoms away from people. Not to mention, they basically completely abolishing anything you deem as immature. If the only people who are allowed to choose something will simply not do so, it's not long before that thing simply won't exist - then no one can choose it, and your standard of maturity has no basis any longer.

I follow science as far as it goes, but I know its limits. This is one of them.

Maturity and emotions are personality traits which are studied by psychology. And yes, these are all my opinions so stop being assholes about that.

Your biological emotions are designed for one reason: to keep you alive. Eating, drinking, etc. are all biological. Yes, other emotions do cause you to commit illogical actions. This is the reason that one who has conditioned the ability to ignore the urge to commit illogical actions based on said emotions are, in my opinion, more mature.

The definition of maturity is fully developed, meaning no one can ever be fully mature. But they can be more mature then something else. And stop saying stuff like "my standard of maturity." These are all ideas, and your treating them (and me) like I'm actually trying to pass them as a fucking law.

"For one, independent learning is always superior to being spoon-fed bullshit."

this statement completely relies on the fact that you have the faculties to be able to do it independently. which means alone! not with a book. text books are a form of structured education and is infact "someone" teaching you the material.

very few people on earth, never mind this forum, have the faculties to even get to trig.

i dont know where you went to school. but all my education was satisfactory, AND I WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.
so stop being a little whiny bitch, if you wanna learn, great. shut up and do it.

oh, and you are a dumb shit.. education should be a choice... clearly you have no idea what a 10 year old kid is gonna CHOOSE if he is given the CHOICE of school or cherios and cartoons.

"This is why self-taught programmers will always reign"

i dont know if you realize this.. but almost no one will hire you as a programmer if you dont have a qualification. and if programming ever goes in the direction of the engineering fields where a board is established and a certification to practice is required you will def be out of luck. programming as a "profession" is in its infancy in perspective with other sciences, its hard getting into the industry and is just gonna get harder.

avansc wrote: this statement completely relies on the fact that you have the faculties to be able to do it independently. which means alone! not with a book.

No, independent learning doesn't necessarily mean without books.

i dont know where you went to school. but all my education was satisfactory, AND I WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.
so stop being a little whiny bitch, if you wanna learn, great. shut up and do it.

Well, apparently you didn't learn manners there.

oh, and you are a dumb shit.. education should be a choice... clearly you have no idea what a 10 year old kid is gonna CHOOSE if he is given the CHOICE of school or cherios and cartoons.

Okay, I'm a dumb shit. Are you claiming superiority over me with that statement? Are you saying that because I am a dumb shit that surely you must not be one. Think about this the next time your alone and wondering why no one wants to be around you because you're a complete and utter asshole.

i dont know if you realize this.. but almost no one will hire you as a programmer if you dont have a qualification.

Not reading the rest of that horrible excuse for grammar paragraph. After your previous, childish insults towards me when I had not attacked you, I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously. You obviously haven't gained a high enough level of "maturity (see posts above)" that it takes to understand human decency you prick.

Oh yeah, I never said you shouldn't go off to University and become qualified. All I said was those with the will to learn are those who have a future shaped for them (e.g. self-taught programmers: programmers who begin teaching themselves long before they become "qualified").

avansc used stop being a little whiny bitch
It's super effective!
Master Jake used Not reading the rest of that horrible excuse for grammar paragraph
But nothing happened!

... You health must be low or something?!?!
Spelling and grammar insults are like the ultimate in, "I just failed an internet debate".

Try not to take things so to heart, you have been constantly retorting every statement made. It actually present you as whiny. Clearly you have different opinions to others about the schooling system, I think thats fine, aren't you ok with people having other opinions then you? Then let them speak without giving them a tongue lashing... and not in the good way.

avansc wrote:Tells it how it is

This ^

Arguing against mandatory school is stupid. Most kids would not want to go to school at a young age and then regret it later, and we'd end up with a lot of sorry, unqualified adults.

As for independent learning, sure you will learn faster, but you need a lot of motivation and hard work in every subject, and even then you will pick up bad habits and mistakes which would be noticed / corrected at a school.

And qualifications? You need them. The whole point of a qualification is to show that you are QUALIFIED to do something, so they're pretty important if you wanna get a job.

Okay, I'll do my best to maintain proper grammar so you can understand, and I will do my best to dissect your excuse for a retort.

"No, independent learning doesn't necessarily mean without books."

This is a very complex situation. Books did not stem from education, but rather the other way around. Before paper there was no, what you call independent learning(well there was, but just by a very few, very smart people).
Knowledge was passed down first hand through the generations. So, generally you would become what your father was.. With the advent of paper/papyrus for the first time knowledge was documented. The great Roman Empire
was the first to introduce public education. After the burning of the library of Alexandria all was lost, or so they thought. what you call "independent" learning was not possible, for the fact that it was not truly independent. Luckily for us they found copies in Jerusalem I think. The point is structured education is not any different than a tutorial, a book, an instructional video. They are all forms of someone, the author, passing on information to any who wish to have it. Yes, it can be argued that some books make it easier to learn a given subject matter, but that is an irrelevant point.

"Well, apparently you didn't learn manners there."

Never knew schools were supposed to teach manners. Unless you mean finishing schools, which are archaic in nature and probably don't even exist. Also, you might want to be careful with a statement like that. Hypocrisy is unveiled faster than a stripper in happy hour down town Thailand.

"Okay, I'm a dumb shit. Are you claiming superiority over me with that statement? Are you saying that because I am a dumb shit that surely you must not be one. Think about this the next time your alone and wondering why no one wants to be around you because you're a complete and utter asshole."

What are you even going on about? Your logic is utterly flawed. In no way does my statement indicate that I presume to be superior, or not a dumb shit, only that your premise of choice is one of stupidity and/or ignorance. I've never really had an issue with friends, but if all people were like you.. I'd honesty much rather be alone.

"Not reading the rest of that horrible excuse for grammar paragraph. After your previous, childish insults towards me when I had not attacked you, I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously. You obviously haven't gained a high enough level of "maturity (see posts above)" that it takes to understand human decency you prick."

Well I see tits and ass, and ping pong balls flying around. (I do not expect you to get that, but in some ways really hope you do.)

"Oh yeah, I never said you shouldn't go off to University and become qualified. All I said was those with the will to learn are those who have a future shaped for them (e.g. self-taught programmers: programmers who begin teaching themselves long before they become "qualified")."

*Sigh..* I think aamesxdavid said it perfectly when he said. "..correlation doesn't imply causation.."

avansc wrote:
i dont know where you went to school. but all my education was satisfactory, AND I WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.
so stop being a little whiny bitch, if you wanna learn, great. shut up and do it.

+1

i'm gonna agree up to age 13 parents should have the choice (work on a farm or go to school) then when old enough have them choose.

self taught game programmers will probably be better because they have probably (if good) been programming since they are like 12 - 15/16 while new game programers from college maybe just started their when htere 18


hmmm avansc good points master jake good point. Public school is a good place to learn because of the difference of people not all rich or not all poor so you learn to live with different types of people. Though how they are run are bad, teachers underpaid so they don't work that hard.

Master Jake wrote:Are you saying that handing over the future rights of a human being to a government rather than allowing the biological parents--the ones to bring them into the world in the first place--is the less of the 2 evils?

Future rights? The future right to not have any education whatsoever? No, I don't think a parent should ever be allowed to deny their children an education. If the child is not old enough to decide for themselves whether they would like an education, then by default they should be getting one. That is what I am saying. Bringing a child into this world does not give you the right to make decisions that will negatively affect it for the rest of its life, simply because it is not old enough to make decisions on its own? Do you really think that you should have absolute control over another person simply due to biological relation?

Master Jake wrote:My definition of scientifically is anything pertaining to the study of a science. Everything we have discussed today has a study behind it.

Yet when I ask for the scientific properties of one's personality that makes them "mature", you have nothing to say. Yes, we can study psychology, and label personalities. Assigning an idea of maturity to those properties is not scientific; it's subjective. It's opinion, which you later admit to in your response, so I don't even see how you're still defending it.

Master Jake wrote:And no, my example didn't say the one's who didn't want something were the one's able to buy them.

That's exactly what you said, which you admit right here:

Master Jake wrote:It said, that I believe the one's who made the right decision were overtly the one's who were mature enough to make the decision in the first place. In my example, it was the 5 year old--defying the age law by not being an imbecile like its parent(s).

You're saying if you don't want cigarettes, you're mature enough to decide if you want cigarettes. That is exactly what you're saying. Now you're just flat out lying.

Master Jake wrote:And yes, I will call "not smoking" the right decision.

Good, then we agree that this is only your opinion. Are you saying laws should be made based on your opinion?

Master Jake wrote:Of course fast food is the wrong decision,

"Wrong" as once again decided by you.. but continue..

Master Jake wrote:but there is more logic behind the decision of eating fast food then smoking. First, fast food is cheaper than healthy food, and food in general is required to survive. The logic is--> cheaper,

Let's ignore for the fact that you have no evidence to back this up (until the new study comes out saying "people don't eat fast food for the taste, but for financial reasons") and just move on to the fact that you just stated that it's a logical decision to eat fast food, while claiming it's wrong. In what way is it wrong if it's logical? More opinion with no fact, eh? Actually, the one fact you cite is contrary to your position - way to go on self defeat.

Master Jake wrote:and still survive a fairly long time = the choice I'm going to make since I don't have that much money. Cigarettes, being completely redundant and optional, are an illogical choice entirely.

Again, this only applies if the decision to buy fast food is logical (which would simply make you wrong in a whole other way), which it isn't.

Master Jake wrote:Maturity and emotions are personality traits which are studied by psychology. And yes, these are all my opinions so stop being assholes about that.

You're suggesting laws should be created based on your opinions.. and we're being assholes? And yes, you can study personalities, but you're still basing a subjective standard of maturity on them. And you seem to think that being mature is making logical decisions. But then you say that the decision to eat fast food is logical, so it must be the mature thing to do - is that what you're saying?

Master Jake wrote:Your biological emotions

What the fuck are biological emotions?

Master Jake wrote:are designed for one reason: to keep you alive. Eating, drinking, etc. are all biological.

Eating, drinking, etc. are emotions? Yup, the educational system certainly failed you. I can see why you don't like it.

Master Jake wrote:Yes, other emotions do cause you to commit illogical actions. This is the reason that one who has conditioned the ability to ignore the urge to commit illogical actions based on said emotions are, in my opinion, more mature.

Like the illogical action to not eat fast food? You said that eating fast food is logical; not doing so must be illogical.

But more importantly, let's just get one thing straight: your biological urges are not emotions. You don't break down and cry every time you're hungry (I hope).

Master Jake wrote:The definition of maturity is fully developed, meaning no one can ever be fully mature. But they can be more mature then something else. And stop saying stuff like "my standard of maturity." These are all ideas, and your treating them (and me) like I'm actually trying to pass them as a fucking law.

Well, maybe that's because you're suggesting that laws be made based on your ideas. Which we keep coming back to, and you haven't addressed. Are you now saying that these shouldn't be laws?

Heh, I'm starting to become reminded of the ole' cat in the bag Clinton hearings: "Depends on what your definition of "is", is" :]

I usually just stay silent on these sorts of deals but avansc and aamesxdavid are completely correct here. I'm not going to play the old man pointing his finger deal, but just have faith that as you age your perspective on this will inevitably change. I'm not an old man either, so we're not gonna throw that cliche in there :]

Having also been a product of complete public education I can say that in regards to high school: What do you expect? It is what it is. We can say it could be and should be better, and sure it could. But the bottom line is these people you point your finger at are charged with the DAMN near impossible task of educating everything you hate about school. They MUST educate those who don't want to be educated, who are mentally impaired, who are troubled. Now, what do *I* take from it? Well, you get what you give (again, not to sound cliche).

This just strikes me as a pseudo-intellectual teenager's poo-slinging contest at the expense of authority. Everyone thinks they wrote the book on life and you're more than entitled to your opinion but give it a little more time will you? Don't find it odd if those with experience want to put you back on the ground. Here's the deal. No knowledge is your own. Everything you know as it pertains to applicable intellect was handed down to you from somewhere or someone else. Realizing this will make you a more humble person and humility is a trait worth its weight in gold.

That said, there is no problem with being a self-motivated learner. Know this, however: Practice does NOT make perfect, it makes PERMANENT. Education is a system in which you can benefit from someone else's potentially massive pool of experience. Education is an exceptionally valuable tool in terms of making you a more well rounded person. This involves HONING your knowledge and making it applicable. There is a certain pragmatism to intelligence. You can know everything in the world, but so what? Show us what you can DO. This is certainly why children in developed countries should be educated as a mandate. Your opinion here comes as a product OF the developed and educated world. You see none of the downsides to living in a culture of completely uneducated people. You know that most of the coups of the world and most of the tyranny, prejudice, and hate are ALL resultant from the UNEDUCATED/ILLITERATE masses having NO other outlet than to trust figures of authority with subversive agendas? Education isn't the political enemy here. Education is the sword by which you fight this imaginary "big brother" figure you're rebelling from. We're all in this thing together, so do you REALLY want to be in it with a majority populace of undereducated or uneducated people?

Be honored that you have one.

thbp wrote:i'm gonna agree up to age 13 parents should have the choice (work on a farm or go to school) then when old enough have them choose.

self taught game programmers will probably be better because they have probably (if good) been programming since they are like 12 - 15/16 while new game programers from college maybe just started their when htere 18


hmmm avansc good points master jake good point. Public school is a good place to learn because of the difference of people not all rich or not all poor so you learn to live with different types of people. Though how they are run are bad, teachers underpaid so they don't work that hard.

first off, what do you mean the parents should have the choice? i dont think the parents should have a choice in terms of denying the child an education, or choosing to keep the child in a shed. so on and so forth.
secondly, 13???????????????????? by that logic you should let children drive at that age as well.. just dumb.. im 23 and dont know what i really want half the time. or whats best for me.
and lastly, you said: "Though how they are run are bad, teachers underpaid so they don't work that hard."

that statement attest to how you feel about teachers.... you assume they do what they do for the money. you are attacking their character...
at the same time that you assume they are underpaid.

anyways, nice post aamesxdavid.

about the fastfood thing... since when have people been froogle in general, i mean just a retarded train of thought. people eat fast food because they like instant gratification, if it really was about the money they would buy food from a grocery store. its so much cheaper than dining out. even at mac donalds.

If you're legitimately having an issue with your public school, take honors and/or AP classes. You'll be surrounded by other students who actually want to learn and your teachers are generally more enthusiastic to teach you.

aamesxdavid wrote: Do you really think that you should have absolute control over another person simply due to biological relation?

Only until the child is mature enough to make its own decisions.

Yet when I ask for the scientific properties of one's personality that makes them "mature", you have nothing to say. Yes, we can study psychology, and label personalities. Assigning an idea of maturity to those properties is not scientific; it's subjective. It's opinion, which you later admit to in your response, so I don't even see how you're still defending it.

Because I'm allowed to defend my opinion. And yes, everything I say is my opinion. Excuse me if you don't explicitly say that on every paragraph when I've already said it referring to every post I'll ever make.

That's exactly what you said, which you admit right here:

Umm... no.

You're saying if you don't want cigarettes, you're mature enough to decide if you want cigarettes. That is exactly what you're saying. Now you're just flat out lying.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not, in reality, they ACTUALLY buy the god damn cigarettes or not. It only defines their maturity to make a right decision (yes, in my opinion). If you give your kid a gun and he kills 20 people, clearly he wasn't mature enough to have the gun in the first place. Oh yeah, I'll be sure to say "in my opinion" cause I'm sure you think that murder is just my opinion when I say it's "wrong."

Good, then we agree that this is only your opinion. Are you saying laws should be made based on your opinion?

Umm.. the entire point of the argument is to make our suggestions on improvements to the government.

Let's ignore for the fact that you have no evidence to back this up (until the new study comes out saying "people don't eat fast food for the taste, but for financial reasons") and just move on to the fact that you just stated that it's a logical decision to eat fast food, while claiming it's wrong. In what way is it wrong if it's logical? More opinion with no fact, eh? Actually, the one fact you cite is contrary to your position - way to go on self defeat.

You perform the study Mr. Science god.

Again, this only applies if the decision to buy fast food is logical (which would simply make you wrong in a whole other way), which it isn't.

No.

You're suggesting laws should be created based on your opinions.. and we're being assholes? And yes, you can study personalities, but you're still basing a subjective standard of maturity on them. And you seem to think that being mature is making logical decisions. But then you say that the decision to eat fast food is logical, so it must be the mature thing to do - is that what you're saying?

No, I already said eating fast food wasn't a decision for a highly mature (fully developed) brain to make. However, being that it is quick and cheap, people let that get a hold of them and kind of ignore the negative aspects of it.

What the fuck are biological emotions?

Yes, I apologize, incorrect term. What I meant was the biological drives like eating, drinking, and so on that's only goal is to keep you alive. The biological aspects are very strong and can usually overpower other emotions.

Eating, drinking, etc. are emotions? Yup, the educational system certainly failed you. I can see why you don't like it.

See apology above. Oh yeah, and stop making personal attacks. One of the ground rules of debates is that you cannot personally attack your opponent. Clearly you are running out of things to say if you have to commence actions such as those.

Like the illogical action to not eat fast food? You said that eating fast food is logical; not doing so must be illogical.

I said there are logical aspects of it (the cheapness and quickness) which fog up negative aspects like heart disease, high cholesterol, etc.

Well, maybe that's because you're suggesting that laws be made based on your ideas. Which we keep coming back to, and you haven't addressed. Are you now saying that these shouldn't be laws?

Addressed previously several times.

Master Jake wrote:

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not, in reality, they ACTUALLY buy the god damn cigarettes or not. It only defines their maturity to make a right decision (yes, in my opinion). If you give your kid a gun and he kills 20 people, clearly he wasn't mature enough to have the gun in the first place. Oh yeah, I'll be sure to say "in my opinion" cause I'm sure you think that murder is just my opinion when I say it's "wrong."

hahah omg... so what if a 50 year old has a gun and goes balistic and kills 20 people.. is he or she then also not mature enough to have a gun. and if in fact that is your OPINION, how do we discover who is and who is not mature enough to do anything, including owning a gun.

you have got to have the worst reasoning skills i have ever seen. just horrible.

Maturity is completely subjective.