"Has US abstinence policy failed?"

[taks]

Held up by whom? Some director of the national economic comittee lately said that universities should set the barriers of examn results so high that only that as many people as the economy needs* of that specific direction can get their masters degree (or was it even enter master courses?). Isn't that a form of OBE too?

i'm guessing not one of you all has a clue as to what OBE really is.

 

testament to it's success in dumbing down the world, IMO.

 

OBE is, in its purest form, teach people ONLY what they are good at, i.e., determining their best outcome then teaching them that, and that alone. it is socialism in its purest form. the purpose of OBE is to create masses of people that do specific things, but are not educated broadly enough to understand exactly why they are sheep.

 

setting test scores high in graduate class is not OBE. sheesh. think for a moment, too, less than 40% of the population gets in to college, and not all graduate. only 10% of those get a master's degree and less than 1% (of the graduates) get a PhD or similar. subject difficulty alone sets the threshold on these degrees.

 

mandatory testing is the other thing that is really damaging education, perhaps the first step towards true OBE (gee, billy just can't seem to get <insert arbitrary threshold here>, maybe we should only teach him how to cook burgers?). of course, public teaching by itself is a liberal concept, so that it even exists is pretty damaging. the only way to control the masses is to control the way they think. you guys (in general) are my proof that it is working.

 

taks

[taks]

I think Australia has a good balance of capitalism and socialism.

hehe, my god... and i'm an atheist.

 

it is patient, indeed.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Why is that socialist ?

 

I think we are back to the confusion inherrent in the broadness of the term. Remember, there are no Marxist or totalitarian incarnations of socialism left in Europe.

 

It will not do to simply pose individuality and freedom of choice versus a higher level of government involvement. Time has worn down this dichotomy to near nothing in practical terms.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Held up by whom? Some director of the national economic comittee lately said that universities should set the barriers of examn results so high that only that as many people as the economy needs* of that specific direction can get their masters degree (or was it even enter master courses?). Isn't that a form of OBE too?

i'm guessing not one of you all has a clue as to what OBE really is.

 

I did not know what you were talking about fell under that heading - but, yeah, the concept is not one I agree with (nor do I like standardized tests in general).

[Humodour]

I think Australia has a good balance of capitalism and socialism.

hehe, my god... and i'm an atheist.

 

it is patient, indeed.

 

taks

 

Are you one of the people who thinks socialism on any form and in any way is a bad thing?

[Guard Dog]

I think Australia has a good balance of capitalism and socialism.

hehe, my god... and i'm an atheist.

 

it is patient, indeed.

 

taks

 

Are you one of the people who thinks socialism on any form and in any way is a bad thing?

 

You can count me in that group with the following caveat: modern socialisim (that weird capitialist/socialist hybrid that is common now) as an economic system is not bad or evil. I just don't want to see my country. The problem is it is inevitable, both political factions in the US are leaning towards it, one faster than the other. I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading before anyone in Congress takes office.

[Gorgon]

It's not really a question of posing Capitalism versus Socialism as if they were archetypes of social organization that are independent and distinguishable from each other. The Marxist socialist archetype is long gone, Capitalism and history has proven it the loser.

 

Capitalism however, cannot function without regulation or we wind up with extremes of exploitation. Think the worst of the aftermath of industrial revolution in England, or the 'gilded' age in the US, or the cutthroat economic boom in present day China: Baby milk formula with the nutritional value of sand, toxic toys, blood banks that infect the donors with AIDS. etc.

 

Capitalism is a force of nature that needs to be contained, channeled. It's not a form of government. The western ideology of modern day Capitalism (not to be confused with the nuts and bolts of its operation) rests on the notion that democracy and freedom go hand in hand with market economy, that this is the wave of the future, and that it will bring light to all the dark places in the world. I remain pessimistic.

 

It's a question of degrees, not whether or not you redistribute wealth. In Europe we have a tradition of greater redistribution, for instance we view health care much in the same way as the fire brigade or the police; a basic public service necessary for the smooth management of society.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Guard Dog]

It's not really a question of posing Capitalism versus Socialism as if they were archetypes of social organization that are independent and distinguishable from each other. The Marxist socialist archetype is long gone, Capitalism and history has proven it the loser.

 

Capitalism however, cannot function without regulation or we wind up with extremes of exploitation. Think the worst of the aftermath of industrial revolution in England, or the 'gilded' age in the US, or the cutthroat economic boom in present day China: Baby milk formula with the nutritional value of sand, toxic toys, blood banks that infect the donors with AIDS. etc.

 

Capitalism is a force of nature that needs to be contained, channeled. It's not a form of government. The western ideology of modern day Capitalism (not to be confused with the nuts and bolts of its operation) rests on the notion that democracy and freedom go hand in hand with market economy, that this is the wave of the future, and that it will bring light to all the dark places in the world. I remain pessimistic.

 

It's a question of degrees, not whether or not you redistribute wealth. In Europe we have a tradition of greater redistribution, for instance we view health care much in the same way as the fire brigade or the police; a basic public service necessary for the smooth management of society.

 

You are completly correct on this one. I will agree that a free market economy works best with some controls in place. Particularly those that encourage competition like anti-trust laws. However, US history has many examples of too much government control crushing economic growth and crippling the economy. The attempts at price controls springs to mind. I am no anarchist and laissez-faire capitalisim without some regulation usually leads to exploitation but that regulation must be minimal, clearly defined and equally applied.

 

I do raise a lot of points of concern at government expansion but for the most part the US strikes a good balance between control and free enterprise. But I get very nervous when I hear them talking about nationalizing private business such as health care. Too much government intervention got us where we are. How can the answer be more?

 

We are wandering a little OT here so let me get back on topic by saying teaching abstinance from sex to teenagers is a good thing. Teaching ONLY abstinance is just nuts.

[Sand]

Should health care be a private business? Gorgon makes a good point that for the public good we have government agencies such as police forces and fire departments, why not place healthcare and emergency servies in the catagory? Would you be in favor of privatizing a police force or fire fighters, Guard Dog? Public safety and well being falls in perview of police and fire fighting personal. Should we not include medical doctors, nurses, and paramedics in the same catagory as public servants for the greater good?

[Arkan]

Held up by whom? Some director of the national economic comittee lately said that universities should set the barriers of examn results so high that only that as many people as the economy needs* of that specific direction can get their masters degree (or was it even enter master courses?). Isn't that a form of OBE too?

i'm guessing not one of you all has a clue as to what OBE really is.

 

testament to it's success in dumbing down the world, IMO.

 

OBE is, in its purest form, teach people ONLY what they are good at, i.e., determining their best outcome then teaching them that, and that alone. it is socialism in its purest form. the purpose of OBE is to create masses of people that do specific things, but are not educated broadly enough to understand exactly why they are sheep.

 

setting test scores high in graduate class is not OBE. sheesh. think for a moment, too, less than 40% of the population gets in to college, and not all graduate. only 10% of those get a master's degree and less than 1% (of the graduates) get a PhD or similar. subject difficulty alone sets the threshold on these degrees.

 

mandatory testing is the other thing that is really damaging education, perhaps the first step towards true OBE (gee, billy just can't seem to get <insert arbitrary threshold here>, maybe we should only teach him how to cook burgers?). of course, public teaching by itself is a liberal concept, so that it even exists is pretty damaging. the only way to control the masses is to control the way they think. you guys (in general) are my proof that it is working.

 

taks

 

Sounds like that episode of Star Trek where there was this planet of humans that had a 'perfect' society because children were groomed as to what they were going to be from birth (or before?) Scary.

[samm]

Held up by whom? Some director of the national economic comittee lately said that universities should set the barriers of examn results so high that only that as many people as the economy needs* of that specific direction can get their masters degree (or was it even enter master courses?). Isn't that a form of OBE too?

i'm guessing not one of you all has a clue as to what OBE really is.

 

testament to it's success in dumbing down the world, IMO.

 

OBE is, in its purest form, teach people ONLY what they are good at, i.e., determining their best outcome then teaching them that, and that alone. it is socialism in its purest form. the purpose of OBE is to create masses of people that do specific things, but are not educated broadly enough to understand exactly why they are sheep.

 

setting test scores high in graduate class is not OBE. sheesh. think for a moment, too, less than 40% of the population gets in to college, and not all graduate. only 10% of those get a master's degree and less than 1% (of the graduates) get a PhD or similar. subject difficulty alone sets the threshold on these degrees.

 

mandatory testing is the other thing that is really damaging education, perhaps the first step towards true OBE (gee, billy just can't seem to get <insert arbitrary threshold here>, maybe we should only teach him how to cook burgers?). of course, public teaching by itself is a liberal concept, so that it even exists is pretty damaging. the only way to control the masses is to control the way they think. you guys (in general) are my proof that it is working.

 

taks

Thanks for the explanation, though you worded it rude enough. I didn't know what OBE was and guessed by the name, that's why I phrased my sentence regarding this concept as a question.

 

GuardDog, I have a question regarding this:

let me get back on topic by saying teaching abstinance from sex to teenagers is a good thing. Teaching ONLY abstinance is just nuts.

How can teaching this be a good thing? Abstinence doesn't even really prevent getting so called STDs like AIDS or certain forms of Hepatitis (via contaminated drug injections, public toilets etc.), nor does it enable anyone to become a happy individual (unless said individual is a very spiritual monk or something).

[Sand]

Abstinence is the only surefire 100% method of prevent unwanted pregnancy.

[Gorgon]

And telling people that they should employ abstinence to avoid getting pregnant isn't.

[Gorgon]

I guess thats the crux of it, it's a hypothetical 100% success. Which is worth very little in the real world where people follow their desire over sound advice. But government is not allowed to play the percentages as soon as the ghost of choice is introduced into the equation. That would be unamerican.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I guess thats the crux of it, it's a hypothetical 100% success. Which is worth very little in the real world where people follow their desire over sound advice. But government is not allowed to play the percentages as soon as the ghost of choice is introduced into the equation. That would be unamerican.

 

Yeah. If I may offer an alternative angle:

 

The only surefire way to avoid dying in a climbing accident is not to fall off stuff. BUt people DO fall off. That's why you use belaying ropes, pads, and work in teams. Um... I may have got lost at the end there. But you get the idea.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Abstinence is the only surefire 100% method of prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 

Wrong. You can sterilize yourself.

[samm]

Doesn't always work as intended, unfortunately.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

True - but it is as effective as abstinence (even then you have the chance of rape).

[WITHTEETH]

I guess thats the crux of it, it's a hypothetical 100% success. Which is worth very little in the real world where people follow their desire over sound advice. But government is not allowed to play the percentages as soon as the ghost of choice is introduced into the equation. That would be unamerican.

 

Yeah. If I may offer an alternative angle:

 

The only surefire way to avoid dying in a climbing accident is not to fall off stuff. BUt people DO fall off. That's why you use belaying ropes, pads, and work in teams. Um... I may have got lost at the end there. But you get the idea.

I like that, im stealing your line!

[Moatilliatta]

Abstinence is the only surefire 100% method of prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Would it be redundant for me to state that it is possible to become pregnant without having sex?

[Sand]

Abstinence is the only surefire 100% method of prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Would it be redundant for me to state that it is possible to become pregnant without having sex?

 

Key word is "unwanted." I don't see many women getting pregnant in vitro against their will.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Also, what about RAPE?

[Sand]

Also, what about RAPE?

 

Rape is a form of sex. Nonconsensual sex, but sex nonetheless. We are talking about choices one can make, not situations in which choice is removed.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Also, what about RAPE?

 

Oh dear. Now I'm warning you weasels not to jump at that.

[Moatilliatta]

There are other choices than sex and in vitro - strange things do happen. I do realize that it is irrelevant for most cases.

 

@D_N

Yes, if only them girls could stop being raped all the time the world would be much better.

 

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you could get someone somewhere to say that.