Oceania LOL! Apparently, "Free" trade > culture

Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by Ender Sai, Nov 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nyder Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 27, 2002
    star 4
    Another reply for you, PoT;

    No, as you're missing the point of education. It is not purely a fiscal endevour, but can be looked at as a type of economy if that's what you want.

    I still fail to see how it is any different from any other commodity that is exchanged for value. It is important, and that is exactly why we shouldn't have a Government monopolising it.

    Instead of money, let's use the currency of "academic merit". Those who have worked hard enough to earn enough of this currency, can have a better range or options when choosing which degree and thus which career they wish to pursue.

    The only problem is that academic merit generally proves nothing. It has never been proved that getting good results in high school will guarantee that you will be successful in your studies at university.

    People everywhere learn differently and have different abilities and levels of mental function. How can you possibly measure this with a 'one size fits all approach' by using so called 'common knowledge' exams and compulsory units of study that may not fit the interests of the individual at all? All of this arises out of our gulag school system, which gives a minority of students good results while everyone else gets average - ensuring they will not be able to enter certain courses. That is what I call unfair. Thank goodness a private sector can at least satiate some of their education needs. 'Academic merit' is more about exclusion than inclusion.

    They have worked harder than their brethren - and probably have a lot more innate skill and intellect making them well suited to higher level careers - and thus have earnt the opportunity to better themselves further. Strikes me as being rather the epitome of capitalistic thinking. You get out what you put in. Fair and above board.

    This is your elitist thinking which through some twisted pedigree has determined that only if you can master a stupid 'common knowledge' test and complete compulsory subjects like english and maths that you are worthy enough to get a higher education. If someone fails high school it does not mean they have a 'lower intellect' then everyone else.

    In fact, it is this very process that'll ensure the "common man" can't just walk in off the street and become a doctor, it is a process which safeguards such occupations for those who have displayed enough skill and intelligence to cope with the demands of the occupation, and doubly have displayed a willingness to put in the effort such a job may demand.

    And they can demonstrate this by actually studying the degree and completing the modules, rather then pass an 'academic merit' test which has nothing to do with their degree.

    If we begin slapping PRICE TAGS on degrees, we are allowing your analogy of the common man who may have had rich parents but done very little HIMSELF to earn any reward, to waltz on in and take a degree that would of otherwise of gone to a more deserving recipent who is sadly restricted to the now demeaned academic merit currency.

    As I said - academic merit DOES NOT guarantee success with further studies. If I fail high school but I have the money to study a medical degree, why should I prevented from doing so by left-wing elitists? Who are they to decide who is 'worthy' enough for these modes of study?

    What I'm trying to say is that your thinking that if a person does well at high school that they are automatically solely deserving of studying to become a doctor or scientist is very narrow minded. Anyone should have the opportunity if they have the inclination to do so.

    It is allowing rich kids put in less effort to gain greater reward, and unless we wish Australia to have a culture of laziness and ineptitude in our higher class industries and intensive fields of practice, we need to stop it now.

    Let's leave the system of aristocracy back in ancient times: where it belongs along with other barbaric ideals.


    Firstly, it's mostly rich kids who get into universities because they are more mo
  2. JediMasterKieca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    As I said - academic merit DOES NOT guarantee success with further studies. If I fail high school but I have the money to study a medical degree, why should I prevented from doing so by left-wing elitists? Who are they to decide who is 'worthy' enough for these modes of study?

    I don't think the term left-wing elitist is terribly accurate; the majority of left-wingers advocate for equal chances for all (what we're saying about this issue of education for everyone) so that's not really elitist..

    Though on this point I have to agree, highschool should not dictate the remainder of people's lives; there has to be a better way of doing it.

    This does not mean, however, that people should be able to buy their way in over others either.

    When I come up with a way of people getting equal access to tertiary education that is not based purely on money or on the raw marks gained in highschool, I'll let you know. ;)

    *runs off the try and think of something*
  3. Daronil Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    So, Gatherer, regarding your plaintive wailing the JMK is calling you "racist" (does the phrase "by their fruits you shall know them" ring a bell)...by any dictionary definition available, according to your own writings, and your own words, you are racist.

    Not a matter of opinion, my friend.

    You're entitled to your own opinions...you're not entitled to your own facts.

    Cheers,
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Why can't you accept that in nature / humanity that there are some races / species more advanced than others?!?

    That is the primary basis of eugenics, which in turn inspired Nazism.

    Gath, I suspect you are indeed a racist and I won't label you one till I can prove it but I'm really, really unimpressed with that remark.

    E_S
  5. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    Isn't it obvious though? I am not talking about genetics, but what each culture has done.

    There are cultures that have easily, far, FAR surpasesed other cultures, ie: technology, medicine, arts, etc...

    Comparison: Mona Lisa to Aboriginee art work, someone spitting paint through their hand.

    Deeds speak for themsevles, I am not referring to genetics.
  6. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    Grizzly, in my own personal opinion, I don't consider jibber to be a language.
  7. JediMasterKieca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    Language:

    Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.


    The Aboriginal people have many different versions of verbal communication. Thousands of years of Aboriginal existance and interaction through their language would hardly equate to jibberish.

    Hmm, but then again, I suppose Polish or Cantonese might sound like an awful lot of jibberish to you too, no?

    You highlight not the inferiority of the language, but your own ignorance.
  8. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    Haha, I actually highlight your apologist nature!

    If Aliens visited this earth, and one individual had to represent the entire human race... would you want that to be an Aboriginee, who was just plucked out from under a tree?
  9. JediMasterKieca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    If it was a choice between they or you, yes.
  10. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
  11. JediMasterKieca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
  12. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    I know you are, I appreciate your sincerity! :)
  13. TheOzhaggis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2000
    star 5

    If Aliens visited this earth, and one individual had to represent the entire human race... would you want that to be an Aboriginee, who was just plucked out from under a tree?


    Why would one individual represent an entire race?
    These aliens sound racist. Better off without them, I'd say.

    Aboriginee is not a word. Neither is jibberish.
    That makes aborignee and jibberish both ... gibberish.

  14. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    Well, that is how Ender_Sai wants / demands it to spelt. To say the word Aboriginal is an insult beyond meaning to the causes of extreme racisim in the opinion of Ender_Sai.
  15. Grizzly Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 22, 2000
    star 4
    Grizzly, in my own personal opinion, I don't consider jibber to be a language.

    So you consider Italian, it's dialects, Vietnamese, Japanese.. actually all the Asian languages...

    Actually, you consider anything that isn't English to be jibber? You are one sorry arsed sonofaracistbitch Gatherer.
  16. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Alright, everyone needs to take a deep breath before this goes too far. Gath, nobody's being the Thought Police here, you're welcome to think what you like. While I'm here, though, you're not going to spout rhetoric about one race being inferior to another. That's racism no matter which way you slice it, and it's not going to be allowed here.
  17. Nyder Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 27, 2002
    star 4
    Gatherer, everytime the discussion starts to get interesting you bring up gibberish about aboriginals. [rolls_eyes]

    Will you quit this obsession, for goodness sakes! :p
  18. Protege-of-Thrawn Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2001
    star 6
    Interesting view Nyder, but I'm going to insist on a few points which I believe you may of slightly missed the intent of.

    I still fail to see how it is any different from any other commodity that is exchanged for value. It is important, and that is exactly why we shouldn't have a Government monopolising it.

    The main difference - which I tried, obviously unsuccessful, to highlight in my previous post - is the social responsibility that comes with many of the higher end degrees, and the need our community has for such professions. Furthermore, the need our community has for such professions to be of the highest possible calibre, and of the most committed type of mind. It is in this that a Medical degree, or say - for fear of being stuck in the rut of our Doctor example - an Engineering Degree, can be differentiated from more "luxury" type commodities, such as the TVs of your own example.

    The only problem is that academic merit generally proves nothing. It has never been proved that getting good results in high school will guarantee that you will be successful in your studies at university.

    You'll excuse me if I disagree on this point. Firstly, it shouldn't require any guarantee of success in higher education for a system of selection to be approved and used. All that should be required is an equal basis of merit from which to select the most deserving applicants from any one pool of students, for any one degree or another. I may be at a disadvantage here in not being completely ofae with the schooling systems in other states, but I know at least in Victoria the VCE system of High School could not be more adaptable or fair for those with a vocation skewed other than to English, Mathematics or the Sciences.
    The only compulsory aspect of a successful completion of VCE is that a student completes a final level unit in one of THREE alternative language based electives: Those being English Expression, Literature or English as a Second Language.

    This would seem only prudent in a society that speaks english and requires it's citizens to have a measure of literacy, and beyond that, a student can cater a High Schooling to their strengths: be they Chemistry, Graphic Design, Marketing, Mathematics, Technology and Design, Performing Arts etc. I have perhaps sometimes been a bit doubtful about the breadth of alternatives allowed, for they give substance to the liberal party's arguement against "Cage Latte Courses" that contribute nothing to society.

    But the core of the matter is, that the High Schooling system fulfills your criteria of allowing for a diversity and flexibility in what a student persues. In as much, there is no excuse for a student not to maximise their potential DURING High School, and having been fresh out of the system, I can from first-hand experience guarantee you that if a student is willing to put in the effort, there is nothing (especially not the structure of the system) preventing he or she from excelling and achieving their potential.

    If indeed someone fails their High Schooling, they have no business pursuing higher education, for they have displayed a lack of willingness to put in the effort it takes to further oneself intellectual and to take on the social responsibility that comes with begin an Engineer who designs our buildings, a Doctor who cures our ills, a CEO that wills our businesses and thus our economy on, etc. We take such people and the work they do for granted, without thinking of the everyday potential for disaster should they fail or muck-up.

    I don't think I'd want some high school drop out buying his way into an Engineering degree and then designing the buildings I walk through in the city. I'd want only the best minds on the job, so my mind can be at ease as I stroll on through the many levels of sound, structural engineering.

    People everywhere learn differently and have different abilities and levels of mental function. How can you possibly measure this with a 'one size fits all approach' by using so called 'common knowledge' ex
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    To say the word Aboriginal is an insult beyond meaning to the causes of extreme racisim in the opinion of Ender_Sai.

    Gatherer, that's complete bs and I'd prefer it if you didn't **** up what I said.

    ABORIGINAL is an adjective.

    ABORIGINE is a noun.

    You are not speaking English, which makes you an ignorant git. "An Aborginial" is extremely poor English, and the only way those two words can go together is if you insert a noun after "Aboriginal".

    "I'd rather it wasn't an Aboriginal" = Poor English.

    "It's an Aboriginal artwork" = Correct English.

    See, an adjective, such as "aboriginal", is a word used to describe a noun. A noun, like "aborigine", is a word that names something. In some cases, the noun and adjective can and are the same thing - "He's an Australian", "It's an Australian film". Since the words "aboriginal/aborigine" describe something that has existed in a region from the beginning of said region, you can actual talk of the "Aboriginal culture" of Inuits and be accurate.

    Dictionary.com defines "Aborigine" as this:

    ab·o·rig·i·ne
    noun.

    1. A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a region; a native.
    2. often Aborigine; A member of any of the indigenous peoples of Australia.

    You will notice that they define "Aboriginal" as an adjective (adj).

    The Convention on Genocide, 1948, states that one criteria of the jus cogen crime of Genocide is:

    Article 2

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    and, under this,

    Article 3

    The following acts shall be punishable:

    (a) Genocide;

    (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

    (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

    (d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

    (e) Complicity in genocide


    I'd say the damning evidence of our history, coupled with the alarming similarities between what you say and what the perpetrators of this stain on our history said at the time, I'd say the absolute least you could do, as a Civilised, Advanced and Educated White Man, is speak the ******* language AND pay them some measure of respect by not calling them by their adjectival form. [face_plain]

    I leave you now, Gatherer, with two things. One, is a sense of realisation, that your contempt for the indigenous population puts you in some very ill company, and the second, some amusing quotes from one Samuel Langhorn Clemens, known to the world by his nom de plume, Mark Twain:

    There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.

    The only very marked difference between the average civilized man and the average savage is that the one is gilded and the other is painted.


    Enjoy, dear friend.

    E_S
  20. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    I find it highly amusing that the left-wing do-gooders who base their view on history on textbooks and propaganda that if a child is suffering from child abuse, they applaud that the child is rescued, but given the same circumstances in the Aboriginal community, it is deemed a 'stolen generation'.

    Hmmm... why is removing children to give them:

    A) Better education
    B) Better health
    D) Better opportunities in life

    But I guess you would want not to do that, as you people prefer to rant and rave on your high and mighty soapbox, and come up with all kinds of eloquent intelligent solutions, but never act on them. In reality, you say you want to help them, but don't do anything, and prefer to keep them destitute, that way, your industry continues...
  21. JediMasterKieca Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    All of the things there which you have listed as "better" are only better in your opinion.
    Others might have considered the actions of the white people to be completely barbaric, and not want their children to have anything to do with such people.

    Apart from which, there's these things called Free Will and Rights.

    Fine, if the children are outrightly being abused, take them away from their parents and put them elsewhere; that goes for Aboriginal people and any other people as well.

    The ultimate purpose beind the Stolen Generation was not to take children away from abusive parents, it was assimilation. Big, big difference there.


    What exactly is this industry you keep referring to? Or is it just a term you've created for anyone who happens to have a left-wing perspective?

    Out of all of us here, I would have to say that you are the one that is set the most strongly in their political beliefs and go out of your way to force other people to hear them, so if anyone's afraid of losing their industry I would have thought it would have been you..
  22. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    You say that they would have been better off left alone. Well if they want to live in their traditional lifestles and culture, without getting ANY education whatsover, which makes them UNEMPLOYABLE. Now if they are uneducated and unemployable by living in apartheid as you suggest, societies living apart and not assimilated, then why on the other hand, what gives them the gall to ask for unemployment benefits when they make no effort in becoming employable. You can't have the best of both worlds.

    No, I am not forcing my view on anyone. This is not an industy, this is personal opinion formulated on real life experience.

    The left DOES have an industry. Legal aid, etc..., etc...
  23. Nyder Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 27, 2002
    star 4
    PoT, I can see where you are coming from, but the solution you've arrived at is not the only one and cannot be called the best one.

    The main difference - which I tried, obviously unsuccessful, to highlight in my previous post - is the social responsibility that comes with many of the higher end degrees, and the need our community has for such professions. Furthermore, the need our community has for such professions to be of the highest possible calibre, and of the most committed type of mind. It is in this that a Medical degree, or say - for fear of being stuck in the rut of our Doctor example - an Engineering Degree, can be differentiated from more "luxury" type commodities, such as the TVs of your own example.

    Rather then get into the murky area of 'social responsibility', let's instead delve into the area of 'incentives'. For example, a doctor will not be motivated to perform the best possible job because of social responsibility, but because of personal incentive. The same thing with an engineer, or any other example occupation you can think of. I don't want to turn this into a debate about human nature, but this point just seems obvious.

    The only problem is that academic merit generally proves nothing. It has never been proved that getting good results in high school will guarantee that you will be successful in your studies at university.

    You'll excuse me if I disagree on this point. Firstly, it shouldn't require any guarantee of success in higher education for a system of selection to be approved and used. All that should be required is an equal basis of merit from which to select the most deserving applicants from any one pool of students, for any one degree or another. I may be at a disadvantage here in not being completely ofae with the schooling systems in other states, but I know at least in Victoria the VCE system of High School could not be more adaptable or fair for those with a vocation skewed other than to English, Mathematics or the Sciences.

    The only compulsory aspect of a successful completion of VCE is that a student completes a final level unit in one of THREE alternative language based electives: Those being English Expression, Literature or English as a Second Language.


    I am unaware of the Victorian system as I was referring mainly to the Queensland system. This is a fairly moot point, though.

    HOWEVER, if the studies gained in high school were truly relevant to the degree then arguably it be a much better system if the degree incorporated those necessary modules (such as the appropriate level of maths and english) into it's curriculum. This would be a much more relevant basis on which to build up the core knowledge which is required for the degree, with the impetus, as before, on the student to put in the necessary effort to complete it successfully.

    This would seem only prudent in a society that speaks english and requires it's citizens to have a measure of literacy, and beyond that, a student can cater a High Schooling to their strengths: be they Chemistry, Graphic Design, Marketing, Mathematics, Technology and Design, Performing Arts etc. I have perhaps sometimes been a bit doubtful about the breadth of alternatives allowed, for they give substance to the liberal party's arguement against "Cage Latte Courses" that contribute nothing to society.

    On your first point in this paragraph, there is no problem with students studying pre-emptive modules for their degree such as the examples you mentioned. However, it should not be acceptable that there should only be a Government monopoly instigating those courses. Many secondary schools do not even have the luxury of being offered those courses you mentioned because there is only a limited amount of Government funds available and those funds are often mis-directed because the factors of supply and demand are handled less efficiently by a sole operator.

    On your second point, 'cage latte' courses is another example of Government mis-management in education. A free market would offer thes
  24. Protege-of-Thrawn Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2001
    star 6
    I'm going to keep this short and try not to direct quote to much, lest we begin moving from short essay replies to thesis ones. 8-}

    You seem to continually harken back to the "tedium" of High School and the opinion that it is not a fair or efficent system of selection for Higher Education opportunities. You in fact in your last comment, ask if no other way presents itself, bar succeeding at High School, to prove oneself "worthy"?

    Perhaps in this you are right, and striking on an issue with the Queensland Schooling system, which from the content of your replies certainly seems mismanaged and bordering on farcical. However, if as you say, this "common knowledge" test that is so damaging to a student's potential progress and ability to eschew his potential when it matters, and we need to find an alternative and better form of selection, do you truly see no other alternative than having students "put up their own money" to enter a degree?

    Because like or not, save for some miracle innovation in terms of resource production or schooling methods, A degree isn't going to drastically drop from the figures I stated earlier ( a medical degree being the highest at over 100k) over any short amount of time, if at all.

    And like or no, that amount of money is simply not accessable to the vast majority of the community upfront, so a loan is almost a mandatory part to be incorporated into any student's Higher Education ambitions under your vision, which I'll attempt to step through to ensure I see it properly.

    I may divert slightly here to emphasis how much the above will ring true for my little fictional character as you call him, fictional insofar as according to you, anyone who is smart and miraculously also borne from a low socio-economic environment, should be able to simply find a scholarship (aren't they a form of government funding?! :eek:) or dip into the abundance of charities or banks who aren't doing much with the money anyway. (and surely the banks wouldn't put a proviso on such a scholarship that the student study economics and work a minimum amount of time with them... ;) )

    Sadly, my fictional character - who I'll argue does exist, however I'm unsure if he's fighting some mythical evil capitalistic system which I never mentioned and you projected onto my arguement ;) - will have to pursue alternative methods of funding his higher education ambitions than his peers with rich parents, which fundamentally, whichever way you cut it, is not fair.

    All men are born equal, but their families differ dramatically in standing. This should not have a bearing in a perfect natural world on that child's success rate in life, but sadly it does, which may be a marked reason for why such slothful inadequacy can be seen creeping into civilisation over the past few thousand years.

    but I digress, and my fictional character is still waiting for his loan to be approved so he can have a nice wad of debt with which to leave education and start a family, buy a home, buy a car...or whatever else he can achieve by taking out yet another loan or four at the beginning of his long life in debt.

    This is a fallacy. Inferior products/services are driven out of the market when there is better alternatives. This is frequently the case in capitalistic societies and explains such phenomena as why we have moved from VCR players to DVD players.

    I promise this is my only quote, and I'll be short in my response because I've already typed too much waffle than I had originally intended.

    If, as you say, the Market will always drive out an inferior product when better alternatives are present, does that not presuppose that the better alternatives can afford to get into University in the first place? ;)
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I couldn't give a flying **** for your baseless labels of "left-winger" nor your attempt to whitewash history. The simple facts are these.

    1) The Stolen Generation clearly consitutes a genocide under the customary international law definition of Genocide.

    2) Genocide is a jus cogen, or law above the state. It's importance is to all humanity, and so it's supra-national. You cannot make genocide legal.

    3) Like the Armenians, of whom 1.6 million were killed by Turkey (and never acknowledged by the Turkish Government to this day), the Aborigines do not recieve a recourse to justice for the crime against humanity.

    but never act on them

    Gath, were I elected PM tomorrow (of the Liberal, NOT Labor, party platform gracias), I would implement the 1948 Convention on Genocide, submit the relevant, still-living state and church leaders to the Hague, to either the ICJ or a special tribunal, for their crimes, then acknowledge the past and make amends to move on. This would include a political, not civil, apology.

    You'd die if I did that, mainly 'coz I suspect you hate the Aborigines, but also because they're, in your words, dirty and uneducated. [face_plain]

    For example, a doctor will not be motivated to perform the best possible job because of social responsibility, but because of personal incentive

    Cuba's Health Care System pwns your example, Nyder.

    If a doctor commits malpractice, or an engineer does shoddy work with the architecture of a major building, the parties involved face major financial costs.

    Yes, by the State regulating the economy through some laws... right? ;)

    HOWEVER, there may be a market whereby people will have to go to unqualified doctors, who may be bartered at lower prices (like that Doctor on the Simpsons ). That is their choice to see those doctors and it certainly is an incentive to have proper medical insurance.

    I sit in the middle on this. I have private health care and wouldn't ever change that. I'd like a social health system as well as a private one, allowing for the choice of private or public. I prefer the ideas of choice AND a safety net, which I suppose is fairly Continental of me...

    E_S
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.