andrel wrote:
> On 24-12-2009 23:43, Warp wrote:

>>   I don't even know if there are private schools in Finland. Even if 
>> there
>> are, they aren't really part of the Finnish culture or society. It's kind
>> of given that everybody goes to regular school.
> 
> Then you don't know what it is to live in a country where almost the 
> entire elite is recruited from a few schools that are only open to the 
> elite. I don't live in such a system either, hence my reluctance to 
> interpret any comment from a British citizen about his own system as 
> mainly jealousy.

You got it :) ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:

> >   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
> > because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
> > mind.

> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?

That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

> Humans, eh?

Yes, *humans*. Not the Borg.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
> 
>> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
>> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
> 
> That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*. 
Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated 
concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to 
now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?
Indeed that Buxton index at work again.

* strangly often for religious reasons, but that is a different story.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
> > "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
just
> >>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
to
> >>> mind.
> >
> >> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
> >> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
> >
> > That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.

> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?

That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". Now, different
peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.

In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
"solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.

When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. Humans are too rational to
"fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
>>> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
> just
>>>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
> to
>>>>> mind.
>>>> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
>>>> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
>>> That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.
> 
>> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
>> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
>> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
>> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?
> 
> That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
> stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". 

I don't, that is why I referred to the Buxton index.

> Now, different
> peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
> Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
> Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
> plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
> take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
> would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
> from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
> conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
> work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
> socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.
> 
> In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
> that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
> naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
> capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
> significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
> "solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.
> 
> When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
> they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
> will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. 

In the case of the ozone hole they seem to be working however.

> Humans are too rational to
> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised 
how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the 
mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that 
will be the case for all humans.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...

> > When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you
assume
> > they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate
accords
> > will fail spectacularly for this simple reason.

> In the case of the ozone hole they seem to be working however.

It was a trivial situation compared to greenhouse emissions, did not
noticably affect ordinary people, and maybe more importantly, with expired
patents on CFCs and a fresh market to sell alternatives, chemical industry
supported CFC phase out.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
>> Humans are too rational to
>> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.
> 
> Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised
> how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the
> mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that
> will be the case for all humans.

Not even with 'US citizens' as I have seen people in the USA "fall for"
that. Other things they "fall for":

Benefit of a group they hope to one day be a part of, but to own
detriment now.
Benefit of all by detriment to most.
Benefit to group they feel sorry for, but detriment to self.
Benefit to self, but detriment to group they dislike.

Face it, no individual is 'too rational' to 'fall for' something, all
the time. People are going to do things I disagree with, for reasons
that I will find irrational. I am sure that applies for all values of
'I' and 'people'.

Post a reply to this message

Private schools shouldn't be banned...
because little girls look cute in school uniforms.

Post a reply to this message

Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
you're headed on the wrong track with this.

Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.

In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
> something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
> you're headed on the wrong track with this.
> 
> Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
> direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
> of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.
> 
> In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
> school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
> Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
> district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.
> 
Sadly, in the US, schools are part of the culture war going on. There 
are people on boards, like the one in Texas, that **admit** to having 
gotten elected so they can destroy the public system. The only 
"standards" are set by the same state boards, who are often unqualified, 
and make choices about what and how things are taught that have 
*nothing* to do with what works. This is in contract to private schools, 
which take on of two tacks - The ones that care at all have the teachers 
work out what needs to be taught, and hire from a pool that is *noted* 
for doing well. The ones that are ideology driven use the old school 
"Rote" learning system, which sidesteps the need to understand the 
ideas, by satisfying the only thing that can be easily tested, "Whether 
or not the can give the right answers, whether they understand why they 
are right or not, even even, sometimes *if* they are right or not (in 
the case of those things that fall into the 'stuff we want them to take 
as truth' category)."

There is a strong rise in the US of institutions like Liberty 
University, and "home schooling", the former of which will let you turn 
in dissertations on biology, which contain nothing but whining about 
god, gods creation, and the vast global conspiracy of Darwinists. The 
later.. You can buy specialized "pro-creationist" texts for, which 
teach, "How to answer the questions the way other schools and the 
government want you to, without corrupting yourself with belief in those 
things." Its the #1 best selling "home schooler" kit in the country, 
last I heard. Which should tell you, right off, who is doing 90% of the 
home schooling in the US. Their reason for it? Most of them buy the kits 
because they are a) not close enough to, b) can't afford, or c) don't 
trust the *type* of private school closest to them (FSM forbid a 
Protestant land in a Catholic school, and actually have to learn 
something, for example), to teach the *truth (tm)*.

Their torpedoing the public schools via *intentional* sabotage, neglect, 
and defunding, even as most of the new "private" schools have been fundi 
in nature recently, and most of the people sinking the public schools 
don't even **have** kids in the program, since they are busy teaching 
them, at home, how Jesus invented toothpaste.

To the original question... I think we need stricter guidelines as to 
what sort of BS happens, and not based on more "multiple choice" tests 
to assess what is being taught, no matter what country is involved. The 
moment you make something private, it creates a gap between what is 
"intended" and what is actually happening, from the perspective of 
anyone believing it should be "universal". But, whether or not they need 
to be banned is **hugely** dependent one which country you are talking 
about, or even, as in the US, which *state* its in. In some places, the 
only difference between the public and private schools are that the 
public ones could *theoretically* be sued for the things being taught in 
them, if you ever got a federal judge to look at it, since the local 
ones don't think there is a single thing wrong, and support what is 
being taught in them. Its that bad, in some places.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message