On 24-12-2009 17:50, Warp wrote:
>   I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned.

[snip]

There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
desirable in the Dutch situation.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
> structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
> situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
> history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
> those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
> the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
> desirable in the Dutch situation.

  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.

  (This is probably for the best, given how jealous the average Finnish
mentality is. This is a country where your house may get vandalized (with
insulting graffitti, etc) if you win the lottery. Actual case.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24-12-2009 23:43, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> There are too many subtleties involved about the British social 
>> structure in this case, so I won't comment. Not on this specific 
>> situation nor in general as every country has it's own culture and 
>> history of education. We don't really have such private schools and 
>> those that may come closest have no impact on the social structure of 
>> the country, so I won't even comment on whether it is sensible or 
>> desirable in the Dutch situation.
> 
>   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.
Btw, you interpreted yourself a letter you read without a reference to 
the source. Without that nobody can judge if you correctly got the main 
point or that this is an inadvertent straw man argument.

Post a reply to this message

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?  If 
*I'm* not the one benefiting from the change, it's evil in the purest 
sense".

Humans, eh?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

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