|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:02 pm
I hate making long drawn out posts, so I'm trying to keep things short and simple. This is a guide for individuals to learn how to be Devil's Advocates.
What is a devil's advocate?
An devil's advocate is one who argues against a cause or position either for the sake of argument or to help determine its validity. For example, "My role in the campaign is to play devil's advocate to each new policy before it's introduced to the public." This term comes from the Roman Catholic Church, where advocatus diaboli (Latin for "devil's advocate") signifies an official who is appointed to present arguments against a proposed canonization or beatification. It was transferred to wider use in the mid-1700s.
In short if you are a devil's advocate your job is find faults stuff and fight against things like the status quo. You must question the reasoning and the logic against or for a cause. The job of the devil's advocate is to bring another view point and to act as a safeguard.
Feel free to ask questions or add strategies and tactics you want.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:12 pm
Ok, I'm a not into bring in a lot of fact and theorizing about devil's advocate. No, your job is being up things for your side to use against the other side. You don't need facts for that, you need things that are true or have sound reasoning and logic behind it. So, I'm going to give a practical example of a devil's advocate.
Lets say you are a devil's advocate against schools getting more money for newer equipment and pay raises for teachers. You know the other side are going to try and say that newer equipment is a must for safety and learning purposes. So you need to think up an argument against it.
"I don't think schools should get money for newer equipment because we don't need newer equipment. The equipment we have now works just fine for want we need. Plus I think the old equipment should stay because the old equipment has history. How many kids used that equipment and learned something new? How many generations past used that equipment? For some of you this is the same equipment that your parents and grandparents used. Do you really want to give up apart of your family history for some new equipment that'll be outdated within a few weeks?"
You see no facts in that statement other than that the equipment as old and the off chance that someone's family member used that very same equipment. Now what about better pay for teachers? You have to not only find a reason why not pay them more but also why we should pay them less.
"As the saying goes, "money is the root of all evil", I feel that if teachers got better pay than more people would seek jobs as teachers only for the money. By keeping the pay low you ensure that no one is teaching solely for financial gain. And therefor you are ensuring the quality of the teachers you have. In fact I think teachers should get less pay to them weed out more so we can get a even better quality of the teachers. Because those who don't leave are the ones who really love to teach. And therefor ensuring a better quality of students because the teachers are better. Meaning that the students will learn better raising the state of the school system and quality of the nation as well because those students are going to join the workplace and take the things they learned in school out into the real world with them."
Again I used no facts in that statement. Only the reasoning that money is not the answer for better schools, teachers, and students. For I did my role as a devil's advocate and that was to bring a logical counter argument that raises doubt against the thing I'm to be opposed too.
To be a good devil's advocate all you need to have is good logic and reasoning. You really don't need things like facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wishbone Redemption Captain
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:07 pm
Bravo, bravo!
I'll give a more in-depth commentary in a moment- I love crossing things off lists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:21 pm
I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:00 am
Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:53 pm
I like that you brought up the whole concept of Devil's Advocate.
Often times when I am looking at an argument I can see the "devil's" side in them. It's hard for me to be one side or the other, because I pride myself on being able to see both sides no matter what. (Not meaning I agree with both, though.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:44 am
Thanks, I pride myself on being able to see all sides point of view in a debate. It was why in school I was often made the Devil's Advocate because I am able to see things from a different point of view.
I loved the challenge in it too. I mean what greater test there is of a debater's skills than to have them debate against something they themselves are for, and still win. You sometimes have to do a 180 in the way you think to pull that off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:42 pm
ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:22 pm
Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way of thinking comes from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly other people who share my love of learning, old people, and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school, and yet they knew more about the topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can give those people a chance to show the things they know that not only would people learn more, but also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, when in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge are the ones that are respected and heard out rather than what it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day looking for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and I was not even trying, because I was specking from personal experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:36 pm
ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way if think come from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly old people and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school but yet they knew more about topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can even those people a chance to the things they know that now only would people learn more. But also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, with in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge is respected and heard rather than it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day look for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and was not even trying because I was specking from personal experience. Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:58 pm
Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way if think come from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly old people and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school but yet they knew more about topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can even those people a chance to the things they know that now only would people learn more. But also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, with in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge is respected and heard rather than it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day look for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and was not even trying because I was specking from personal experience. Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
Devil's advocate again, pointing that is is pointless to put more money into the school until system you can fix the problems in the governmental system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:01 pm
ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith I applaud you for your excellent discription, but, (I felt as though I had to say this) by lowering the tacher's pay, you get people who love teaching to quit because they cannot support their family.
"And if they leave for new jobs so what? Why not make volunteer classes? Where people who have free time can just come in and teach the class. In ancient times the teachers was not payed by the government but by the students themselves. A teacher would teach a class and at the end the of class the students would walk up to the teacher and pay him or her based on how much they felt they learned that day. If the student felt as if they learned a lot then they paid the teacher a lot, and if they felt they learned little that day then they paid them little, if anything at all. That system was a great system because it was in the teacher's best interests to make sure each and every student learned something in class. I say lets bring that system back so kids can start learning again. And lets make it so people who teach in poor areas get tax cuts and reasonable paychecks from the government itself, to makeup for people who maybe too poor to pay for class but still want to learn. This way it'll also bring up schools in poor areas and over time raise those areas up as the people are learning more and getting better jobs."
Again I did my job as a devil's advocate by giving another viewpoint of how you can solve the problem, and by using a tried-and-true method that worked well in the past. cool Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way if think come from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly old people and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school but yet they knew more about topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can even those people a chance to the things they know that now only would people learn more. But also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, with in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge is respected and heard rather than it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day look for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and was not even trying because I was specking from personal experience. Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
Devil's advocate again, pointing that is is pointless to put more money into the school until system you can fix the problems in the governmental system.But, though that defends the statment "We should not increase school funds." it does not defend the statement "We should reduce teacher's pay."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:46 pm
Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way if think come from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly old people and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school but yet they knew more about topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can even those people a chance to the things they know that now only would people learn more. But also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, with in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge is respected and heard rather than it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day look for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and was not even trying because I was specking from personal experience. Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
Devil's advocate again, pointing that is is pointless to put more money into the school until system you can fix the problems in the governmental system.But, though that defends the statment "We should not increase school funds." it does not defend the statement "We should reduce teacher's pay."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:48 pm
ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith Ah, but by that system you assume that you can scrounge up enough people to not only teach these kids, but that they also know what they are talking about. By having kids pay the "teachers" based on the amount they learned, you will get people paying little even if they learned a lot. Also, the argument is flawed because in the olden times, the amount of people who were forced to learn was significantly lower. Even though the overall population has increased, the percentage of children in schools has sky rocketed because of a lack of farms and child labor laws. You must also include that if you have a class taught by a Volunteer teacher, the teacher will change often enough, and there may not always be a sub available, or a new teacher, meaning not only did kids lose the personal basis they have with a teacher, they never know what to expect going into a classroom. Part of the joy in some of my classes is that I know which ones I can talk to my friends in, what limits there are, and if I can connect on a personal level with my teacher. (Admittedly, I didn't expect a counter argument so soon, and I don't check this guild enough. Sorry it took so long)
This way if think come from my own personal life. Growing up on the streets and having lots of bad teachers who was only in it for the money. I've had a few teachers even tell me and the class, "I don't care if you pass or fail because I get paid ether way." Now, I'm a smart person but only about 10% of all the things I know actually came from the classroom or should I say from the teachers in the school system. About 40-50% if it is things I learned or taught myself. And rest are things I learned from talking to people, mostly old people and poor people living on the streets. A lot of those people never even pasted high school but yet they knew more about topic than even the teachers in the school system. I just felt that if you can even those people a chance to the things they know that now only would people learn more. But also to help break the idea that the poor and homeless are lazy and dumb, with in fact it is mostly just luck or lack of it put people some people where they are. I want to help change society so that the people who actually have knowledge is respected and heard rather than it is now where it seems that the ignorant and dim-witted are heard just because they are louder.
Why are people now only living day by day look for the next sum of money, rather than trying to better themselves and seeking enlightenment. In this day and age if you was tell people that you are seeking enlightenment most people think you are on drugs or crazy. When did we as a race of beings went from who has the most knowledge to who has the most money?
lol I was playing devil's advocate and was not even trying because I was specking from personal experience. Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
Devil's advocate again, pointing that is is pointless to put more money into the school until system you can fix the problems in the governmental system.But, though that defends the statment "We should not increase school funds." it does not defend the statement "We should reduce teacher's pay." Then you break labor laws. And in order to change those, you need to change society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:06 pm
Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith ArchWarrior Twilightringwraith Ah, but lowering the cost of living means we would have to change the entire economy around. Changing the entire economy is impossible because lowering the cost of living means lowering the costs of goods, and lowering profits. Meaning that we would never be able to lower the price of living, because no one would go along with it. The big businesses would just jack up the prices again. Also, at that point, then we could just lower the wages along with the cost of living, and bypass all of this. And, if you were to lower the cost of living, everyone's wages would be lowered because the employers would realize they don't need all that money anymore. It's a giant circle of unending greed. Though, I do like the teaching license idea anyway. See, I, personally, have had a lot of teachers I can connect with, and know a lot about their subject. Mr. Kaiser, my science teacher. Herr Taylor, my German teacher. My history teacher. (His name has slipped my mind for the moment) Though a lot of people place value on intellect, they place more value on money because without money, they and their family and up on the streets without food.
Devil's advocate again, pointing that is is pointless to put more money into the school until system you can fix the problems in the governmental system.But, though that defends the statment "We should not increase school funds." it does not defend the statement "We should reduce teacher's pay." Then you break labor laws. And in order to change those, you need to change society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
