That kid sounds so...american
Printable View
That kid sounds so...american
Jesus. Some of our politicians are certainly braindamaged. Our Federal Prosecutor General stated today:
"There has been no evidence that the NASA has done surveillance on German targets."
Seriously?
Okay, aside from this "mistake", the reason he gave for this certainty can be summarized as followed: "We asked nicely and the US told us so."
The fuckers are now pissing on us and don't even have the decency to call it rain.
Khen, it's just as bad in the US. See CBS and 60 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4452568.html
On a lighter WTF note, I saw some "Text Umbrellas" for sale today. They come with a four-finger handle grip that leaves the thumb "free to text, even in the rain!" :mong:
WTF is up with the Republican party in southern states? :rolleyes:
I'd modify the idea to exempt students who get good grades from the process but other then that I don't see a big deal. A little sweeping isn't a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Considering how little of an excuse people in schools need to bully their classmates, you don't see a problem with presenting such an easy target of the poor?
It's one thing to attach strings to assistance that's meant to persuade people to better themselves. How would forcing the poor students to wash the floors persuade their parents to get better jobs?
sweeping floors was a punishment in my middle and high school years. why exactly would Lewk support punishing these kids for coming from poor families?
This is why if the kids perform well in school they are exempt. Besides bullying occurs for lots of reasons that's hardly a reason to stop a program that could install a work ethic. Why does everyone think short term - this could provide a long term benefit for the kids, especially since with my idea they have a good incentive to actually do well in school. Lots of poor kids come from families who don't give a crap, this gives them an immediate incentive to do well in school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
lewk needs to brush up on his understanding of operant conditioning
You'd still be punishing dumb poor kids for being poor. This won't give them an incentive to do better; it will give them an incentive to not go to school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I didn't know 10 minutes of work was such a horrific possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
WTFLewk strikes again! Instill a "work ethic" in poor kids needing lunch subsidies....by using "work" as punishment for poor grades. :rolleyes:
Up next, WTFLewk will quote Republican Religious Right wingers who say, "Those who do not work shall not eat".
10 minutes of work isn't a horrific possibility in the slightest in isolation. It's what accompanies those 10 minutes that could indeed be horrific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Did you miss the last 5 posts? The point isn't the work; it's that this will create a visible hierarchy in school, one that clearly discriminates against the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Do you have any clue what bullying does to a child's self-esteem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There was even a recent study showing that children that are bullied are something like 6 times more likely to develop severe mental illnesses.
Then make everyone clean up after themselves and rotate through the people who will sweep up afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And here I thought the point of school was learning, not labor.
Are the two mutually exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Would making children work in school make them more likely to show up to school? Would it improve their grades? If the answer is no to the two questions, what educational goal are you trying to promote?
Cutting difficult courses out of the curriculum might do both. Does that mean it is the right educational choice? By that same token, I think there's value in instilling and promoting a strong work ethic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Enoch, forcing them to sweep floors is not exactly "instilling and promoting a strong work ethic".
I get what you're trying to achieve. Doesn't mean however that your chosen method will actually have the results you strive for - my parents tried all sorts of things to get me to clean up my room on a regular basis.
Didn't work. Judging from that personal experience and from my studies in psychology, I'm not seeing a causal relationship which would validate your opinion.
when did slavery instill or promote a strong work ethic? :bulb:
Considering the obesity epidemic and the sad lack of work ethic in the millennials I think labor might get a few more gains then pure education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Because self-esteem is the be all end all. After all everyone deserves to have a trophy!Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Clearly there is no difference between saying everyone is a winner and not creating conditions that demean some students for factors outside of their control.
I honestly don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but I don't believe that students will suddenly break down if the expectation was that they do more around the school to help out. Is it a surefire way to instill a strong work ethic? I doubt it. Would it hurt? I somehow also doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Are you really trying to equate sweeping up the lunchroom after lunch with slavery? Is doing homework slavery? What about pushups during gym class? I mean, that's almost exactly like the horrors of slavery.Quote:
when did slavery instill or promote a strong work ethic? :bulb:
Really Lewk? Then means something different than what you belive it does;Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What you meant was than;Quote:
at that time: Prices were lower then.
Please educate youself and your children lest we become a nation of illerterates. You can continue showing your ignorance if you want, but it only looks good to rednecks...and I'm betting your's is not even red.Quote:
to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison.
It won't achieve anything. Not to mention that this also means that you're now paying teachers to sweep the floors - or do you think that pupils can do the sweeping unsupervised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Which means in turn that not only did you not save any money (as you're paying teachers to do that), you're actively putting people out of a job, namely those low-skilled jobs anyone could do. Thought about that?