Education is a privilege, not a right.

ISAW

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Also just because someone has a degree does not necesarily mean there is a 500k job waiting for them, like a art or illustration degree, will still need to pay the bills while working on their masterpiece or preparing a portfolio.

I must directly contradict this! I challenge you on this because I am certain that the earnings of those with a degree is higher on average than those without one. Earnings correlates directly with education level and there are a plethora of stats to support this.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.mtctrains.com/institute/publications/DS-ValueOfEducation.pdf
Overall, the higher qualifications for ACT residents appear to correlate with higher average weekly earnings of the local workforce, and lower unemployment rates compared to Australian averages.
http://www.environmentcommissioner.act.gov.au/education03.html#summary_of_results



Also, art pays quite well I believe.

Median annual earnings of salaried art directors were $61,850 in 2002. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm
or see graphic art here: http://jobstar.org/tools/salary/sal-prof.cfm

Boggle

I must directly contradict this! I challenge you on this because I am certain that the earnings of those with a degree is higher on average than those without one.

Thats got alot to do with the fact that the non-degree section includes those with jobs aswell as careers (I see a distinction). I'm an test eng with a highly respected electronics company for 4 years and I know for a fact that plumbers, electricians, etc pull in more a week than I do and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why do you think its always the builders who have the Beemers??

Not saying that a degree isn't good, but I am acknowledging the fact that you don't need to have a degree to make a good living.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Boggle wrote:

Not saying that a degree isn't good, but I am acknowledging the fact that you don't need to have a degree to make a good living.

I agree with you one hundred per cent. I have a pal who just (well around March) got a six million Euro contract for the Pheonix park Racecourse development. Himself (a carpenter) and two other builders are the whole company. At the same time over large populations those with education get paid more. One difference is that the "pension is security" civil and public servants operate a "dont take risks" mindset. The businessman thrives on risk. when something does not work the good ones move on to another venture. For the "safe job" people this never enters their mind. But while they do not earn millions, they can get into the 100 to 150 k per year, they have no risks and are in all the "right" clubs. and they have immense power. More than politicians. i mean who do you think awards the massive 100 million plus contracts without any come back if it goes to the wrong person? I don't mean corruption I mean inept management. How for example did Dennis O Brien get a telecoms mobile phone licence for (was it ?) 15 million and sell it a few years later for 250 million?( was it) How come the civil service advisors didnt know how much it was worth? did any of them get the sack? and good look to O brien for "identifying risk" which is what they should have been doing. A FG minister Lowry was sacked but I dont think he took a bribe for the deal. I actually believe he went by the advice of the non sackable public servants.

No you don't have to have a degree to make money. But if you are going to deal with public servants they probably will have several for all the good it does them.

ItalianStallion

ziggy67 wrote:

Is this acceptable language?

Calling homeless people bums- shocking!

this polotical correctness nonsence is a joke right?
well thay are bums, what can i say? they refuse jobs people offer them, drink all day and sleep in the street. they are also my friends.

ItalianStallion

BlitzKrieg Saying Tesco is *victory brand* is sweet, what about wal-mart and associated supermarkets or duane reade? why may i ask is tesco victory brand and not these products? Could you please provide some evidence of this claim that europe is this materialistic obbsessed society, Despite the enormous number of cultural events and festivals ranging from a national level to huge international events. Funnily enough and i know your too busy stereotyping us but europe is made of numerous political parties, and very little of good old Karl's teachings seem to be followed in full in europe (nope no revolution of the proletariet, karl said nothing about the government implementing social policies...he must be spinning in his grave.) And while we are using political figures of yesteryear, was it not Jefferson, the architect of the republic you love so much supported the french revolution and considered black people not human.

I called tesco brand "victory" because of the victory brand in 1984. it is really low quality but still really in demand. there is no "walmarts choice" brand, but they do have a generic, but i have to say that the quality is much higher. they have to be accountable to a more sophisticated palete.
europe is more matrealistic because they sold out their idealism. look at the eu. the best (only) argument made for it is economic stability. they had to trade some autonomy though. hmmm...trading autonomy for money seems matrealistic to me. y'all sold out and now your possesions have possesed you!


And in that big chunk of a reply you still havnt explained why it is more orwellian for the government to support educating all parts of its society then to only allow those who can pay.

Orwell created a society where the government had huge sway over and regulated almost all aspects of people's lives. this buracracy denied private interest, banned free speech, was socialist, made everyone about the same aside form the burocrat leaders and was set in europe. sounds like the eu to me.




evidence please. You could argue that the new amendment outlawing burning of the american flag is a step in the direction of thought crimes.

france banned religious symbols and the right to insult someone based on race, religion, perperence, national origen etc. sounds like thought crimes to me. they even fined bridget bardaux for saying "muslim slaugtering practices are cruel."



But the kicker is that the EU is not the all powerful body in each nation. Each nation still holds the right and ability to leave the EU or not accept its policies (example UK with the euro), yes you could say the fact that despite voting against nice the first time the irish public were told to vote again, but changes were made due to the initial 'no' and hopefully something similar will come out of the failure of the constitution vote. and on the illusion element, go to a baseball game and enjoy the hate sessions...

the eu makes the majority of the laws concerning your country. although you can leave, your greedy poloticians would never let that happen. look at the treaty of nice. that was insulting to the Irish people that it was put up again. they wouldent accept the will of the people in a society that claims to be a republic.


can anyone else see what these two topics have in common? And the law i was referring to was that in Europe if you use GM crops you must state so on the product while in America it is possible to put 'organic product' stamped onto your product and still use GM products.

yes. y'all's disregard for the life of the unborn but a selfish love of your own bodies whose comfort you are willing to sacrifice everything to protect.


IF you dont have insurance the cost of prescription glasses or medication in the USA is double that of Ireland. How about the fact that if you get shot in washington and dont have insurance they have to drive you to Baltimore because none of the hospitals in Washington will accept patients without insurance.

yes, but because we are more free then you, money flows better into private charities which in turn help people. oh, and blue cross/sheild and medicare also foot the bill. your story about washington hospitals is a lie. it is federal law that a doctor cant refuse to treat a patient in the er. as for your state er's, he would probably die in the lobby before a doctor saw him. private instutions are always more efficient.

ItalianStallion

AngelofFire]I dont think public spending across the board is high enough and i firmly believe that people on higher income should pay higher taxes and i make no apology for that view, Mexico spends more money than ireland on education as a percentage of GDP.

thats because your a socialist. why not let the people keep the fruits of their labours and decide for themsleves how they are divested of them? graduated income taxes are immoral.

ItalianStallion

The Corinthian]Is that more ‘Freedom Fries’ type jingoism or do you have a more profound explanation to that comment?

refer to post above about france

Actually you did; to the “United States of America”. Of course, some of the states prior to the union were kind of made up, but not all. Some were quite distinct and independent. You even had a point when a good few of them chose to leave the union and go their own way, and we all know what happened then, don’t we? So I wouldn’t lecture Europeans on the topic of selling freedom, TBH.

well, although i would have fought for the South, things turned out for the best in the long run in that we are united. but your country did sell its freedom. they got money for their freedom. sounds like they sold themselves into slavery to me.

The World is full of such ironies and paradoxes. Look at the right in the US, who will fervently campaign against euthanasia and abortion, yet will just as energetically support the death penalty. “But that’s different”, I’m sure you’ll say - and perhaps it is, and then so perhaps is stem cell research.

the old and the unborn are generally innocent while the condemned are generally not. stemcell research is just as sinister as abortion. its sad that those who are against animal testing are fine with doing it to the unborn. but im sure you're for theat dr. mengele.

BlitzKrieg

I called tesco brand "victory" because of the victory brand in 1984. it is really low quality but still really in demand. there is no "walmarts choice" brand, but they do have a generic, but i have to say that the quality is much higher. they have to be accountable to a more sophisticated palete.

I know why you called it victory brand...i just dont see how its different from duane reade or walmart's *cheap* alternative, except maybe that they dont state they are the walmart brand,` and you keep going on about the better quality of american products...can you please provide any proof.

europe is more matrealistic because they sold out their idealism. look at the eu. the best (only) argument made for it is economic stability. they had to trade some autonomy though. hmmm...trading autonomy for money seems matrealistic to me. y'all sold out and now your possesions have possesed you!

Do you not consider nations who just over fifty years ago were destroyed by the most horrific war ever banding together to rebuild and ensure it never happens again idealistic? And the EU has expanded from its economic routes to include cultural and social developments (like:http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/portal/index_en.htm) and again promote the well being and rights of all humans (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/intro/) these are not materalistic ideals.

Orwell created a society where the government had huge sway over and regulated almost all aspects of people's lives. this buracracy denied private interest, banned free speech, was socialist, made everyone about the same aside form the burocrat leaders and was set in europe. sounds like the eu to me.

Again you give me the impression that you havnt read the book as while yes it is under a socialist system the crux of the government in Orwell's 1984 was its control by the people believing they had a good life under the system this mixed with constant threats and war from outside the state, real or not (terror alerts anyone?oh and read this http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614&nav=EQlpWjof) created the horror that was 1984. let me ask you a question. Does the USA allow anti-USA parties sit in congress? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3806503.stm

the eu makes the majority of the laws concerning your country. although you can leave, your greedy poloticians would never let that happen. look at the treaty of nice. that was insulting to the Irish people that it was put up again. they wouldent accept the will of the people in a society that claims to be a republic.

yes when nice was put up a second time i was disgusted aswell as it was undemocratic But greedy politicions in britain did not jump onto the euro bandwagon, despite the clear advantages it had for the british economy. Have you looked at the laws in the nations of europe, there are completely different laws in some of these nations. An obvious example is Holland. On the whole leaving discussion, i remind you a portion of the american civil war was wether to give states the right to leave the USA or not...it seems that they dont have that right.

your story about washington hospitals is a lie. it is federal law that a doctor cant refuse to treat a patient in the er.

from here:http://www.washingtonpeacecenter.org/articles/dcghcase.html, its an old article as since then the hospital has been privitised since then

DC General is the only hospital in the district that treats a majority of underinsured and uninsured residents for free.

And while yes it is illegal for a doctor to refuse a patient in ER, its not illegal to check a victim before he is put in a ambulance wether he has health insurance or not and then decide where to take him.

as for your state er's, he would probably die in the lobby before a doctor saw him. private instutions are always more efficient.

True, but if he had no way of paying then they would flatly refuse to see him or let him near the ER.

pete

ItalianStallion wrote:

france banned religious symbols

In public schools.

and the right to insult someone based on race, religion, perperence, national origen etc.sounds like thought crimes to me.

Really? They sound like incitement to hatred laws to me, and last time I checked such laws don't make it illegal to think anything.

ps You're not seriously defending the right to insult someone's perperence, are you? wtf!?!!?

pps Spellcheck. Please.

ppps Quote tags. Please.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ItalianStallion

pete wrote:

In public schools.



Really? They sound like incitement to hatred laws to me, and last time I checked such laws don't make it illegal to think anything.

ps You're not seriously defending the right to insult someone's perperence, are you? wtf!?!!?

pps Spellcheck. Please.

ppps Quote tags. Please.

its a right under freedom of speech. are you actually going to deny people that right? liberals are so close minded!

ISAW

ItalianStallion wrote:

its a right under freedom of speech. are you actually going to deny people that right? liberals are so close minded!

You are referring of course to the right to wear religious garb/symbols etc. in state schools which was recently (in the last year) banned in France. This point comes from the basis that you are comparing France to the US. But you are aware that in the US prayer etc. has been banned for decades? So isn't this a case of a very very blackened pot calling a somewhat new kettle black?

You are also aware that as a rather new nation (but I admit an old country by modern standards - as old as France so no claims to superiority there) the US seems to be dictating the rest of the world what is the right thing to do? Now you already agreed that there is a natural law ( for my position reference Natural Law thread in Irish Sceptics and for Itallion stallions the precurser to this thread in the Education>Trinity college Dublin). You also accepted and quoted catholic church doctrine. So you must accept that the President of America has not got moral authority over the whole world. do you? Also you do know that the Papacy was for some time in France? Do you accept the decisions and the authority of the Papacy at that time? do you accept that the French Papacy was correct? Or do you perfer to adhere to a Protestant viewpoint like you r President Bush? Do you reject the French Papacy as legimate or as a moral authority? Given that America never had a papacy I will assume your counter argument is that the French have changed since that time. So I will ask you how have they changed in any way that the US hasn't? If you cant delinate specific supportable instances then it is rather prepostorous to claim moral (on your own terms and definition of moral) superiority over France isnt it?

ISAW

pete wrote:

ps You're not seriously defending the right to insult someone's perperence, are you? wtf!?!!?

pps Spellcheck. Please.

Hmmm Pot kettle? hoist petard?
Preference is it?
The thing about thought crime is that even if it was illegal to think about committing illegal acts ( and it isnt or all writers politicians indeed everyone with an imagination who could imagine being different from an indoctrinated non free thinking robot would be in gaol) one would still have to be able to read someone elses thoughts. Now that ability does nt exist to my knowledge but I refer you to the Irish Skeptics forum if you have any knowledge of it.

Point being the person that accuses others of suggesting thought crime should be instituted may well be closer to the 1984 model of a good party member than those who are accused of being "liberal". Indeed it was liberal thinking which provideda means of escape from the 1984 system which reflects nasty elements of the right and left wing.

pete

ISAW wrote:

Hmmm Pot kettle? hoist petard?
Preference is it?
The thing about thought crime is that even if it was illegal to think about committing illegal acts ( and it isnt or all writers politicians indeed everyone with an imagination who could imagine being different from an indoctrinated non free thinking robot would be in gaol) one would still have to be able to read someone elses thoughts. Now that ability does nt exist to my knowledge but I refer you to the Irish Skeptics forum if you have any knowledge of it.

Point being the person that accuses others of suggesting thought crime should be instituted may well be closer to the 1984 model of a good party member than those who are accused of being "liberal". Indeed it was liberal thinking which provideda means of escape from the 1984 system which reflects nasty elements of the right and left wing.

What? Were you responding to me or did you just quote me for kicks?

pete

ItalianStallion wrote:

its a right under freedom of speech. are you actually going to deny people that right? liberals are so close minded!

While I have to congratulate you on your discovery of the Quote tags, I have to ask - what are you talking about?

ISAW

pete wrote:

What? Were you responding to me or did you just quote me for kicks?

You were posting Itallian stallion about spelling.
I don't want a spelling flame but what is "perperence"?

pete

ISAW wrote:

You were posting Itallian stallion about spelling.
I don't want a spelling flame but what is "perperence"?

I was quoting him, einstein.

Clowned.

ISAW

pete wrote:

I was quoting him, einstein.

But didnt his use of a perfectly cromulent word embiggen his already superliminal mode of communication?
Enough already.

sceptre

ISAW wrote:

Indeed it was liberal thinking which provideda means of escape from the 1984 system which reflects nasty elements of the right and left wing.

Every once in a while when 1984 becomes part of a debate someone has to come along and remind everyone that it was a book, a work of fiction. A clever book, an intuitive use of fiction given some recent events since its publication but fiction nonetheless. It would only have required a little more effort from Orwell, given his imagination, careful use of short words where a longer one would have done (I heartily approve) and his clever use of allegory, to come up with a nightmare future run(-ish of course) by liberal libertarian anarchists. He didn't choose to do so but nevertheless, it's a work of fiction. Cleverer than Superman or that flying Enterprise but a book thought up by a man.


As an aside, poking fun at people's speling isn't big and it isn't clefer. Use sparingly or not at all. It's much more useful to either discuss their points of view or point out how and why they're a load of old cobblers. Moderators tend to prefer that too. Mind you, as I've mentioned before I don't tend to find usage of the phrases "liberals are..." or "the right is..." (or "what would you expect from the <table side of choice here>") (or anything else all-encompassing painted with a floorbrush) all that useful in non-puerile discussion all that helpful either.

Now, I believe the vague topic at hand was whether education is a right of a privelege. Not the Avignon exile, Monsanto, why Cardinal Cody would have made a rather terrible pope, why Winston Smith's clocks were a bit wacky, whether faith in philanthropy is better than actual taxation, or frigging thought crimes. Unless someone can directly link those back to the main topic, make it stick and keep me satisfied, the best before date on this thread grows ever closer. Not that it hasn't been fun, though I haven't read any of it. Tick tock unless you can impress me or one of the other mods.

pete

sceptre wrote:

As an aside, poking fun at people's speling isn't big and it isn't clefer.

If this was in respect of

ps You're not seriously defending the right to insult someone's perperence, are you? wtf!?!!?

then all I'll say in my defence is that it was a postscript made after I had addressed a point, and was obviously meant as a joke on what appears to be a completely made-up word. It was not a sly attempt to undermine the poster.

If it was in respect of

pps Spellcheck. Please.

well that was an honest, heartfelt plea, as I find having to read through the same incorrect spellings over and over and over again to be quite painful. Again, it was not intended as a dig.

BlitzKrieg

back on topic...Ireland's workforce was successful in the celtic tiger because it was an educated workforce. If the numbers in universities were to be cut down by fee's do we have the industry to support a large uneducated workforce? (in america they do) not really a point, more of a question to put out on the field of discussion.

The Corinthian

ItalianStallion wrote:

refer to post above about france

Actually in many respects so was I. You’ve not actually posed a cogent argument to expalion logically what you meant, only put forward a number of jingoistic half truths (or more correctly misconceptions).

well, although i would have fought for the South, things turned out for the best in the long run in that we are united. but your country did sell its freedom. they got money for their freedom. sounds like they sold themselves into slavery to me.

Your country had it’s freedom forcibly taken away from it and ours has apparently sold it and your defence for yours is that “things turned out for the best in the long run”? Seriously, why can’t we say the same thing then? Please stick to facts and cogent arguments, BTW.

And as for fighting for the south, I suspect you’d be correct. However historically by south I mean you’d probably have been fighting for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies...

the old and the unborn are generally innocent while the condemned are generally not.

Stating a generalization as fact? Cute. Try sticking to stating facts as facts only please.

stemcell research is just as sinister as abortion. its sad that those who are against animal testing are fine with doing it to the unborn. but im sure you're for theat dr. mengele.

Who said I was for or against anything? I’m simply pointing out inconsistencies in your stated beliefs.

ItalianStallion

ItalianStallion wrote:

the old and the unborn are generally innocent while the condemned are generally not. stemcell research is just as sinister as abortion. its sad that those who are against animal testing are fine with doing it to the unborn. but im sure you're for theat dr. mengele.

When you post on the politics board you must abide by the rules.
One of them is attack the post and not the poster.
In other words, in order to maintain a semblence of civility on the board and ease of discussion, posters are not allowed to get personal.
You have crossed that line here and get a one week ban from this board

ISAW

sceptre wrote:

Every once in a while when 1984 becomes part of a debate someone has to come along and remind everyone that it was a book, a work of fiction.

Profound. But I think that is waht was done already.

As an aside, poking fun at people's speling isn't big and it isn't clefer. Use sparingly or not at all. ... all that useful in non-puerile discussion all that helpful either.

My comments were used in that light and in that way (I hope)

Now, I believe the vague topic at hand was whether education is a right of a privelege. Not the Avignon exile, Monsanto, why Cardinal Cody would have made a rather terrible pope, why Winston Smith's clocks were a bit wacky, whether faith in philanthropy is better than actual taxation, or frigging thought crimes. Unless someone can directly link those back to the main topic, make it stick and keep me satisfied, the best before date on this thread grows ever closer.

I am quite happy to do so (i.e show hte relevance) but I do not think they are not of huge importance and I do think your adherence to the topic of the thread is very pertinentent at this juncture. I would add that the Irish system of "free" fees does hold a central position in this issue in my opinion and I have posted several references to that end and asked the question "why should people who do not use it have to pay for it?"

Not that it hasn't been fun, though I haven't read any of it. Tick tock unless you can impress me or one of the other mods.

For my part i can say I am not trying to impress anyone. I am interested in rational debate on this issue. I do believe it is wider than the political question of who pays for it but I would welcome much broader points. For example is education an elitist persuit? Does that in itself imply an elite?

ISAW

pete wrote:

If this was in respect ofthen all I'll say in my defence is that it was a postscript made after I had addressed a point, and was obviously meant as a joke on what appears to be a completely made-up word. It was not a sly attempt to undermine the poster.
[

I can only agree.
My post in reply was done (obviously) in jest. One possible outcome was that the original poster would try to explain himself and in so doing undo the whole point made in earlier posts i.e. that people that post bad spelling and unknown words do not have to explain what they are posting since such people are better educated.

In short I was not attacking the person but the type of person he set himself up as. Hanging prepositions aside, I dont think that is a problem. In fact I think it is is an appeal to rationality. But maybe I err. If so please show me where I do.

baby*cham*bell

ItalianStallion wrote:

the fees keep riff-raff and those who have nothing better to do out.

surely the way to get rid if "riff raff" as you say is to educate people, which would involve the need give everyone a fair and equal chance to go on to higher education, not based on how wealthy they are?
(this is in reference to the first post only)