Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The mentally deficient quarterly

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 3:37:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
(((5)))

At 9/20/2012 7:18:59 PM, Numidious wrote:

And with no government...

A disabled person, unable to obtain a job (and obviously with no welfare or benefits) has lost their parents. There are no local private charities. They starve to death.

(((4)))

At 9/20/2012 2:10:23 PM, DanT wrote:

Obama's campaign has desecrated the American Flag as a campaign ploy....

(((3)))

At 9/21/2012 10:07:26 AM, MouthWash wrote:

Homosexuality is unhealthy. And I can prove it.

(((2)))

At 9/20/2012 7:18:59 PM, Numidious wrote:

Non - aggression principle logic =

A person is threatening to kill me. I do not try to stop him or "initiate aggression" until he's killed me.

(((1)))

At 9/18/2012 2:30:24 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

The goal of leftists is to make the US mediocre. When mediocrity is the goal, success is marked [b]y decline.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 7:12:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol @ benchwarmer.

LOL @ you looking so sleepy the whole vid.

LMAO! @ Mouthwash's quote.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 11:18:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You say Uh a lot.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome. By settling for medioctrity we can more easily acheive equality of outcome than trying to bolster those who are less likely to succeed, so yes, the net result is mediocrity. Now for the context of the US, there is a perception that our country itself is dominant and more successful among nations, and within has a great disparity between the "poor" and the "rich". So targeting the US with this agenda is perfectly logical and necessary than say Uganda.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

By settling for medioctrity we can more easily acheive equality of outcome than trying to bolster those who are less likely to succeed, so yes, the net result is mediocrity. Now for the context of the US, there is a perception that our country itself is dominant and more successful among nations, and within has a great disparity between the "poor" and the "rich". So targeting the US with this agenda is perfectly logical and necessary than say Uganda.

It's pretty obvious that your opinions are derived from hard rightwing talking points, maybe you've been watching FOX News or something. I'm not impressed
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:45:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

That's completely contradictory. There is no "celebration" of success and wealth when you're taking it away disproportionately, and rewarding those who are less successful by giving them handouts. That's not equality of opportunity, if you're mitigating the final result. You are in fact looking toward equality of outcome.

By settling for mediocrity we can more easily achieve equality of outcome than trying to bolster those who are less likely to succeed, so yes, the net result is mediocrity. Now for the context of the US, there is a perception that our country itself is dominant and more successful among nations, and within has a great disparity between the "poor" and the "rich". So targeting the US with this agenda is perfectly logical and necessary than say Uganda.

It's pretty obvious that your opinions are derived from hard rightwing talking points, maybe you've been watching FOX News or something. I'm not impressed

I'm not trying to impress you of all people, and by dismissing something by saying it's derived from Fox News, which it's not, check my profile, is just a loser at an argument. The ultimate value of equality for the left is not some secret or a radical talking point, but a truism about leftism.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 2:56:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 2:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

That's completely contradictory. There is no "celebration" of success and wealth when you're taking it away disproportionately, and rewarding those who are less successful by giving them handouts. That's not equality of opportunity, if you're mitigating the final result. You are in fact looking toward equality of outcome.

The point of welfare and other entitlement programs isn't to provide people with a permanent solution, it's to temporarily save them, their lives, and their families when they've fallen....it's a necessary function of any community. You can't just let people die or suffer or fail without catching them and letting get back on their own two feet. What do you think they're proud of getting free money from the government? Your mindset is wrong. These programs aren't for making sure that everyone is rich, its for helping people become financially stable again, and then go on their own. What outcome is being equalized?... that they didn't lose their children their homes and eat from a local supermarket garbage bin?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:10:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 2:56:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

That's completely contradictory. There is no "celebration" of success and wealth when you're taking it away disproportionately, and rewarding those who are less successful by giving them handouts. That's not equality of opportunity, if you're mitigating the final result. You are in fact looking toward equality of outcome.

The point of welfare and other entitlement programs isn't to provide people with a permanent solution, it's to temporarily save them, their lives, and their families when they've fallen....it's a necessary function of any community. You can't just let people die or suffer or fail without catching them and letting get back on their own two feet. What do you think they're proud of getting free money from the government? Your mindset is wrong. These programs aren't for making sure that everyone is rich, its for helping people become financially stable again, and then go on their own. What outcome is being equalized?... that they didn't lose their children their homes and eat from a local supermarket garbage bin?

Okay, go the emotional route in argumentation. First you go with the disparaging via some idiotic association with Fox News, then you pull out an emotional and irrelevant point. The fact is, the left does indeed look toward equality of outcome, and income redistribution is a very good example of that, but truly we are speaking of in increase of mediocrity within our society as a result of this goal of the left. The recent news on SAT's is evidential of how standards are being lowered, EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process. Why lower the standards of the test? Why not just allow those who cannot do well fail?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:10:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:56:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

That's completely contradictory. There is no "celebration" of success and wealth when you're taking it away disproportionately, and rewarding those who are less successful by giving them handouts. That's not equality of opportunity, if you're mitigating the final result. You are in fact looking toward equality of outcome.

The point of welfare and other entitlement programs isn't to provide people with a permanent solution, it's to temporarily save them, their lives, and their families when they've fallen....it's a necessary function of any community. You can't just let people die or suffer or fail without catching them and letting get back on their own two feet. What do you think they're proud of getting free money from the government? Your mindset is wrong. These programs aren't for making sure that everyone is rich, its for helping people become financially stable again, and then go on their own. What outcome is being equalized?... that they didn't lose their children their homes and eat from a local supermarket garbage bin?

Okay, go the emotional route in argumentation. First you go with the disparaging via some idiotic association with Fox News, then you pull out an emotional and irrelevant point. The fact is, the left does indeed look toward equality of outcome, and income redistribution is a very good example of that, but truly we are speaking of in increase of mediocrity within our society as a result of this goal of the left. The recent news on SAT's is evidential of how standards are being lowered, EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process. Why lower the standards of the test? Why not just allow those who cannot do well fail?

I really hope you know that yelling "emotional argument!" is not a valid response to anything. I didn't use any emotional words, I didn't use any kind of hyperbole or go on a moral tantrum, I told you what happens in real life,... unless shielding yourself from such events makes you feel more comfortable about your opinions. I find it funny that this evasive accusation took up the bulk of your response....and then the part that really gets me is that you don't address the points I put forth, you just continue on your own. Why haven't you addressed my point about how these entitlement programs aren't to level the playing field but save people from truly terrible events and let them get back on their own feet?...you just go on and talk about college entitlement.

You have the behavior of a very mature and reasonable person, but paradoxically, the opinions of a carelessly minded fanatic.

I am a Liberal Innomen. You can't tell me what Liberals believe and want, I will tell you what our goal is. With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:35:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds.:

Nobody owes society a f*cking thing, just as society owes you nothing. IF, however, you personally feel a moral obligation to your fellow man, and have the means to help others, I certainly think that is wonderful. If you make $10 million a year, and feel compelled to donate $3 million of the proceeds to the needy, by all means give. Hell, if you make 22K a year, and feel compelled to give away 7K, that's your prerogative.

The problem with the Progressive mindset, IMO, is that they want to "take" money by force and/or coersion, then redistribute it and call that "giving." Surely you would agree that true charity is far superior than obligatory taxes. And the fact of the matter is that Americans are the most generous people in the world, statistically speaking. Private charity exceeds government tax by leaps and bounds. When it comes to charity, at least you have the choice.

So, since charitable organizations donate their time, money, and energy in service to others, why do you feel it is necessary for Uncle Sam to come in at the point of a gun on top of it?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:30:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:10:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:56:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:45:37 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:36:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 2:29:12 PM, innomen wrote:
The left wants mediocrity, well not exactly, but sort of. The left believes in equality above all things, and this can easily be demonstrated by pretty much any position that the left takes. What they want for the US is equality of outcome, that is to say that society shouldn't have people who are more successful than others, particularly if the more successful are so at the expense of those who are less successful. So equality of outcome is indeed a goal of the left, and the quickest route to this is by way of lowering standards so that more will succeed at lower levels. Affirmative action is a really good example of working toward equality of outcome.

Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. This includes in large part, paying a fair tax rate that really won't alter their lifestyle in any meaningful way.

That's completely contradictory. There is no "celebration" of success and wealth when you're taking it away disproportionately, and rewarding those who are less successful by giving them handouts. That's not equality of opportunity, if you're mitigating the final result. You are in fact looking toward equality of outcome.

The point of welfare and other entitlement programs isn't to provide people with a permanent solution, it's to temporarily save them, their lives, and their families when they've fallen....it's a necessary function of any community. You can't just let people die or suffer or fail without catching them and letting get back on their own two feet. What do you think they're proud of getting free money from the government? Your mindset is wrong. These programs aren't for making sure that everyone is rich, its for helping people become financially stable again, and then go on their own. What outcome is being equalized?... that they didn't lose their children their homes and eat from a local supermarket garbage bin?

Okay, go the emotional route in argumentation. First you go with the disparaging via some idiotic association with Fox News, then you pull out an emotional and irrelevant point. The fact is, the left does indeed look toward equality of outcome, and income redistribution is a very good example of that, but truly we are speaking of in increase of mediocrity within our society as a result of this goal of the left. The recent news on SAT's is evidential of how standards are being lowered, EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process. Why lower the standards of the test? Why not just allow those who cannot do well fail?

I really hope you know that yelling "emotional argument!" is not a valid response to anything. I didn't use any emotional words, I didn't use any kind of hyperbole or go on a moral tantrum, I told you what happens in real life,... unless shielding yourself from such events makes you feel more comfortable about your opinions. I find it funny that this evasive accusation took up the bulk of your response....and then the part that really gets me is that you don't address the points I put forth, you just continue on your own. Why haven't you addressed my point about how these entitlement programs aren't to level the playing field but save people from truly terrible events and let them get back on their own feet?...you just go on and talk about college entitlement.

You have the behavior of a very mature and reasonable person, but paradoxically, the opinions of a carelessly minded fanatic.

I am a Liberal Innomen. You can't tell me what Liberals believe and want, I will tell you what our goal is. With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:43:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:35:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Um, no...not even close. Liberals want equality of opportunity, and celebrate success and wealth. The philosophy behind it is that those who are successful owe it to the society that made their success possible in the first place, to ensure that others have access to the same opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds.:

Nobody owes society a f*cking thing, just as society owes you nothing. IF, however, you personally feel a moral obligation to your fellow man, and have the means to help others, I certainly think that is wonderful. If you make $10 million a year, and feel compelled to donate $3 million of the proceeds to the needy, by all means give. Hell, if you make 22K a year, and feel compelled to give away 7K, that's your prerogative.

The problem with the Progressive mindset, IMO, is that they want to "take" money by force and/or coersion, then redistribute it and call that "giving." Surely you would agree that true charity is far superior than obligatory taxes. And the fact of the matter is that Americans are the most generous people in the world, statistically speaking. Private charity exceeds government tax by leaps and bounds. When it comes to charity, at least you have the choice.

So, since charitable organizations donate their time, money, and energy in service to others, why do you feel it is necessary for Uncle Sam to come in at the point of a gun on top of it?

This. That's what I don't understand about liberals. They speak really nicely about helping people and being charitable and all that but when it comes to actual methods of redistribution they're more apt to favor coercion and force rather then relying on actual moral sentiment. So socially, liberals get the reputation of being good and caring while people who are interested in deconstructing institutional barriers to economic growth and welfare (IP, regulatory measures that artificially raise overheads, protectionist economics, etc. etc.) are simply selfish arseholes.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:54:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?

Curious where your getting the information that the SAT test is easier? If anything, its harder with the new writing section.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 3:55:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.

I really wish you'd pay attention to what I'm arguing before you go on a retarded rant. No one said to give everyone degrees and send everyone to college, the argument is to shift the basis of success from aristocracy to meritocracy....allow the people with the talent and work ethic to succeed rather than those with the money.

A lot of people will still not go to college or necessarily get degrees, but the people that do will have earned it without being obstructed by the barrier of finances, which is not a controllable or fair restriction. (inb4 @sshole reply)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:55:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.

I really wish you'd pay attention to what I'm arguing before you go on a retarded rant. No one said to give everyone degrees and send everyone to college, the argument is to shift the basis of success from aristocracy to meritocracy....allow the people with the talent and work ethic to succeed rather than those with the money.

A lot of people will still not go to college or necessarily get degrees, but the people that do will have earned it without being obstructed by the barrier of finances, which is not a controllable or fair restriction. (inb4 @sshole reply)

You just can't be that dim.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:54:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?

Curious where your getting the information that the SAT test is easier? If anything, its harder with the new writing section.

Trying to find the story that was on the news this morning, but try this: http://old.nationalreview.com...

Granted it's an opinion piece, but I wasn't able to document what I saw this morning.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:14:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:55:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.

I really wish you'd pay attention to what I'm arguing before you go on a retarded rant. No one said to give everyone degrees and send everyone to college, the argument is to shift the basis of success from aristocracy to meritocracy....allow the people with the talent and work ethic to succeed rather than those with the money.

A lot of people will still not go to college or necessarily get degrees, but the people that do will have earned it without being obstructed by the barrier of finances, which is not a controllable or fair restriction. (inb4 @sshole reply)

You do know that there are a SH1T TON of ways to pay for college, right? There are hundreds of thousands of scholarships for damn near everything under the sun. If you're academically meritous, you can get into a good school that would be willing to give you need-based aid. I, for example, will probably be going to an Ivy League school, and am dirt fvcking poor. And chances are, I'll only have to pay a sum that's not even more than 500$ because Ivies have a policy of being needs-blind, and giving grants as aid--no having to pay money back. And they do this PRIVATELY.

And community colleges are always an option as well.

In other words, there's ample, and I mean AMPLE, opportunity to get a good education that requires no government.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:15:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:05:19 PM, innomen wrote:

You just can't be that dim.

ad hominem. Please address the content of my argument if you have a problem with it, I can only assume you've reduced to insults because you don't have a sensible rebuttal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:15:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:55:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.

I really wish you'd pay attention to what I'm arguing before you go on a retarded rant. No one said to give everyone degrees and send everyone to college, the argument is to shift the basis of success from aristocracy to meritocracy....allow the people with the talent and work ethic to succeed rather than those with the money.

A lot of people will still not go to college or necessarily get degrees, but the people that do will have earned it without being obstructed by the barrier of finances, which is not a controllable or fair restriction. (inb4 @sshole reply)

Duuuude I feel like you're just messing with me right now. Do you really think that's what this is? You're taking the status quo as something which naturally exists. As if the costs of attending any college and the level of income equality that exist are really that high just because that's how the world works. It's not. Look at the actual barriers to entry and institutions that screw over poor people. They're created by the government. So you're saying "let's get the nice old government to fix the problem the mean old government started". That's retarded.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 3:55:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Dude do you really understand nothing of economics? Supply and demand ring a bell? When you give everyone a bachelors degree you make it worthless. It's the same thing that happened to high school degrees. Do you wonder why no stable, good paying job only requires a HS degree? Because everyone has one. Emotional sentiments and wishy washy feel good ranting doesn't change that. If you want to help people then deconstruct barriers which actually hurt the poor i.e., the war on drugs, high regulatory overheads, FREAKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and all the other crap the government is doing to screw over poor people.

I really wish you'd pay attention to what I'm arguing before you go on a retarded rant. No one said to give everyone degrees and send everyone to college, the argument is to shift the basis of success from aristocracy to meritocracy....allow the people with the talent and work ethic to succeed rather than those with the money.

A lot of people will still not go to college or necessarily get degrees, but the people that do will have earned it without being obstructed by the barrier of finances, which is not a controllable or fair restriction. (inb4 @sshole reply)

a) If government did not interfere than education would be a lot cheaper and spread through other means (for example, online education or collaborative learning). Think about how inefficient the education system is today. Your paying a guy with a pHD to just lecture, which is an ineffective technique, to only a few dozens kids (hundreds if its an intro class) which could just be recorded using modern day technology. Its such an inefficient system that its hard to even think of a more inefficient system with modern day technology.

b) Education can be financed through debt. The amount of interest you pay can be based on the school and major you plan on doing. There's also the possibility of using human capital contracts (you don't have to pay any debt but have to give some of your salary to the person who financed you).

c) On-the-job training would work instead of education. However, since these new people will not be of much value, they will not be worth minimum wage and would be a risk since they are not obligated to stay with the company. Therefore, they can't receive any training, even though it would be more efficient, since they could be doing productive work and money, instead of unproductive work and paying.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@DNinja, exactly. I'm dirt poor and did just above average in HS but got a pretty good scholarship that pays for most of my tuition.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:15:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:05:19 PM, innomen wrote:

You just can't be that dim.

ad hominem. Please address the content of my argument if you have a problem with it, I can only assume you've reduced to insults because you don't have a sensible rebuttal.

No.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:07:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:54:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?

Curious where your getting the information that the SAT test is easier? If anything, its harder with the new writing section.

Trying to find the story that was on the news this morning, but try this: http://old.nationalreview.com...

Granted it's an opinion piece, but I wasn't able to document what I saw this morning.

That is true that it changed from an achievement test when it was originally an aptitude test. However, its not necessarily dumbing it down. Rather changing what it measures.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:28:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:22:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:07:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:54:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?

Curious where your getting the information that the SAT test is easier? If anything, its harder with the new writing section.

Trying to find the story that was on the news this morning, but try this: http://old.nationalreview.com...

Granted it's an opinion piece, but I wasn't able to document what I saw this morning.

That is true that it changed from an achievement test when it was originally an aptitude test. However, its not necessarily dumbing it down. Rather changing what it measures.

That's hardly the point of the article.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 4:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/25/2012 4:28:15 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:22:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 4:07:41 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:54:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:49:30 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:46:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:44:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:42:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/25/2012 3:37:21 PM, innomen wrote:

Why did I ignore the bulk of your rant? Because it was irrelevant to the point of mediocrity and society. You trying to make a point independent of that is a derailment of my post that you responded to. I will continue to ignore your idiotic emotional rants, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

You ignored my question, which is spot on to the point, why have they been lowering the standards of the SAT's? Why not let people just fail, and leave the standards alone?

Really?... Let me post my response again so that anyone who happens to be reading can see your blatant cop out.

With regard to education, no one is "entitled" to college. What Liberals to give those with the academic prerequisites the opportunity to go to a good college irrespective of their financial background. We don't want people to be denied education because of the environment they're born into, we want it based on work ethic, not class. This counters the vicious cycle of poverty and gives those who deserve it access to sound education.

Um, so making the SAT's easier has exactly what to do with the economics of the person taking the test?

You never mentioned what specifically changed about the SAT. This was your comment, the above is my response.

"EVERYONE seems to feel entitled to college, and more and more money is paid into the process."

4th time asking, why have they made the SAT's easier, made the standards lower?

Curious where your getting the information that the SAT test is easier? If anything, its harder with the new writing section.

Trying to find the story that was on the news this morning, but try this: http://old.nationalreview.com...

Granted it's an opinion piece, but I wasn't able to document what I saw this morning.

That is true that it changed from an achievement test when it was originally an aptitude test. However, its not necessarily dumbing it down. Rather changing what it measures.

That's hardly the point of the article.

I understand the point. The article states the SAT exam should be based on aptitude, not achievement. I agree with that. However changing the SAT =/= changing the difficulty.

Although, to be fair, College Board is a private company, so it can do what it wants, not a government entity.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...