They deem everyone to be able to conform to their particular standards. They want everyone to attend years of college or university, so that they can become indoctrinated into the 'system'.
In this case; there are two reasons why a person might not achieve a 'B average'.
1) They might be actually much more intelligent than 'average', and the dumbed down education system bores them, or,
2) They simply do not have the mental aptitude to learn in 'the standardized system'.
For group 1; this leaves little to no opportunity to apply their capabilities, simply because without credentials, the 'establishment' will not allow them an opportunity.
For group 2; they could still be providing a valuable contribution to the advancement of society. What they need, is not to be made to attend college programs, but to learn just one valuable aspect of these programs, and afforded an opportunity to apply it.
There are also many people who become disillusioned, as they do complete the 'program' within the 'system' with high aptitude and skill, only to find that there are no opportunities available to them, unless they are from the 'privileged' class. So, they end up being highly educated people, working in low skill employment, earning a lower than average wage.
I, myself, could be training people (in group 2) to work in a valuable resource industry, but there is virtually no opportunity to do so, since I'm not from a privileged class, and although I did work very hard throughout my life, the greedy (privileged) people continued to take, take, take, while not rewarding me equitably for my work, while cost of living increases continue to rise, but my pay actually decreases.
The 'system' is broken.
There are about 1,000 things that I could be doing right now, towards a sustainable future.
"They deem everyone to be able to conform to their particular standards."
If you consider this to be a problem, why do you spam your beliefs every chance you get expecting people to conform to your standards?
They are not 'my' standards. They are standards which I believe all persons on Planet Earth should be agreeable to.
It is not "spam".
Should you disagree with anything that I have stated, that is fine. Please elaborate on what you disagree with, the reason(s) why you disagree, and any solutions for resolving this issue in a polite and friendly way.
"They are not 'my' standards. They are standards which I believe all persons on Planet Earth should be agreeable to."
That's precisely what I mean when I say "your standards:" They are the standards that YOU YOURSELF believe in and personally hold against everyone and expect them to live up to. This makes you no different than the government programs that you decry.
You are part of the problem.
"It is not "spam"."
Spam is defined as "disruptive messages, especially commercial messages posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail." You post the same message over and over on multiple questions on this site, regardless of context. They add nothing of any value to the topic at hand and only serve to disrupt the flow of conversation on that page by making them about your beliefs rather than the original question. Your messages are spam.
"Please elaborate on what you disagree with, the reason(s) why you disagree, and any solutions for resolving this issue in a polite and friendly way."
Are you sure you're capable of doing that without calling me a "brain-dead idiot?" Or going off on unrelated tangents to espouse further on your beliefs without reasonable justification for doing so?
And I will say again, if you wish to believe these things, that is your prerogative. But please do not continue to spam your unfounded beliefs here as if they were fact when they are nothing of the sort.
I had help from the VHATC-L2 in writing 'the standards'.
You are most welcome in challenging the VHATC-L2, if you wish.
You are most welcome to challenge 'the standards', at any time, in a civilised manner, if you wish. I had already publicly stated this fact.
spam\ˈspam\
noun
: unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses
Examples
tips to reduce spam
a spam filter
Origin: from a skit on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus in which chanting of the word Spam overrides the other dialogue.
First use: 1994
My messages are not 'spam', according to this definition.
If you behave in a polite and courteous manner, i.e. act with civility, then I will reciprocate. Please address any concerns that you might have, in a clear and concise manner.
According to the definition I found, your messages are spam. How would you describe your repeatedly posting the same message incessantly, regardless of context and regardless of whether your opinion on the subject was asked for or not? Trolling? Preaching? Being a nuisance? As well, you are focusing on semantics rather than addressing the fact that your messages are disruptive.
"Please address any concerns that you might have, in a clear and concise manner."
You're telling me this? As I recall, YOU are the one who has been repeatedly told to be direct and precise while YOU continually resort to non-sequiturs and obfuscation. For example:
"I had help from the VHATC-L2 in writing 'the standards'.
You are most welcome in challenging the VHATC-L2, if you wish."
How does this at all address my point of your hypocrisy in labelling the government's expectation of everyone living up to their standards "a problem" when you do the same with your own standards? Unless you are suggesting that the fact that you base your standards on the VHATC-L2 somehow makes them not 'your standards' that you forcing on everyone (which, of course, is nonsense for reasons already explained), I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the conversation.
Finally, your beliefs are not well founded. I, and others, have pointed out where you are wrong and, when faced with this, you either resort to obfuscation or simply ignoring these points. And even if they were well-founded, that does not justify your spamming it everywhere. As I have said, you have degraded yourself and your beliefs by acting like a spambot, posting them over and over again until people no longer care about the message you're trying to convey and simply regard you as a common mindless troll who has nothing better to do than to simply parrot what he believes ad nauseum.
By doing this, you ensure that absolutely no one will take what you're saying seriously.
If you wish to respond to this, again, I ask that you be direct and precise. Do not resort to non-sequiturs or obfuscation. Do not expound upon your beliefs without justification. Do not ignore any points in the hopes that by ignoring them, they'll go away. If you wish to explain why I am wrong, cite exactly what part of my message you are responding to and explicitly explain the error. Normally I wouldn't directly ask for so much from someone, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know how to properly have a conversation about this. If you do not wish to follow these guidelines and are planning on resorting to the same tired tactics that I have been calling you out on, you can save both your and my time by not responding at all.
IIN I think that work permits are stupid and creates more homeless?
← View full post
This is the problem with government 'programs'.
They deem everyone to be able to conform to their particular standards. They want everyone to attend years of college or university, so that they can become indoctrinated into the 'system'.
In this case; there are two reasons why a person might not achieve a 'B average'.
1) They might be actually much more intelligent than 'average', and the dumbed down education system bores them, or,
2) They simply do not have the mental aptitude to learn in 'the standardized system'.
For group 1; this leaves little to no opportunity to apply their capabilities, simply because without credentials, the 'establishment' will not allow them an opportunity.
For group 2; they could still be providing a valuable contribution to the advancement of society. What they need, is not to be made to attend college programs, but to learn just one valuable aspect of these programs, and afforded an opportunity to apply it.
There are also many people who become disillusioned, as they do complete the 'program' within the 'system' with high aptitude and skill, only to find that there are no opportunities available to them, unless they are from the 'privileged' class. So, they end up being highly educated people, working in low skill employment, earning a lower than average wage.
I, myself, could be training people (in group 2) to work in a valuable resource industry, but there is virtually no opportunity to do so, since I'm not from a privileged class, and although I did work very hard throughout my life, the greedy (privileged) people continued to take, take, take, while not rewarding me equitably for my work, while cost of living increases continue to rise, but my pay actually decreases.
The 'system' is broken.
There are about 1,000 things that I could be doing right now, towards a sustainable future.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"They deem everyone to be able to conform to their particular standards."
If you consider this to be a problem, why do you spam your beliefs every chance you get expecting people to conform to your standards?
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
They are not 'my' standards. They are standards which I believe all persons on Planet Earth should be agreeable to.
It is not "spam".
Should you disagree with anything that I have stated, that is fine. Please elaborate on what you disagree with, the reason(s) why you disagree, and any solutions for resolving this issue in a polite and friendly way.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"They are not 'my' standards. They are standards which I believe all persons on Planet Earth should be agreeable to."
That's precisely what I mean when I say "your standards:" They are the standards that YOU YOURSELF believe in and personally hold against everyone and expect them to live up to. This makes you no different than the government programs that you decry.
You are part of the problem.
"It is not "spam"."
Spam is defined as "disruptive messages, especially commercial messages posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail." You post the same message over and over on multiple questions on this site, regardless of context. They add nothing of any value to the topic at hand and only serve to disrupt the flow of conversation on that page by making them about your beliefs rather than the original question. Your messages are spam.
"Please elaborate on what you disagree with, the reason(s) why you disagree, and any solutions for resolving this issue in a polite and friendly way."
Are you sure you're capable of doing that without calling me a "brain-dead idiot?" Or going off on unrelated tangents to espouse further on your beliefs without reasonable justification for doing so?
And I will say again, if you wish to believe these things, that is your prerogative. But please do not continue to spam your unfounded beliefs here as if they were fact when they are nothing of the sort.
Thank you.
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I had help from the VHATC-L2 in writing 'the standards'.
You are most welcome in challenging the VHATC-L2, if you wish.
You are most welcome to challenge 'the standards', at any time, in a civilised manner, if you wish. I had already publicly stated this fact.
spam\ˈspam\
noun
: unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses
Examples
tips to reduce spam
a spam filter
Origin: from a skit on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus in which chanting of the word Spam overrides the other dialogue.
First use: 1994
My messages are not 'spam', according to this definition.
If you behave in a polite and courteous manner, i.e. act with civility, then I will reciprocate. Please address any concerns that you might have, in a clear and concise manner.
These beliefs are founded. They are not "spam".
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
According to the definition I found, your messages are spam. How would you describe your repeatedly posting the same message incessantly, regardless of context and regardless of whether your opinion on the subject was asked for or not? Trolling? Preaching? Being a nuisance? As well, you are focusing on semantics rather than addressing the fact that your messages are disruptive.
"Please address any concerns that you might have, in a clear and concise manner."
You're telling me this? As I recall, YOU are the one who has been repeatedly told to be direct and precise while YOU continually resort to non-sequiturs and obfuscation. For example:
"I had help from the VHATC-L2 in writing 'the standards'.
You are most welcome in challenging the VHATC-L2, if you wish."
How does this at all address my point of your hypocrisy in labelling the government's expectation of everyone living up to their standards "a problem" when you do the same with your own standards? Unless you are suggesting that the fact that you base your standards on the VHATC-L2 somehow makes them not 'your standards' that you forcing on everyone (which, of course, is nonsense for reasons already explained), I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the conversation.
Finally, your beliefs are not well founded. I, and others, have pointed out where you are wrong and, when faced with this, you either resort to obfuscation or simply ignoring these points. And even if they were well-founded, that does not justify your spamming it everywhere. As I have said, you have degraded yourself and your beliefs by acting like a spambot, posting them over and over again until people no longer care about the message you're trying to convey and simply regard you as a common mindless troll who has nothing better to do than to simply parrot what he believes ad nauseum.
By doing this, you ensure that absolutely no one will take what you're saying seriously.
If you wish to respond to this, again, I ask that you be direct and precise. Do not resort to non-sequiturs or obfuscation. Do not expound upon your beliefs without justification. Do not ignore any points in the hopes that by ignoring them, they'll go away. If you wish to explain why I am wrong, cite exactly what part of my message you are responding to and explicitly explain the error. Normally I wouldn't directly ask for so much from someone, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know how to properly have a conversation about this. If you do not wish to follow these guidelines and are planning on resorting to the same tired tactics that I have been calling you out on, you can save both your and my time by not responding at all.
Yes exactly! That is why the system fails. It is not one size fits all! I completely agree. This is not the only issue I have with it either.