| Posted: 16 Oct 2006 17:49 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Opinions, Danny?
World War 2 poster. Apparently the ACLU didn't catch it.
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2006 21:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
If the ACLU didn't go after this then good for them. That proves they aren't the monsters you say they are. It didn't hurt anybody to get a positive feeling from seeing this poster. It doesn't hurt to have a chaplin around when a marine is about to die.
But some people just can't go low enough to make their point. In using a patriotic poster from 60 years ago about war in an argument about courts and schools now, you are taking things waaaaay out of context. Encouraging people to work together against Adolph Hitler is one thing, misleading them by saying evolution is false or that separation of church and state is bad is something entirely different.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2006 01:11 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Just setting up a case for the fact that America has a history for calling upon God in times of trouble. With schools becoming war zones maybe it's time to call upon God in our schools.
Or we could just arm our kids and give them bullet proof vests.
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2006 14:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Schools are not war zones. The vast majority of them are fine, it is only when something goes wrong (on a slow news day) do we see chatter about how awful things are there.
What we need is a massive overhaul of the public education system. We need to get talented people interested in teaching.
One of the drawbacks to the women's lib movement of the 60's and 70's is that a lot of talented women who would have gone right into teaching are now interested in doing something else. Thats fine, but I think we have yet to adjust.
I often wonder what some of the people who taught me could have done had teaching like a slacker not been an option. On the other hand, there were some good ones who were grossly underpaid for the valuable service they provided to the state.
As far as kids are concerned, the schools are just a microcasm of the rest of society. If a school is dangerous, very likely thats because the kids there come from a dangerous neighborhood. Solving THAT problem is an age old question, to which there are many, many fixes needed. The best thing we can do is offer people a way out of poverty or blackmarket crime by giving them an education.
As far as religion in school- you know where i stand on that- we've said everrything worth saying there.
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2006 19:06 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Schools are not war zones.
Ok, but you know it's funny as violent as the old west was did you ever read in your history books anything about school kids shooting up the schools in the old west? This is the 21st Century. We are supposed to be so much more enlightened.
Quote:
As far as religion in school- you know where i stand on that- we've said everrything worth saying there. Yeah, I know you'd rather drink water off a bathroom floor with your tounge than the horror of a kid believing there might be a God that loves them and wants them to do good in life.
I got your number pal, you've got some serious issues with religion. What were you in a catholic school and the nuns beat your hand with a ruler or something?
Hey I'm honest about stuff, so tell the truth.
I went to both a private school and public school and there were problems in the private school. I will not lie to you, mainly to do with preventing bullying of kids and so forth, but academically I excelled always making straight A's that is until I went to the public school where I felt lost in the system and totally distracted and I suppose the complete lack of discipline must have not been the best atmosphere for me at that time either.
Whatever the case in my own personal experience smaller classrooms and more attention per student, plus having teachers act personally interested in my performance encouraged me to excel. (They didn't care about my arms getting rapped around a tree, but my grades, yes) Once in a public school system where I was just another number, my grades plummetted. That was my case. And the bullying thing I finally had to deal with myself. By the time I got to public school I was lifting weights and exercising 24 7. It was just enough to keep me from getting the crap beat out of me. God bless Reagan, he was right when he said the only way to peace is through strength.
You know, you might see hypocrisy in religion, but don't kid yourself pal there's a lot more of it in the world than you want to admit. A whole lot more. I've seen both worlds and that's my analysis.
__________________
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2006 18:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
How many schools did they have in the Old West? How many kids were compelled to go to those schools? Yours is an illogical argument.
On the odd occasion that a frontier kid DID go to school, it was as rare and anticipated as a trip to Disneyworld. Abraham Lincoln had about one year (all put together)of formal education.
Furthermore, an agrarian society lends knowledge of firearms and experience watching things/people die. Life was hard enough, it would have been unthinkable to kill a room full of people because of personal problems. Personal problems weren't popularity or bullies, they were staying warm and staying healthy. If you were bullied, oh well.
I do not advocate a return to this sort of lifestyle, because dying of pnemonia is still worse than being picked on for not having the newest clothes or being clumsy. But everyone in western socitey today could learn a thing or two from the toughness of people in these situations. I think they should scrap the wasted senior year of highschool or freshman year of college and send a randomly selected 10% of every class to 3rd world countries with the peace corps. Seeing how the other half lives would go a long way in the atmosphere of our schools and our country.
Now look, your own story doesn't carry weight in these arguments- its none of my business, but since you volentered- was this a religious private school? If so, then your argument about them being any better from a social perspective seems invalidated. Better academiclly? Sure, they don't have to deal with kids from broken homes on the scale the public schools do- so they can stay on topic.
As far as religion, I have nothing against it Tim. To some degree I am religious. The only thing I take issue with is anything other than logic and compassion holding sway over our laws. Putting religion into law just lets some politican tell me what I can or can't do based on his fool opinion. It is one thing when an inspirational call for cooperation is issued in the above poster- it isn't technically correct, but it is harmless so I'm for as long as everyone else it. It is something else for the government to show up in the bedroom, where they routinely love to make rules. (This is especially rife with hypocrisy when they turn out to be such freaks, such as Mark Foley or Ted Haggard).
So look, don't try to come at me with some silly strawman argument. I don't think anyone else is reading these things, you've been told a million times that I don't hate religion and I know that I don't hate religion. You just want to paint me as against it so you can pretend I'm irrationally biased. For people to teach their own children religion is fine and encouraged. Even better if kids seek out their own answers. All I ask is that you keep your own personal opinion, which is nowhere near as agreed upon as evolution or the Bill of Rights out of the highschool curriculum. You've got a message board with which to influence America's youth if you chose.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2006 19:53 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Mark Foley and Ted Haggard in my mind were simply scam artist looking to make bucks and aquire power any way they could. People like this just show that it's important in life to put your faith in God not people.
Quote:
How many schools did they have in the Old West? How many kids were compelled to go to those schools? Yours is an illogical argument.
On the odd occasion that a frontier kid DID go to school, it was as rare and anticipated as a trip to Disneyworld. Abraham Lincoln had about one year (all put together)of formal education.
Ok well how many shootouts happened in schools leading up to say, the 1990's? Point being, schools are getting worst not better.
Quote:
If so, then your argument about them being any better from a social perspective seems invalidated. Better academiclly? Sure, they don't have to deal with kids from broken homes on the scale the public schools do- so they can stay on topic.
Ok, I think your missing the overall picture. I believe my main point there was that vouchers = choice which means private schools which = better performance academically.
I'm not sure what broken homes have to do with what goes on in the classroom. Sure it carries some weight, but public schools have a million excuses to not perform. Don't give them another one.
I think the Biblical class they had when I was growing up, did help me in understand the Bible which has helped me out in my adult life. Obviously, complete perfection in this particular school system was lacking in terms of watching out for bullying.
Quote:
As far as religion, I have nothing against it Tim. To some degree I am religious.
That's great but in our previous discussions you come across as someone with an axe to grind toward religion. I think you go way overboard when it comes to keeping religion away from kids.
I think by your writing you want to shield children from religion. You don't even want parents to have the right to send their kids to school that adheres to their own personal religious principles. Shouldn't parents have this right, regardless of their financial status? That's just one more reason vouchers would have been a great idea.
It's like you are saying to poor people, you have no choice but to send your child to a school that teaches state approved curriculm.
Why should parents have to compete with what schools teach their kids?
__________________
|
| Posted: 19 Nov 2006 20:10 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
They don't. They can always pull the kid out and send them to a religious school on their own dime and many people do. The public education system is paid for out of the taxes we are charged, same as the secular military, courts or monuments.
So wait, I'm saying government offers poor people logical secular education as best it can provide. If your religious institutions care more about them than I do, then they should wave the fees to attend these schools for the poorest kids. Its called a scholarship and it is a very old program.
Now, I had the good fortune to attend a secular private school for one year on a scholarship so I saw a little bit of both sides of this debate.
I was also friends with kids who did attend religious schools in our area and I never heard of any scholarshios like this out of the local Baptist school funded by Jerry Falwell. I DID however have a girlfriend who was asked to leave this school when her parents divorced.
If you are so concerned with who gets admitted to private institutions Tim, there are plenty of things YOU can do to remedy that. The government does NOT get in the way of the Church going christians of this country banding together and begging for more money to offer more scholarships to religious schools.
And furthermore, the secular schools go to great pains to NOT say anything that would offend a religious point of view, no matter how ridiculous. This of course, is the price an institutiuon must pay when dealing with redically different participants: a serious watering down of the debate so as not to offend.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2006 19:00 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
They don't. They can always pull the kid out and send them to a religious school on their own dime and many people do. The public education system is paid for out of the taxes we are charged, same as the secular military, courts or monuments.
The whole point is that they are poor. Being poor they might not be able to afford it, right?
What is wrong with giving Americans a choice of where their tax dollars go? If I would rather use my tax dollars to send my kid to another school. Why shouldn't I have that option? If the majority of Americans disagree with me, I'm sure they'll have no problem continuing to let their kids go to a public school, and so your public schools will continue minus a few radicals like me.
As far as scholarships, if it is really that easy then why not offer them to all kids to go to the school of their choice. We will call them scholarships instead of vouchers to make you happy. How's that? Bet you the teacher's unions wouldn't like that either.
Read this if you get a chance. ABC Report
__________________
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2006 13:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Wow, how did I know that your link was going to include something from John Stossel? I must be psychic.
Thats okay I guess. He keeps insisting that he's NOT a conservative, but a liberatarian and I mostly believe him. I just finished his book and it included this report.
Stossel leaves a few things out when he trashes American schools. In a lot of countries, people who don't perform well in the early years of their education are sent to a technical school or encouraged to pick up a trade. They aren't there later and only the smartest kids keep going.
Notice that their schools are great but their GDP is only a fraction of ours? I'm sure you're familiar with Europe's disability and welfare roles. In the rest of the world, there are ample oppurtunities to farm for non-graduates, not fun if you've ever farmed and not good for the GDP of their nation.
But to get at your point- I disagree with vouchers as they have been proposed because they have the religious attachment and I am not paying to make our society more religious. That is everybody's own business. I am all for some competition in schools, but I'm not gonna be fooled by a giveaway to religious schools.
Secular schools? That I could probably go for. Scholarships OR vouchers to secular schools, okay. But scholarships to attend religious schools? No, now you're sending my money to Jerry Falwell. If I liked him, I'd cut him a check.
I mean geez Tim, you think invading Iraq was a good idea. Clearly it isn't rational policy you love, it is policy that you think you'll benifit from in some way. So why are you soooo in favor of vouchers? One need only look in these posts.
I can only fault you so much for self interest however, so speak this in your language.
As far as why you should pay for a secular education for your kids and other people's kids- you derive a benifit of that every time you AREN'T waiting in line for a cashier to make change. You get that benifit when you are treated by the best science in the world. You get it when our military scares people away from hurting us due to our superior technology.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2006 17:35 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'll give you one thing, you are dogmatic in your belief that religion is worthless even to the point of stepping on everyone else's toes.
You haven't addressed the validity of my argument of whether or not people should have the right to send their kids wherever they want regardless of income, or their right to not have their kids secularized regardless of income.
If all public schools were religious you'd support my right to have my kid sent to a secularized school with vouchers. So is it a question of freedom or your own personal agenda? This exactly the kind of thing that steams me. When liberal minded folks show their own version of hypocrasy and are completely blind to it. Or you think I'm blind to it, one or the other I'm not sure.
__________________
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 14:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
You haven't addressed the validity of my argument of whether or not people should have the right to send their kids wherever they want regardless of income, or their right to not have their kids secularized regardless of income.
Hold on, I though you were a conservative...
Just to be clear, your "argument" IS invalid. Options, anywhere on earth, come with money. Forget education, I all wish people had the RIGHT to live in the best housing available or have the best health care- but that just isn't so. Even socities that have tried to provide those ideals over all others have failed.
So not everybody is going to go to the school of their choice, even under the voucher plan. It extends no vouchers for the medium or low performers. What they do offer is for high performing kids to get away from people that might be keeping them down.
That is a good thing, mostly. It would leave the low and middle performers no leaders, but that is another argument.
The main problem is that the choice you refer to comes at the expense of the American taxpayer, regardless of that taxpayers religion.
You say that public schools are having kids "secularized". That is such a dumb statement. Kids are not told the first thing about religion because that IS NOT THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY. if anything, they take great pains to stay off of religious turf, so as not to offend a zealot like yourself.
But if you still think your kid might be turned away from God by America's schools, then it is your choice to send them somewhere else. Because of your choice, it is on you to pay for it. I am not going to pay for it, but I won't stop you.
But like I have said before, if the religious people are sooooooo concerned with this, then why don't they take it upon themselves to fund their schools and admit any kid who wants in? They actually have done that before. But they don't now because they don't really care, they just want something to rail about.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 14:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Actually, I just thought of something. Tim, can we raise your taxes to fund a school that teaches my take on God and evolution?
I know you work hard for your dough, but it will be well spent teaching my kid how wrong you are about everything.
They could hire a guy like me, so I could be paid with money you didn't agree to give me! Thanks Tim!
Thanks to your involentary donations every paycheck, kids everywhere will learn what a criminal Bush is and how awesome Clinton was! Best president ever!
I mean once the government takes your money, I'm sure it will see that this process runs fair and smoothly.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 18:21 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
You assume taxes would have to be raised when studies have shown better academic results can be gotten for less money than is currently being spent on public schools. The only thing really getting in the way is the teacher's unions and a lack of competition. Everybody needs a foot up their butt every once in a while.
Nice try, but you'll have to come up with some better reason to be anti-voucher than that. 
We really need to talk about where this anger and resentment is coming from some time. Was it something in your childhood?
__________________
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 18:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Everybody needs a foot up their butt every once in a while.
And you say I have issues. Ewww.
In refrence to competition in the schools I am all for it. I've maintained that since the beginning. I only take issue with the religious schools argument.
Schools on less dough i will believe when I see. Stossel's wonderful charter schools have smaller class sizes, which mean more teachers. Furthermore, GOOD teachers actually want to be paid something for being better than crappy teachers. Thats gonna cost ya.
Compare this to privatized electricity or airlines. Did either of these improve things? Again, I support competition, BUT it doesn't always work.
Basicly, no plan has yet been proposed that I think will work. When I hear it, I'll letcha know.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2006 22:29 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok so here's where I take issue with you.
What difference does it make if a kid get's to go to a school that teaches his parents religion or a school that is completely secularized as long as the kid gets ahead academically? And I maintain that if you accept giving the parents a choice via a voucher, like I do then what is the big deal. The object of the game is to get a better educated student, and if that's what it takes then so be it. Don't let your personal prejudice get in the way of a spreading a higher educational standard than the current one we are stuck with.
You see you are afraid that public schools just can't compete with Christian schools given a level playing field and the next generation would be running around talking about God and for crying out loud they'll be more highly educated at the same time. Liberal agendas wouldn't stand a chance if people were smarter and believed in God.
Oh and by the way, hopefully this doesn't run you off or anything but we do need to talk about superhero stuff a little more. Just to keep up appearances.
__________________
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2006 15:41 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
The object of the game is to get a better educated student, and if that's what it takes then so be it. Don't let your personal prejudice get in the way of a spreading a higher educational standard than the current one we are stuck with.
Personal prejudices? Thats what I am trying to avoid here. Keeping personal prejudices from receiving funding is important. Separation of Church and State is not a "personal prejudice", it is a widely held belief in this country held up by the Bill of Rights.
And no- I am not "afraid" Christian schools would beat secular ones. Keep in mind that the prevailing thought at one point was that Genisis was litteraly true. Society simply ditched that view as more of them read about evolution and very few people dispute the way this topic is taught now. i'm sure the same thing would happen despite the temporary boost these hypothetical tax theiving religious groups would get.
Furthermore, i can't imagine college prospects being that good for prospective bio majors from private schools that teach creationism. That means science and health fields would instantly see the performance of these schools as poor. That won't do wonders for the rankings, but I guess thats the thing about school choice- some people would choose wrong. This inevitable problem is one reason the debate changed from "creationism" to "intelligent design". The working world does not take creationism seriously.
Case in point, my high school girlfriend: one of your fine institutions did not exactly do right by her. The poor girl allready got grief for blonde stereotypes (that in all honesty, did apply). But she really was made to feel dumb when she told people that the world was only 7,000 years old, as taught to her by "Pastor Bob". Supposedly this school was soooo far ahead of we plebians in the local public school, but the stuff they taught her there didn't do anything but pass on the religious whims of the time. It made college bio an absolute nightmare.
Also, that wonderful school kicked her and her sister out when their parents split up. This was good for me, since they had to come to my school, but ruthless on the part of the private school. It made things ten times tougher for those girls when they needed support the most.
Finally, I also want to say- just for the sake of argument- that religious schools are a problem we are trying to put the brakes on in the middle east. The fundamentalist islamic schools in Saudi Arabia are to thank for many of the people running around the world with a 4.0 in extremist islamic terrorism. Now you might say that the problem here is that they are Islamic. I say given Christianity's somewhat bloody history, that any bias that way is extremely vain and the muslims who DON'T go to the "Death to America School for Lunatics" are usually fine people. Separation of Church and State can also protect your religion. It really does work both ways.
Christianity has made it past plenty of persecution over the years. If it isn't taught in puiblic schools, that pales in comparison to being eaten by lions at the whim of an emperor. I think it will be okay, even better off- if we leave it off the school curriculum.
As far as the Superhero stuff- talk away- I'm always down with talking about that. Believe it or not, I think the same thing about these boards, but nobody ever replies to my superhero posts! Maybe they're all just nodding in agreement.
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2006 18:16 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
And no- I am not "afraid" Christian schools would beat secular ones.
Well then let's support the vouchers and go for it then if you ain't afraid of a little competition.
Quote:
Furthermore, i can't imagine college prospects being that good for prospective bio majors from private schools that teach creationism.
Probably if someone sent their kid to a Christian school they would also send their kid to Christian college.
Quote:
Case in point, my high school girlfriend: one of your fine institutions did not exactly do right by her. The poor girl allready got grief for blonde stereotypes (that in all honesty, did apply). But she really was made to feel dumb when she told people that the world was only 7,000 years old, as taught to her by "Pastor Bob". Supposedly this school was soooo far ahead of we plebians in the local public school, but the stuff they taught her there didn't do anything but pass on the religious whims of the time. It made college bio an absolute nightmare. Why didn't she go to a Christian college? And just because some professor at a secular college is an idiot doesn't mean we all have to be idiots. Let him think he came from a monkey and go climb a tree somewhere. I'll stick with real science not some political sham made to push God out of society.
Quote:
Also, that wonderful school kicked her and her sister out when their parents split up. This was good for me, since they had to come to my school, but ruthless on the part of the private school. Well they suck. I don't see a private school doing that anywhere I live. What kind of school was that specifically?
Quote:
Now you might say that the problem here is that they are Islamic. I say given Christianity's somewhat bloody history, that any bias that way is extremely vain and the muslims who DON'T go to the "Death to America School for Lunatics" are usually fine people. Separation of Church and State can also protect your religion. It really does work both ways. Dude get a grip some knights go off to battle some muslims a thousand years ago and Christians are bloody for all eternity. What about all the Christians thrown to lions? They turned the other cheek didn't they?
And I always reply to your superhero posts just like your political stuff. If I missed one. I'm sorry. But as far as I know I've replied to everything unless it was more like a statement where it was difficult to think of anything to add. I guess that could have happened.
__________________
|
| Posted: 21 Dec 2006 07:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Okay, I thought I would reply to this post but it is just time to hit the hay. Its funny, I've been back where I grew up for a week or two now and it really gives me a clearer picture of this argument and others.
I mean, I feel as correct as ever, but I literally see where you're coming from Tim. I wish some of my friends in the city could too.
Last week another of my big hopes for a unified nation in 2008 was dashed when another good candidate dropped out of the race. It seems like America will have to figure it out between maybe 3 people who each seem like a not so great idea. Even worse, the one who is going to be the worst at uniting the country looks to have the best shot at winning.
Thats bad- because right now we're only unified in our discontent, and very little is getting accomplished while things get worse.
I really wish that both the city people I've been around lately and the hillbilies I grew up with could switch places for awhile. There's a lot to be learned by walking around in a different place.
|
| Posted: 21 Dec 2006 15:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Who knows if you hung out with the hillbillies long enough you might end up like one of those characters from the Andy Griffith Show that were just passing through but ended up learning life lessons from Mayberry.
You know like the businessman that was always in a hurry, or Bill Bixby who had to learn to stand on his own two feet. I love those shows. (Not saying your always in a hurry or your dad paid for all your broken windows by the way. What you said just reminded me of the show. )
__________________
|
| Posted: 22 Dec 2006 17:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well, it just shows me that change comes slooooooowly to most of America, even if things are vastly different in the cities. I think the difference comes from the goeography. Check this out.
Neither the hillbillies or the cityfolk understand each other very well. Not that they should really- they don't even live in the same universe. But learning about each other could solve a lot of problems before they start.
What drives me nuts about the current generation of Democrats is that until recently they had no interest in appealing to the common man they fight so hard to protect. A lot of them aren't interested in the lifestyle of the rural voter and consequently, those people have no interest in the Democrats. All their economic policy is geared toward protecting the middle or poor classes, but they fail to inspire those people.
Lately, that is begining to change though. In cases where they haven't tried to push something unrealistic on the rural voter and they actually bother themselves to speak his language, the message has gotten through.
Now regarding the politics of either party- this is a good thing since it might make middle america competitive again, and eventually even the cities. Thats good- because the recent polarization hasn't done anything for anyone except make our politicans lazy, uncreative and corrupt. The returning members of congress were steamed that they would have to work 5 days a week this coming session! Also, with more of a true competition for the best policy, no matter who wins, the policy will be a better one. I don't need to state all the ways in which we've been lacking in that department lately.
|
| Posted: 28 Dec 2006 07:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
The PC thing gets on my nerves too- just remember a few bad apples don't have to spoil the whole bunch.
As far as the epic "Batman and Robin", this movie has gone on to become one of my favorite comedies. Also, it came with a silver lining. By being soooooo impossibly bad, the studio realized they'd better make the next Batman movie serious, or risk being hunted down by comic book dorks everywhere.
I agree, change shouldn't happen for its own sake, but I hesitate to say that the good ole days were ever really that good. Every time I crack open an honest history book, I think the future can't get here fast enough!
A wise boss of mine once explained that everything in the universe is going somewhere, even while seemingly standing still. He therefore felt that resisting change was futile. One of the good things about being a human being and not a rock or a tree is our ability to roll with the punches.
Ya know, while 2006 was not bad for me, it wasn't so great worldwide. I think we all got a kick out of youtube- but that may have been about it. Hopefully we shall turn it around this year.
|
| Posted: 28 Dec 2006 18:48 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Here's my perspective on change. A lot of people don't realize that public opinion isn't worth a whole lot because it changes from day to day.
Today people might be making fun of 80's sunglasses, but tomorrow they might be the biggest thing since Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Live long enough and you realize you better make your own opinions about right and wrong too, because the morality of today is tomorrow's evil and then it might switch back the day after that.
Also to an extent, I resist change because half the time I know that by the time I agree with the change somebody will change it back again.
__________________
|
| Posted: 31 Dec 2006 08:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Right, but what happens when something you thought was correct turns out to be incorrect?
What if new factors force you to modify what you do?
I mean really Tim, an "anti-change" agenda makes no more sense than one in which people seek change for no reason. Clearly, moderation is the key. Practicality usually serves as the judge of whether or not to change.
|
| Posted: 01 Jan 2007 16:22 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Sure but what if the exact opposite happens and you change to something incorrect from the correct opinion like changing from regular jeans to bell bottoms. Have you seen the new jeans they are selling at walmart for 35 bucks? They look like they've been drug through the mud, sprayed with oil, ripped up, and washed 50 times. Luckily I was able to get a new pair of great looking normal jeans for only 12 bucks. If I was a crazy teen I'd just buy the 12 buck pair and spray oil on it.
The next generation will laugh at this one and give those jeans a term similair to "cheesy". Which by the way I hate that term. Whatever happened to the terms "geeky" or "nerdy".
As far as morality goes, I'll stick with the morality taught from the Bible. That won't ever change. "Thou shalt not kill" is always going to read "Thou shalt not kill" or at least something like "Do not murder" as in new translations.
Using what's in and out in today's culture to come up with one's morality is like someone from the 70's standing by Disco as the definitive musical selection of the 20th Century. Bad mistake!
__________________
|
| Posted: 06 Jan 2007 11:37 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Okay first of all, I much prefer bell bottoms to the 80's look.
Really, there is no need other than that point to write anything new here. Obviously, everyone uses moderation with regard to change in their lives, simply to survive.
I suppose if we must boil it down to my original topic, I feel like there are "anti-change" and "change others" mentalities out there and they are both really, really dumb. Practicality should and usually does decide where the culture is headed.
|
| Posted: 07 Jan 2007 08:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
No, thank the good Lord, I was not subject to most of the major fashion mistakes of the 1980's.
As to what decade I grew up in- I'm going to plead the 5th (just like Ollie North, for you 80's buffs) on that one for now. I've heard you guess occasionally and found those guesses pretty interesting.
|
| Posted: 07 Jan 2007 21:29 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Definitely, the 60's or 70's since you like bell bottoms. Of course it's possible you came from the 90's but I'm going with the late 60's to 70's.
So at least give me a hint. Did you have long hair and listen to Alice Cooper, or did you rock out to the Beatles? I think you've said before but I can't remember.
This mystery must be solved.
__________________
|
|
|
