On the contrary, I believe school should be much like it used to
It shouldn't be like it is now, and it shouldn't be like it was in the past. Rote memorization factories where everyone must be obedient are not good places to educate people, and yet that's what we have, and that's what we had in the past. Our school system was, simply put, never good.
On the other hand, the NFL star leads by example, unites us in support for our team
So in other words, a bunch of morons join a tribe and then mindlessly cheer for more morons who have a knack for fiddling around with balls. Yeah, so damn useful.
Better yet, drop out of the shitty public school system. No matter how "bright" you are, you're still going to find that your time is being wasted taking useless classes and (if you care to) doing useless busywork. Seriously, if you're so "bright," then your parents should just take you out of the abysmal 'education' system.
No. Now vanish.
You just had 10,000 applications for a job position.
That's almost never a problem where I work, but we have had too many people applying for jobs before. First get rid of the people whose resumes are obviously fakes, and then eliminate people almost at random (but still look for people with experience). A much better 'solution' than eliminating people who don't have degrees.
Well, I wasn't really defending this law to begin with. Just saying that bosses can be extremely petty.
As for your proposed law, I'm not quite sure how you would write it without it being vague. Bosses need to have at least some leeway to fire people, and if the law is vague, that might give people the ability to sue for practically any reason if they're fired.
The real point of ACT or SAT is one's ability to fit in fact-driven world
Looks more like the point is to have someone spew facts onto a (mostly) multiple choice test and generally do exactly as you're told. Understanding and creativity are not required, nor desirable.
Wrong, those programs are classified for a reason.
It's nice that you have so much faith in governments thugs, even though the hundreds of millions of people abused and/or murdered throughout history by various governments (including the US government) give you no reason to do so. Oh, wait, it's not nice.
Go back to lickin' those boots.
and are thus moral.
Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. You're an idiot.
Just because you want to know does not mean you need or have any need or right to know.
I don't "need" freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or various other rights. The fact that you do not "need" something means nothing. As for a "right," well, the government says many things that I think should be rights are not rights. I do not care what the government says; they infringe upon our rights all the time.
And in turn damages our freedoms.
You're really, really trying hard to make this seem like a bad thing, aren't you?
Posts like yours contribute to the mentality that we're the only important ones in the world, which in turn leads to heavy-handed foreign policies that damages our worldwide reputation. That, in turn, damages our freedoms, because it further provokes certain people to attack us, and then governments use that as an excuse to violate our freedoms in the name of safety.
Damn, that was easy. I could do this about anything, even copyright infringement (pretty much already been done, in a way).
Frankly, even if what you said *were* true, knowing this does not damage my freedoms. The only ones effectively capable of that are government thugs; they're who I truly fear. And for what it's worth, I believe innocent people in other countries also deserve privacy.
Everybody spies on everybody
"Everybody's doing it!" is not an excuse.
a very effective program
Unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. Irrelevant because freedom and privacy are more important than security to begin with.
Fuck off, you insolent bootlicker.
The meaning of our lives is to reproduce.
That's some nice religious thinking you've got there. We (most people) may want to reproduce, but we are also intelligent enough to decide what we want to do. There is no magical fairy that decides any of this for us.
It's absolute arrogance to say that someone won't find a way to work within our current understanding of the laws of physics and invent some new amazing technology. We don't even fully understand the universe yet.
I think it's less arrogant, at least, to say that something that violates our current understanding of the universe won't happen.
When someone says something is impossible now, they mean impossible because of the established and settled laws of physics.
Sure, this time it's *really* settled. There's no way someone could discover a flaw in our theories (which is unlikely) or work within our current understand of the laws of physics to do something that no one thought possible (but doesn't violate them). Such arrogance.
Apropos of nothing, how's your atomic powered flying car and your forthcoming vacation to a lunar colony?
That's exactly the point. It is absolute arrogance to say that you know what technology the future will hold.
It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.
Not only is it not a logical argument or proof, but it's completely ridiculous that you keep bringing this up. Feeling a bit desperate, are we?
Most people don't even *comprehend* this subject, you fool. They don't give two shits about copyright, have been fed propaganda about it since birth (that copyright infringement is theft or stealing, that copyright is a net benefit on society, or that it's just like property), and basically think nothing of it. You can see this when so many people either don't even understand what copyright is, when people use words like "theft" to describe copyright infringement, or when they use propaganda terms like "intellectual property." So why would I care about your precious majority? And even if that *weren't* true, talking about popularity is utterly and completely meaningless, as I have my own ideas and do not feel they need to be popular.
No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?
My point is that I've determined that you're an idiot who needs a bit of babying. Looks like you need a diaper change.
No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing.
Right back at you.
You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way.
I did, but you ignored it, it seems. I'm not going to go through it again, because it seems that you're either not reading my comments or are utterly incapable of even comprehending my words. Such is the case with worthless minds. If you're going to accuse me of not even attempting to refute the shitty evidence you brought forth, then you're just going to look ignorant.
These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.
Right back at you.
You gave hearsay....
Anecdotal evidence is hardly worth anything to begin with, so the difference is a moot point.
Oh great a personal attack
Yeah.
and that is relavant how?
It seems you've forgotten what the overall topic is about.
There are avenues for anyone without a degree to prove their knowledge
I'm talking about applying for specific jobs and getting rejected because you don't have a degree. You know this.
you just want to be given an advanced job it seems.
I already have one. Not a very good guess.
You're an eyesore, you know that?
Not if the matter is entirely subjective, as is the case with intelligence. I decide for myself what I believe is intelligence, and therefore black-and-white thinking like that is no fallacy, because it's entirely subjective to begin with. It *does* matter.
Function reject.
