Again, if you make bogus claims about my argument then I’m going to correct you. Otherwise the point about Globalization was entirely relevant and fresh- how effective is local government legislation when a company is manufacturing abroad?

From which social perspective? There are hundreds of explanations from various academic streams of thought as to why these things happen. To single out one would be generalizing. Motives differ, so what are you getting at? They still happen within our capitalist economy regardless of how they came into being.

What would you suggest to replace the educational standards? and why? and what problems does this slacking of educational standards cause in your opinion?

Very understandable, an International Baccalaureate program would help unify knowledge throughout the world, which in turn could help the United States as well. However, how do you propose preparing the whole mass of students in transition? I would imagine you would have to start out young on the responsible hardworking path. I don't think you could successfully keep elementary and middle school (as you left them out of your explanation) the same, and then just boost high school standards and expect everyone to be able to keep up. Also, I would question your suggestion due to the aspect that everyone learns different ways and also at different speeds. Forcing everyone to embrace this type of lifestyle would cause a massive drop in attendants as many would just not be able to handle the overload of work. In the United States, a High School Diploma is pretty much required to obtain any form of job besides one like McDonalds. With your suggestion I would predict a whole generation, maybe even two, who qualify for only jobs at places like McDonalds, while the rest of the job market has no workers since no one is qualified to obtain said job. This, I believe, would be highly detrimental to America's economy overall. On the bright side, the few that can make it through the program (mainly the valedictorians and ones close to that status in the current education program,) would grow up with much more potential and pretty much have an open job market to choose from since everyone would be wanting of workers in all fields. So, you have some positive effects with your system and some negative effects. Personally, I don't think it would really be the most effective, but it could work in theory.

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with crime personally. Crime, in my opinion is mostly an environmental thing. Stupid people, are in essence, too stupid to do crimes. I would much rather fear the criminals that are intelligent and know how to pull a crime off perfectly. Again, a matter of opinion. I see where you are coming from, but I completely disagree that lack of education is directly affecting crime rates.


Now, as far as my standards that I would implement in schools. I would start off young. I would have multiple child psychologists observing children and the skills they lean towards the most when they are still children. Basically, K-3. Then, in 4th and 5th grade, those children would be taught those specific areas that they had displayed the most interest in with a general overview of everything else. This interest would be viewed by trained psychologists who can look past the initial "I want to be this phase" that most kids go through several times before finally deciding what they want to do with their life. By focusing on their psychological behavior and how they act in social settings versus non-social settings, they can start training specific children to develop their specific interests further. Upon reaching what is called Middle School, or 6th-8th the children are given an extensive list of careers based off their interests and specialties. For those three years they learn about everything they could possibly do or become and be the best at depending on their most well liked interests. In this sense, they will still be learning, since they will be learning the value of applying their individual skills in certain fields to benefit society as a whole. Lastly, in what is known as High School, they would be taught general knowledge on, let's say the top 10 careers that interested them and answered to their own special skills. This general knowledge would include an extensive learning environment that focused on honing the skills needed in the 10 careers. It would be a lot of information to intake, and you might have to make the number of careers to choose less. However, with the gist of the idea, students would intake a ton of useful information that actually interested them as well as knowing that they will be able to apply it in the real world upon learning it and leaving the educational program. For students that wished to hone their skills further in a more specialized narrowed down field we would have college, which would completely focus on those specific aspects that would make them the best of the best in their field and further able to advance or benefit the United States in whatever they were good at. The way the current educational system works, is that a whole load of information is taught, and then only 10%(rough estimate), possibly less, is used in real life. The rest of the information, while valuable to have depending on your career is completely useless and thus forgotten. I believe the reason why we have so many dropouts is because we teach so many things that just don't appeal to the people learning them. If we specialize each child in what they enjoy doing the most, then we could most likely have a much more successful educational program overall in regards to a competitive and capitalist society that we have.

I never said anything about government controlling anything.

This is all implemented by the child in question. Everything stems off their own interests and the path they take with their own choices of interaction, behavior, etc. It is all completely based on the students' preferred interests. Who wouldn't want to learn about what interests them? Yours is more about control. Creating standards that everyone must meet that have been approved by said government is much more controlling and a lot less effective. Like I said, it can work, but it is not nearly as effective. I am an arguer of logic and perspectives, Lots of the classes I was able to choose myself, reflected those interests subconsciously. I say subconsciously, because throughout my schooling I had no idea what I want to focus on becoming. This was most likely caused because of the major lack of interest I had in everything I learned. I do not need math to fulfill my own interests though a very basic understanding would still be nice to have. I do not need chemistry either. I did not need physical education. I did not need a lot of the things I learned. I focus all my arguments and positions on that of psychology and logic. I specialize in those areas. I chose to learn foreign languages in school and learn about foreign cultures as my electives. I chose to take world history and mythology classes. At the time I did not really know why I chose them, except that I was interested in them. All the required knowledge left me confused on what I wished to pursue. I did not know what I liked to do. I was good at everything in school, mastered everything I was taught and more. However, I easily grew bored because of this, while everyone else struggled, so I quit doing busy work since I felt no reason to, and nearly failed all the classes I took. My tests were all aced. My effort though, was lacking, as I saw no point in doing busy work. Very few people are Leonardo Da Vinicis and can enjoy anything they do. I absolutely hate dealing with people in social settings, there is absolutely nothing stupider in this world than a human being in my opinion. Yet, because I did not know what I wished to do, due to all the confusion of interests school gave me, I remained undecided and now work at a shallow call center that helps stupid people with technology.

Electives in many schools right now are a very basic demonstration of what would occur in my system. Analytical and organized people who work well with numbers would probably focus their main studies all on math based subjects by choice whereas people who are proficient in language and speaking and communicating may focus their subjects on English Subjects and possibly other subjects related to those skills and interests as well. It would all be completely based on the students' interests in question. Instead of grouping a bunch of individuals into a class, my system would have each class specifically designated for each individual in it. Some classes may have one person, some may have twenty. It would not be based on accepted standards, but on student's interests.

But there is a difference in standards. What is acceptable in country A is not exceptable in country B. Thus the moral dilemma.



Meh... I thought we've already established that capitalism is not the direct cause. I'm talking about unethical practice occurring within our economy aka unethical practice happening within industry for example sweat shops, child labor, exploiting workers ect. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty comprehending this :|

So? What's your point? Do we ignore crisis such as Sierra Leone because their goverment deems their actions as legal? The Nazi's deemed ethnic cleansing as perfectly legal but that does not make it okay nor does it mean that it is tolerated.



I answered this earlier on when you first mentioned it-

You keep trying to trip me up into admitting the ideology is directly to blame. You know this is not my stance so why even bother pursuing this method of debate? I'm feeling like a broken record having to keep continually repeat myself. I don't know how many different ways you want me to explain the same argument. Unethical practice happens within our captalist economey because we have not installed ethical legislation into our economy to stop bad practice from happening.

Okay.



Why? I thought I already established that the reasons are vast are varied. Playing the blame game is a waste of time. If you want names and addresses look at your goverment industrail tribunal website or look up articles in media where companies have been taken to court.


Economy is the system of production, distribution and consumption. It will effect the economy because it will effect the system of production, distribution and consumption.

You're side stepping the argument. My premise is about the the unethical practices that occur within the economy. We know these practices exist and as I already stated we can easily track their origins and name and shame companies but what would be the point? We know unethical practice exists so to pursue it any further would be counterproductive.

I already said 'production, distribution and consumption'. I can see your logic but you ultimately fail to acknowledge that these unethical practices are entwined in the methods of production, distribution and consumption which makes it an economical matter. If correct legislation was put in situ these occurrences would ultimately not happen. Trying to take the individualistic and blaming individual companies is pointless because they operate under industrial legislation. Their unethical practices are to do with how they operate their production, distribution and consumption.
To spin it another way, if a company CEO was to murder his wife an industrial tribunal would not be involved because his unethical behaviour which happens to be highly illegal is not consider to be business related. However if a company CEO was found guilty of health and safety failures in his business then it would be consider a matter of business because he has failed to abide to legislation that governs the way our economy runs.

The government already has a set of legislation that all companies need to adhere to. An ethical reform would mean that this legislation is updated to combat unethical practice within the economy. Without revolution things will continue to stagnate and society will not move forward and these bad practices will still exist because we have chosen to remain deaf and blind to the call of social justice.

In order for laws and/or acts to include new legislation or change current legislation then these acts would have to be updated. And how exactly does this contribute to your argument? Without laws put in place to prevent unethical practice with in industry then it would still happen.


From wiki-

I love you for posting this. <3 :D

This statement struck me particularly as when I read it I remember what you stated earlier in the thread. If you do not promote expanding government control...then why would you promote government standards of International Baccalaureate for your educational standards within this country?

More recent!!! The french revolution was two hundred years ago! That's like saying Marie Antoinette was a contemporary Queen, *facepalm*. Seriously if you want to go into the complex social and political problems of 18th century France and America, lets do it. But I would strongly advise against it because the Industrial revolution was not in it's prime until the early part of the 19th century and secondly the revolution I'm talking about will not involve civil war. There are different types of revolution, you cannot claim that the french revolution is the same as the digital revolution or that the american revolution is the same as the sexual revolution. Let's not blow things massively out of proportion, I'm not looking to overthrow the current political powers.
As for the quote I doubt a man born two hundred years ago would have anything relevant to say about the current state of economic affairs in the early part of the 21st century.


'My own opinion'? Human rights is a doctrine and equality is pretty much self explanatory so there is not much left for self interpretation. Unless you believe that child labor, living below the poverty line, deforestation, pollution, sweatshop ect are morally correct you don't really have much to debate on this point, other then the semantics, which we know from past experience is a waste of time.


It's justifiable because it is stopping unethical practice. As I said before business is global and many companies manufacture abroad where industry regulation allow child labor, sweatshops ect. There is no law that says you cannot import these goods into your country. In fact this proposed bill S. 1631: Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) seeks to ban importing goods that are made with 'convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions'.

@Clockwork Lullaby- I know, isn't it cool ;)

What? and ruin all the fun you two are having? What incentive would I have for that ;) No one agrees with my outlook on morals anyways :(

I think you are mistaken in my implication. The very fact that the school system is regulated and mandated by a certain standard proclaimed to be the best standards (I.B) to adhere to without any question of whether or not the stuff being taught is important, would fall under a higher power authorizing what individuals would be forced to learn. Rather than leaving what the individuals learn to their own choices/leanings which would be the absence of any kind of higher power control. The fact that you support the regulated mandated standard (I.B. though it may be) is promotion of governmental control as the school standards are not left up to the individual to choose.

Oh of course, because 18th century society is so similar to our own- no it's not. I don't mean to get sarcastic but there is no way you can claim that French and American revolution are contemporary. I wouldn't insult you by using the doomsday book to demonstrate poor and rich divide in the 21st century. People, laws, beliefs, cultures, views, politics, fashion, music, technology, ect have all evolved since the 18th century. Mozart is not contemporary music. The flushing toilet is not a space age device. Everything is relative.


As I said before there are different types of revolutions. The French and American revolutions were about liberation from an oppressive government. My revolution is about liberation from an oppressive economic system. Government legislation is not all bad. There are thousands of different legislative pieces that is in the interest of the employee i.e health and safety, maternity, minimum wage, anti-discriminatory laws. Would you have that taken away because of what Jefferson said? There is a massive difference in creating laws that are designed to oppress and exploit people in comparison to laws that are designed to protect people.
Would the French and American revolution existed if legislation was geared towards helping and aiding the people instead of taxing them and oppressing them. If revolution comes about from oppression then will the laborers we exploit ever bite back?



Well from the point he died to the present is the massive gap in his historical knowledge base.


You are taking everything out of context. Human rights and equality are not my personal opinion. How to achieve equality and fulfillment of human rights are a matter of opinion. In life we are presented with a spectrum of solutions to solve life's most complex and mundane problems. Whatever we choose is nothing more then opinion- so does that make this debate meaningless? No. We can provide evidence, explanations and examples to give our opinions more credibility.
Secondly I agree with equality of opportunity. But again all I'm asking from the government is to put legislation in place that will stomp out unethical practice such as child labor.
I never said that living below the poverty line was amoral!! I'm not a communist, I'm not proposing that the government should control every part of our lives from where we work, live, eat, play ect.


My initial stance was overwhelming trust in capitalism. As I said in my second post-

People do not have the awareness and companies do not have the obligation to tell consumers how their products were manufactured. This type of legislation is protecting people. I doubt you have the same hang ups over equal pay legislation ect.