Forum Post: How about Grade redistribution?
Posted 12 years ago on April 24, 2012, 5:42 p.m. EST by chatman
(-478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
how about you redistribute your GPA to those who scored lower?
How about getting rid of the Grade system all together?
What if the grade was only used for people to measure their own progress and not for comparing with their fellow student?
What if people were given a choice to decide for themselves whether they were good enough to join a graduate program?
I know people who's entire identity was wrapped around their grades and wondered why people with lower GPA's were succeeding in the real world much better than they were. I'm sure they would gladly trade in their GPA
Anyway, education is about learning, not about getting a grade.
your about to hire someone.- they have no prior work history - they both interview equally well - who do you hire 3.5 GPA or 2.0 ?
You dont hire just based on GPA its also based on where it is from and what it is in
asuming all else is equal
yes assuming that but then there is grade inflation. Purdue prides it self on have zero grade inflation. We are ranked the hardest grading school in the midwest/USA
http://www.gradeinflation.com/ look at the second graph it shows Purdue at the bottom just chilling and keeping things the same.
ok no grades or measurments of performance of any kind. Yay!!!
Ah, there's the hyperbole again. Grades are not the only, and are by far the worst, measure of performance by any educational standard. There are many better, more thorough and accurate and calibrated measures of performance available.
[Removed]
[Removed]
no we need grades but the world has gotten perverted teachers are passing kids to get raises and so forth. The whole system of GPA will be redone in the coming years due to this. Purdue did talk about getting rid of grades for freshmen and in engineering, Its a process that may happen but not for awhile.
Could you elaborate? a simple lst woud suffice.
elaborate on what
my post was directed at epa
well it was commented on mine
completely beside the point. assuming grades were legit etc - geezz - talk about getting sidetracked.
also im not down grading your post someone else is.
yes if grade were even GPA does matter for internships it matters if you dont have over a 3.0 they dont look at you
Thank you - geeez - it's like pulling teeth lol!
No you are right, just GPA are not everything
I know GPA is not everything. It's besides the point.
ok then we are in agreement
so there you have it your answer is no - you wouldn't give points to a struggling peer - what makes people "deserve" to have one's wealth redistributed to the less fortunate by force? The hypocrisy of OWS revealed!
no im against redistribution of wealth i have always been against it. It is a lie to make people hate each other the wealth never reaches the poor it sits in our government hands
Im for the movement to get wall street out of the government by ending subsidies for already successful businesses
we are not in agreement at all since you didn't answer the question. If you had a score of 95% on an exam would you give 15 points to a fellow student who scored 60% ?
no i wouldn't they don't deserve it.
Since nothing ever is equal, it is a specious argument.
how is it different than redistributin wealth?
You really think you're slick, don't you?
Comparing apples with oranges may be an effective ploy when dealing with your idiot right wing buddies, but not when dealing with people who can actually reason.
Smack'em make it good as most trolls have a hard head and a lack of sense (s). You need a really solid smack to get their attention and even then they forget abut it in a nano second. They are thought of to be about as smart as a box of rocks and about as mobile. Hope you are OK with a cardio work-out.
It's more like having to wade trough shit than move rocks, (rocks don't stink as much as right-wingers) but point taken.
Of course, these asswipes don't need to worry about anything related to cardio. They would need to actually have hearts for that to be a concern. And thy would actually need functioning brains for such concern to register.
I was thinking about you - I myself do not mind a bit of cardio workout. And that is what troll slapping is as well as troll juggling as they just keep coming back with the same lame shit repeatedly and so far as to my experience would suggest - to infinity.
I appreciate your concern. My heart is good and healthy. That's why I support OWS. :)
That was my thought. I was not concerned about your strength as you have demonstrated it very well to be more than adequate.
As have you, kind sir.
(I have suddenly become veddy veddy British.)
I believe that that was the beginning of the current attack.
[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4107) from Rutherford, NJ 0 minutes ago
You actually dominated the entire roster the other day. Don't think I didn't notice. ↥like ↧dislike permalink
OH - Stop - unless you really don't want to, my ego is pretty well inflated today - what with the nonsense of the best comment board and all.
There, I justed botted you down intentionally, just to keep your ego in check my friend. :-) I'll make it up to you though.
You actually dominated the entire roster the other day. Don't think I didn't notice.
How is it different? The principal is the same. Less fortunate students with lower grades should be given points from those students who can afford it. If I have a 95% on an exam surely I can afford to give a fellow student who is struggling with a 60% 15 points to bring them up to 75% I will still have an 80% how is that different than the 1% giving money to the 99%?
Thank you for admitting defeat. The infamous righty grade redistribution argument has been proven to be flawed. Grades have nothing to do with being more or less 'fortunate' unlike wealth. Grades are more of a metric while wealth are more for subsistence. Apples and oranges / two very difference scales. A test cheater vs a criminal banker.
"If I have a 95% on an exam surely I can afford to give a fellow student who is struggling with a 60% 15 points to bring them up to 75%" However, when you put it that way, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea.
I'm not surprised someone like you who couldn't get into any decent schools could only rehash straw-man arguments like this. Someone like you would benefit greatly from grade redistribution though.
hahaha ! Of course! so you are not opposed to grade distribution. Thank you for answering the question. You get credit for at least answering the question. Too bad it had to be wrapped up in childish insults and other distractions. What else would you like to redistribute in the name of fairness?
Thank you for admitting defeat. You didn't have an argument against the distinct differences between grades and wealth right?
"hahaha ! Of course! so you are not opposed to grade distribution." Hey, if you're doing it willingly out of pity, who am I to stop you? Not that you are capable of getting such grades without someone 'grade redistributing' to you in the first place.
"Too bad it had to be wrapped up in childish insults and other distractions." Too bad you are wrapped up in flawed regurgitated arguments and other distractions.
"What else would you like to redistribute in the name of fairness?" What else would you like to deflect to in the names the 1%ers who have their dick down your throat?
Clearly no one cares for your repeated toxic rightwing garbage so why stay? Oh do you see OWS as a threat to your 1%er masters? This is hilarious. Thank you for proving that OWS is doing a great job and thank you for further inciting the revolution.
If you want to have a serious discussion, I will be happy to oblige. Your conflation of issues, your intention distortions, does not rise to that level.
I'm having a serious discussion. You just seem to be backed into a corner & cant answer simple questions without revealing how flawed your philosophy on life is.
I have given my reply several times, and you would know that if your read the thread. You may have already done so and failed to understand anything. That would be no surprise to anyone.
In my 40 years of being on the work force, I have never had one single prospective employer ask about my GPA.
Having been an educator for 15 of those years, I know how meaningless grades are. The criteria for them change from school to school, from teacher to teacher. They are nothing more than weapons for teachers to use to get kids to comply with class rules, a part of what is known in the education field as class management technique.
They are not remotely a measure of learning.
And they have nothing whatsoever to do with being hired for a job.
[Removed]
The 2.0 should go to a charter school - I hear that they are good at pumping up lagging scores. Inflation at work in for profit schools - not an economic reference.
hahaha! then why do parent line up to get their kids into charter schools? are you kidding?
Because they have been hoodwinked. Charter schools, on average perform worse than public ones according to virtually all studies. Several of those studies have been posted on this site previously.
The push for charter schools is part of a larger overall agenda by various Libertardian and Rebulitard interests to privatize all public services in the country. It has been backed by millions of dollars in propaganda campaigns promulgated by scurrilous "think tanks" (aka corporate shills) reports and massive media campaigns. Those campaigns have been effective because all decent parents are concerned that their children aren't getting the best education, and the false promise of charters exploits those concerns perfectly.
Truth. You are good at that. People for whatever reason still believe in truth in advertizing - THAT DIED AN UGLY AND QUIET DEATH A LONG TIME AGO.
ah - so you know what's better for my child than I do and you will decide where I send my child to school. Nice - sounds like totalitarianism to me.
That wasn't your question. You question was why do parents "line up" to enroll their kids in these worse schools. You just LOOOOVE to change the subject when the answer to one question isn't the one you like and you have no facts to support your myth-based assertions.
But, out of politeness, to answer your NEW question:
The facts are there about which schools are effective and which are not. You have every right to ignore those facts, as you do, apparently, in every other aspect of your life. You have the right to choose whatever school you like for your kids (poor kids! They're in for years of therapy) but not to take money away from mine in a failed attempt to privatize public education. Your can choose to send your kids to a private school.
there are many opinions on charter schools . for every study you come up with showing they are bad I can come up with one that says they are good. That is why we should be free to choose. Who's changing the subject? I don't have the right to take my school tax money & shop it around. That's were the voucher comes in. There is nothing more divisive than the public school system are you kidding? Unless you are rich enough to pay for public school & private school you are screwed. No choice. If you are for real equality you would support a voucher system.
I can show you a study that says Sasquash is real, too, but that doesn't make it any truer. Virtually every independent study so far conducted by actual sociological researchers using robust statistical methodology shows conclusively that charter schools, on the whole, perform poorly compared with pubic schools.
Charter schools are funded by the municipalities that also fund public schools. Every single dollar the goes into a charter school using public taxes comes out of the public school budget. Charter schools are a stealth voucher system, putting funds into the hands of private education companies at eh expense of public schools.
Public school tax money is not yours. Over a century of court rulings have determined that. It is the public's. that's what taxes are: the public's money, the money of the entire community. You have no more right to "shop it around" as you would to shop around any other government service or agency. You don't have the right to hire mercenaries in place of police using city tax dollars, either.
Why are liberals against school choice? It seems contradictory to liberalism, unless its a protectionist move to protect teachers unions.
When that choice is damaging to the general public, it is no legitimate one. The wealthy and upper middle classes have choices: it is called private school. The poor and lower middle classes have no such choices.
And when privately managed, often for-profit, charter schools come in, they take the money out of the public schools, without at the same time being required to accept the same kinds of students or be subject to the same rules. They siphon off money and higher performing and mainstream education kids, concentrating more special education and special needs and poor performing kids in fewer public schools: Public schools that are nevertheless required by law to teach them. And now those schools with the most difficult kids to teach are less funded, to boot, resulting in teacher layoffs and shuttered programs. And it is generally the poorest kids and the disabled ones who suffer the consequences most.
Public school has been seen since the time of Thomas Jefferson to be a public obligation. Privatizing public education because of some bullshit libertardian ideology and a desire for everything, including schools, to be based on profits is a fundamental betrayal of one of society's most basic obligations, and the public's most basic rights.
Every single developed nation in the world tries to make sure its public education system is healthy and robust except us. We are the only ones savage and selfish enough to undermine that system and put it into the hands of privateers.
What's more, since charter schools have proven to be worse overall than public schools, what kind of choice are you arguing for, exactly? What parent in their right mind would want to place their child in a worse school if they were aware of it?
i googled charter vs public and i didnt get any definitive research favoring public over private. I understand your argument but forcing kids to stay in public schools where their kids might be getting terrorized by thug kids seems wrong.
Also teaching is a profesion, and allowing unionization is a betrayal.
I have myself posted definitive research confirming the overall inadequacy of charter schools.
Forcing those in public school to have it worse than before because private companies steal money from the system is is wrong. A decent public school education is an American right.
ANd your statement about teacher's unions only shows me how little you know about the system. What's more, it is an entirely separate issue from that of charter schools, many of which are run by and staffed by the same unionized teachers you slander.
I know you have posted it gefore but can you list the link? When i googled it about half the reports favored public schools and half favored charter schools.
I was a PTA president of a private Catholic elementary school and we had much better results with far less money. But that more anecdotal than science, for sure.
As a Catholic (aka private) school, you have several advantages over the public ones. Not least of which was the voluntary nature of your student body, and the level of parental involvement. You also had fewer legal obligations or administrative constraints. So I'm sure you could do more with less. You frankly had less to do.
I taught in both public and private schools for 15 years. I was, in fact named teacher of the year in my field in my state. Having been in both systems, I can assure you that my work in the private sector war far easier. And I accepted a non-living wage, with no health benefits and no pension, for the privilege to teach without the constraints imposed on me by law in public schools.
Don't talk to me about unions betraying education. They SAVED education. Unions made sure class sizes were manageable, classrooms were safe, science labs were equipped, libraries had books, teachers received ongoing professional development, created professional requirements, and not least, that teachers would do the tremendously difficult and explicitly noble work they do every single day without having to be impoverished for the privilege. Your characterization is nothing more than slander. I find it objectionable beyond words.
In terms of your Google search, pay attention to WHO is publishing the report. Those that come from university Social Science programs are where the real research resides. Those that are by advocacy groups on either side should be viewed with suspicion. DOE reports from various states also provide information. The most comprehensive reports can found here: http://credo.stanford.edu/
There are several others, but the are state by state and cumbersome to find.
Virtually every independent study? how many is that? show me the evidence. So - you are for the use of force instead of freedom of choice. Gotcha - glad we cleared that up.
Do a search on this site. I put the research papers up months ago. I have no inclination to do it again, especially not for the sake of a dunderhead like you.
just as I thought - nothing. the insults only admit defeat.
A guy with a (-245) is telling us about defeat?
Just as I thought - nothing. Refusing to use the search function and arguing from willful ignorance only reenforces the accuracy of unflattering descriptions of you. Make no mistake. Dunderhead is not an insult in your case; it is merely descriptive.
"Shut the fuck up. Your stupidity has been answered a dozen times. Go back to your slime filled hole under your bridge." Thank you for confirming my point lol! OWS hypocrisy abounds hahahaha!
so your saying you are unwilling to give points on your high scored exam to help a struggling student?
Shut the fuck up. Your stupidity has been answered a dozen times. Go back to your slime filled hole under your bridge.
Nope this fact was covered a while ago. Charter schools inflating grades, it was even presented by a troll who was trying to defend for profit education. Was very funny.
hahaha! ok - whatever you say. where is your backup?
There you go. It is what it is. I am not proud of the post as it was like shoving the guys nose in it. But now I am glad that I did not delete it. Be sure to blow off the dust before you open it , it was never a popular post and has been awhile since it was opened.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-troll-suplies-proof-that-private-school-is-bette/
thats not backup. get me something credible . regardless - Charter schools are extremely popular with parents. If they want to send their kids there - they should have the freedom to do so. You or the government should be able to FORCE parents to send there kids to a school of the governments choosing. Or dont you believe in freedom?
Yep freedom but only so far I don't support the freedom to falsely advertize. But truth in advertizing has died it seems.
Charter schools offer more freedom than without them. The more choice - the more freedom. remember that. Force is not freedom.
this was done by high school kids there is a whole video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss
Redistribution of wealth kind of works some what like that but its different. we already have redistribution of wealth it is the progressive tax system that works fine if there aren't that many loop holes in it.
Hey do I get to inherent my daddy's grades?
I know I get to go to his school; could I just have his grades too? Maybe just the ones I like, I’ll take the others from mommy.
How about a public enema? By the sounds of it, you really need one.
oh man I love those, have you ever had one?
Just take a gourd the length of a man, and fill it with water warmed in the sunshine, etc. From somewhere in the new testament.
And no, I haven't had one, but it does sound somewhat experimentally interesting. ;-)
so basically you have no intelligent answer. what's the difference between grade redistribution & wealth redistribution. educate me
What's the difference between inheriting grades and inheriting money, it seems you are the one with no answer, intelligent or otherwise.
So you want to abolish all inheritances just Like in the Communist Manifesto. OK - thanks for revealing your true intentions anyway. It's honest at least lol! Oh - to your point about inheriting Daddy's grades - people do inherit intelligence by the way.
I'm just thankful
it justifies me getting all the money
Not all just say after 5 million or so, anybody who can't get rich with that kind of start, well we don't need them running our economy that's for sure.
I mean I’m not a monster suggesting rich kids should have to actually work to get by or anything.
so why the 5 million arbitrary number? why not make it 10 million or on the other end 100K ? As it is I believe the inheritance tax is 50% or 55% above 300K but I guess that isn't enough for you.
Hey as long as you're on board with the ideal, I'm open, let's look at the numbers see how long it takes to pay off at 10 million at 5 million, or $100,000, hell even at that most people would not be affected, though most would have to get a job and I don't want to make people who are ill prepared to do that. As I’ve said I am not a monster.
yea - why dont you go propose that to your congressman - or better yet - why dont you run on that platform yourself lol!
Wait a minute does that mean you oppose the concept now? I thought we were working out the details. True most work for the 1% so will not listen to real solutions, but thank God we have democracy and once we get rid of the Republicans I think we can do this.
oppose what concept?
So they should be able to inherit the ability to make money, by your reasoning, and no need for inheritances would exist. In a right wing or libertardian world, isn't true meritocracy the goal?
freedom & private property rights are the goal. Living by the Constitution is the goal. Remember - it is the law of the land.
What if I want the "freedom" to buy 13 year olds, are you cool with that too?
nothing in it says you have a right to inherit, the race to the swift, that's what free enterprise is all about, the ego of the dead get in the way, we should fix that
[Removed]
Private property is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right granted by the people through their freely elected representatives in government. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that inheritance of vast wealth is a right. Nor is there an unenumerated right implied in it.
Technically, there is no such thing as private property in the US. It's an illusion. Look up 'fee simple.'
Actually , I believe you are wrong. Fee Simple is de facto private property rights. It is an indication that the land owner may do anything to that property he posses that he wants, including despoiling it or transferring it to another person.
True ownership under 'fee simple' is limited by a variety of things; encumbrances, various police powers, taxes, and most importantly, eminent domain. In other words, it's "yours" but we tell you what you can and can't do on "your" land and we can take it at any time for any reason. That, my friend, makes it an illusion in my book (and a whole lot of other people's as well).
Hmmmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was quite the opposite.
From the Online Legal Dictionary:
fee simple n. The greatest possible estate in land, wherein the owner has the right to use it, exclusively possess it, commit waste upon it, dispose of it by deed or will, and take its fruits. A fee simple represents absolute ownership of land, and therefore the owner may do whatever he or she chooses with the land. If an owner of a fee simple dies intestate, the land will descend to the heirs.
fee simple n. absolute title to land, free of any other claims against the title, which one can sell or pass to another by will or inheritance. This is a redundant form of "fee," but is used to show the fee (absolute title) is not a "conditional fee," or "determinable fee," or "fee tail." Like "fee" it is often used in deeds transferring title as in "Harry Hadit grants to Robert Gotit title in fee simple..." or similar words.
fee simple
noun
absolute interest in realty, estate in fee simple, estate in land, fee simple absolute, holding, legal estate, ownership in property, ownership in real essate, ownership in real property, ownership in realty, ownnrship interest, real estate ownership, right in real property, title to property, title to real property, unlimited right to property ownership, unrestricted right to property ownerrhip, vested interest in land Associated concepts: allodial title, concurrent estate, defeaaible estate, fee simple determinable, fee tail, future estate, leasehold estate, life estate
Also bear in mind that the term "absolute ownership" has a more specific meaning in law than what you or I would define as absolute. In reference to fee simple, it has to do with the unrestricted transfer of ownership, not that it gives the property owner absolute control of the property. And where it states "the owner may do whatever he or she chooses with the land" again refers to what the owner can do in regards to transferring ownership to another entity.
Also consider the limits I listed above. The online dictionary you quote states the owner "commit waste upon it" and "take its fruits." How much and what type of waste we can commit on "our land" is restricted, as it should be, of course. And we're allowed to take the fruits on the land, but the feds are becoming increasingly restrictive in taking what lies beneath, i.e. water and minerals. Also consider what's been happening to "private property" in regards to endangered plant and animal species. Then there's that nasty 'eminent domain.'
I fully agree with you in principle. I was only under a different understand of the "fee simple" phrase in a land title as you were. Actually, I'm glad to now I was wrong about that! :)
I'm not sure if you watch YouTube videos but if you do, do a search for a video entitled, "30 Important Facts All U.S. Debt Slaves Should Know." It tells similar things we were never meant to know, complete with case numbers in case the more skeptical would want to do their own research. An interesting clip, to say the least.
Like auto titles actually being "Certificate of Titles"?
really? Then tell me what this means
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort.... This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.… That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” (James Madison, The Complete Madison, p. 267.)
A complete non sequitur. Government is granted authority by the people to make laws. Property rights are as relative as the people who made them. It is conditional upon the will of the people. It is subject to being seized as long as due process is applied. Laws regarding what one may or may not do with one's property abound. (One cannot use one's one money to buy a nuclear bomb. or illegal drugs, or certain poisons, and so on.) Easements to one's land may be required of the landowner. Income is subject to taxation. The list goes on. Private property is neither absolute nor sacrosanct.
So Madison is a Quack I suppose lol! So present your idea to your congressman that you want him to propose a bill to abolish private property. or better yet - run on that platform yourself & see where it gets you. Good luck !
Did I say abolish private property? Where, exactly? You really enjoy hyperbole and distortion, don't you?
What I said, and Madison would likely have agreed, is that private property is, by law, not an absolute right. I didn't say it was not a right at all, simply not an absolute one. I gave you examples of the limits of that right.
All rights are made by man. Those rights can be amended by man, changed, eliminated, or expanded. They are never absolute, as they are subject to the needs and desires of whatever society decides is in its best interests at any given moment. The Constitution itself provides mechanisms by which changes to law, including to the constitution itself, can be made. It is a testament to the brilliance of the founders that they understood and provided for peaceful mechanisms of change. for any future need of the nation.
"All rights are made by man" Rights come from God. They are confirmed in the bill of rights thats it. All other So called rights are not rights at all - i.e. your right to healthcare etc.
No rights come from God in law. Laws are made by people. The Bill of Rights was written by people. I did not see God's signature at the bottom of the Constitution. If the law makes access to healthcare a right, then it is a right. If it doesn't it isn't. Currently it is not. It should be.
[Removed]
and that is why you have a slaves mentality. you look to men to give you "rights". why should medical insurance be a "right" ?
If society as a whole decides to make it a right, and codifies it into law, it becomes a right. That's how law works. That why laws are made. They are society's response to its needs or desires.
There are plenty of reasons for medical insurance to become a right. But you would have to exhibit some human qualities to understand them.
you did it again! ceding defeat by resorting to childish name calling lol!
Really? Where? Are you hallucinating? LOL!
Here you go, let me cut and paste the last response for you so you can read it again:
No rights come from God in law. Laws are made by people. The Bill of Rights was written by people. I did not see God's signature at the bottom of the Constitution. If the law makes access to healthcare a right, then it is a right. If it doesn't it isn't. Currently it is not. It should be.
you libs should stop looking at the federal government as your security blanket. grow some balls already .
Trying to change the subject again because you were caught not knowing what the fuck you are talking about, huh?
Sorry, won't work.
I'll go geld the rich man
show me were the Constitution says the word "right". you couldn't have a more backward understanding of history. you are correct - laws are man made. Rights are not. A right of law? are you kidding. civil rights is passed legislation The name Civil "rights" is just that - a name. It is a law not a right.
You really have no understanding of what a law is, do you? The word "right" is not necessary to establish a law as a right. Freedom of speech is a right. It is not referred to that way in the Constitution, but that does not make it any less a right. The part of the first amendment that grants such a right by prohibiting the government from infringing upon it is that part of the Constitution called the Bill of RIGHTS. It is a set of LAWS. Laws enumerate rights and obligations, also known as regulation, within a society. That is the very DEFINITION of what a law is.
When anyone says "I know my rights" they are saying they know their rights under law. There is no other place rights reside.
law |lô|
noun
1 the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties : they were taken to court for breaking the law | a license is required by law | [as adj. ] law enforcement.
• an individual rule as part of such a system : an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography.
• such systems as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession : he was still practicing law | [as adj. ] a law firm. Compare with jurisprudence .
• a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules : what he said was law.
.
Your only rights are the ones in the bill of rights. I agree with your last point. What distinguishes a law that is a right & one that is not? Where in the Constitution does it say medical insurance is a right? You have natural rights not man made rights. That is what distinguishes us from the europeans from which our ancestors fled for that very reason. Rights are not doled out by man who can take them away anytime he wants. Rights are derived from our humanity. No one can give them to you or take them away.
The bill of rights are thought to be the natural rights of man. See- I got rid of the G word for you lol!
Laws create both rights and obligations. The constitution provides the mechanism by which elected representatives of the people create those rights and obligations (laws). The constitution does not limit itself to the rights enumerated in the bill of rights. It would be a sorry document if it was that limited. It's brilliance lies in the fact that rights can be expanded as society's need and wants change. No other legal document in history embodied such wise prescience, and it is a work of genius for that reason. I love the Constitution enough to have actually learned something about it. You, clearly, have no such respect.
The phrase "natural rights" is rhetorical in nature and has no bearing on law. In law, there is no actual "natural law". It was so phrased by the founders to distinguish and justify laws in this country from those in the Old World, in which the rights of Monarchy, set above the rights of the people, were justified by being ordained by God. By broadening the justification of laws to those founded upon nature, they were able to make a clean break from Bible-based authority, using terms put forward by the 18th century liberal French philosophers like Rousseau. It is precisely the opposite of what you claim out of an ignorance of American history. It was precisely to establish the fact that law is man-made.
Access to medical insurance can be made into a right of law by the Congress and President. That is what the MAN MADE constitution allows. Do you have a right to have a glass of beer or wine? Guess what, that right was taken away for a while. It was called prohibition. ALL rights are decided by people. Rights and obligation are created by and for society. It is called civil society and the rights are called civil rights, not "natural" ones.
read you declaration of independence. you have no concept of rights. men that have the power to give you rights also have the power to take them away. a law is a law - not a right. The Bill of rights are laws inspired by our creator and written down as basic human rights. How can you equate free speech with medical insurance - ludicrous. Desires are not rights.
The Declaration of independence is not a legal document. It does not establish legal rights. It does not establish laws. And it pointedly, purposefully never mentions God.
The Constitution is the foundation of American law, not the Declaration of Independence. It was written b people, and it does not claim that the laws contained it derive in any way from any God.
The right of freedom of speech is a law written into the Constitution by men, not God. God was not a signatory to that document.
Desires are not rights. They become rights when what is desired - like freedom of speech - become laws agreed to by a society. Not all laws are rights, but all rights are laws.
God???
Which one? There's a lot of them doncha' know.
[Removed]
compassion? you have no compassion for the struggling student and are selfish for not wanting to give him a few points to boost his grade.
If you're so smart and compassionate? Which I don't believe for an instant that you are.
You should be spending a lot of time tutoring in an inner city school system.
So put your brain where your mouth is and go do that.
There is no such thing as God. You can claim that such things were inspired by a book called the Bible that many people claim is factual, but you have no basis for proving that there is any higher power that affects any part of our lives.
I take a - 245 as a compliment - and thanks - you've proven my point about the hypocrisy of this movement.
LOL!
I'm not going away, silly troll. You think I haven't done this before? Go home and cry in your fantasy book. I'll be busy shattering your deluded worldview.
you want the rich to pay their fair share as defined by you. and where is that money going to go?
That's been covered many times before on these boards. I'm not wasting my time with you.
And judging by that -245 karma, no one else agrees with you either.
"I choose to think freely and consider multiple viewpoints" all but one. God is the only thing between freedom & Tyranny. you look to government to solve your problems. I have faith that if I am doing the right things in life things will work out. So far it's working out for me - and you are occupying expecting your majesty to give you free stuff.
Nope. Another misconception that trolls like to spread on here.
I'm not asking for anything to be given to me. I want the yacht & Cadillac owners to pay their fair share of taxes, and get lobbyists out of government.
you need evidence - I have faith. That's why Atheists like you occupy. Even if the evidence were staring you in the face you wouldn't believe it. You believe what you want to believe regardless of evidence. You've been indoctrinated by Socialists who cant have God getting in the way of them controlling you.
Except the evidence says otherwise.
It's you who lacks compassion. For you , it's just about the perceived reward. In other words? Selfish, and it shows.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-highly-religious-people-compassion-non-believers.html
LOL! You're a laugh riot!
You are the one who is indoctrinated by a book. I choose to think freely and consider multiple viewpoints, find evidence, and come to my own conclusions after considering all of the facts.
hahahaha! ok - how do you know there is no God?
Because I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any such thing exists.
How do you know there is a God?
Private property is neither absolute nor sacrosanct.
then why would they need the money?
it's not a matter of "need" it's a matter of property rights.
"property rights" are determined by law, we write those, no problem then, when we write the law for the 99% tax no rights will be violated as it will done by law, cool that problem solved, we're going get this thing fixed if we keep at it
I understand what you think you're saying, but this is a poor analogy. Capitalism is, in fact, a method of wealth redistribution. That's the cool feature of it. The money goes around in a big circle and everyone benefits. But without proper controls, capitalism goes from a circle to a spiral and the wealth tends to pool in isolated pockets. There is no doubt that those with the money have played the game better than those without, but the purpose is not to wind up with all the money. Those that have the money can't spend it fast enough to keep the economy afloat, How many cars can one person buy? We are fast approaching a point where the amount of disparity between the rich and the others makes the success of capitalism doubtful. What I mean is, just like in Monopoly, when one person has all the money - the game ends. If you want to keep playing, you have to let the other players have some of the money back. Do you suggest we stop playing? The next game played might not be as fun for you.
good point but I think the problem is not enough people are participating to circulate the money well enough. capitalism IS fair, to everyone who participates in it. A society can take care of 10-20% of it citizens what can't or won't work.
That was my point. When the money starts to pool like that there are others who get shut out of the game, which makes the money pool even more. That's the spiral. Regulation and an equitable redistribution are needed to keep the spiral from occurring. What the rich don't comprehend it seems is that the money they have is fictitious and the more they have of it the less valuable it is. If they get all of it, it will cease to have value. The smartest thing for rich people to do is keep everyone in a game they are good at and winning.
the game ends and what happens? what happens with the winners money? what does he do sit around counting it lol? The grades is a perfect analogy. You dont like it because it hits too close to home. redistributing the wealth of the one percent is so distant to you you feel at liberty to talk about giving away other peoples money. redistributing grades on the other hand might affect you if you are a good student.
GPA is a bad analogy, because it's purpose is to quantify something. My getting a 4.0 doesn't keep you from getting one, too. I don't suck up all the grade points by achieving success. I don't manipulate the tests so that I get a good grade and you don't. I don't rewrite the curriculum so that my particular knowledge is the only thing taught. It is in all ways a bad analogy.
[Removed]
your focusing on the wrong point of the issue. The issue is are you willing to sacrifice some of your surplus GPA to help a struggling peer ? are you? It's a yes or no question.
And I thought I answered. No. For three reasons. First, "surplus" GPA doesn't exist. Second, my GPA being high isn't responsible for his being low. Third, GPA is a measure of achievement. If I give him my "surplus", he's still unlearned. I'm not a student and haven't been for a long time, so GPA has absolutely no relevancy for me. I did not focus on the wrong point. I don't have a lot of money, but I do share what I have with those struggling harder than I am now. I'm opposed to GPA sharing because GPA aren't really shareable, it won't benefit them and can only hurt me. If it hurt me and helped them and was actually possible, then, yeah, because it doesn't really diminish what I learned, it just fails to quantify it accurately and grades are already that way. GPA is not a good analogy. Like sharing my wife with a guy who doesn't have one. Like sharing my kidneys with someone who needs one. If I had seven wives or twelve kidneys, then sure, what the hell, pass 'em around. Or, if in a 4.0 GPA system I had a 12.0, then, sure, I'd share. I would never advocate impoverishing the upper class. But if they have twelve kidneys, they should share. The more I think about it, what if a rich guy started buying up kidneys because he's rich and he can. It's his right to do it, certainly, but should people have to die so he can exercise his right? He's hogging a resource that other people need more than he does. At a certain point, people will decide that their only option is to take his kidneys from him for the simple fact that he's being a dick.
I have thought even more about this. My GPA is not only a measurement, it's a measurement of me. I'm 6ft tall. That's also a measurement of me. If a 5ft7in woman asked me for 2in, well... there's a joke in there somewhere, but she won't be getting taller. Not because I'm stingy with my inches, but because a measurement of me won't have relevance for her. There. That's an analogy.
If you are being graded on a curve, then yes, your 4.0 GPA is responsible for anothers 1.4 GPA.
Now THAT is an adequate analogy.
"surplus" GPA doesn't exist" Surplus income doesn't exist either if you look at it that way. What to people do with their extra money - put under the mattress? Sure a GPA is shareable if you want it to be - it's an EXERCISE! geeez! say the prof asked for volunteers to give some points to struggling peers - it's a freaking hypothetical !!!! Forget it - your so lost.
I was kind of hoping the others weren't correct and that you weren't just stupid. Sadly, that is not the case. The question is flawed, as are you, I suspect. "Hey! Doood! If, like, if another solar system's sun was, you know, like, going out, and you were, like, king of the solar system and everything, would you give them some of ours?" If you are the opposition, there is nothing to fear.
You trolls should be calling out for brain redistribution.
Please report to doctor Frankenstein's lab immediately.
There's a new abbynormal brain waiting for you there.
that's productive. backed into a corner & lashing out with insults. Just like a child.
Sorry, but it's a childish thread in the first place.
In fact it's not even the first one of it's kind, though it is even dumber because it isn't.
Please explain to me how this relates to support of OWS.
I hope you are aware of the fact that ALEC has been fucking with the school system since at least 1985.
it's a simple question which no one seems to be able to answer. It puts the concept of redistribution in terms you might better understand. of course you still dont get it. It's ALEC's fault which has nothing to do with the question. Let me put it in even simpler terms & spoon feed it to you:
You are in a class of 10 people two people earn a 95% - two people earn 60% and the other six score in the middle. You earned a 95% -dont you think it is only fair that you give 15 points to one of the students who earned a 60% so he could have a little more dignity with a 75% instead? You still have an 80% . Isn't that fair?
It's a foolish proposition. Frankly? It shows just badly ALEC has screwed up education. You are it's product.
hahahaha! why is it a foolish proposition? ALEC is a distraction. we are talking about the principal. assume ALEC doesn't exist, the schools are fine etc. you are distracting with issues not relevant to the principal of the issue of redistribution.
I'm sorry. I prefer to deal with reality.
ALEC does exist. ALEC has fucked up the school system
Your postulation is silly.
we are talking about the principal of redistributing grades out of fairness. the school system is irrelevant geeeez!!! you are just like Obama - deflecting and creating a distraction that has nothing to do with the question
Yeah, reality's a bitch ain't it.
'Specially when your passing out crap.
You wouldn't be a Walton, would you?
This is one of the most incoherent comments I have ever seen. Are you on drugs?
what is it you don't understand? If you don't understand the above you have no business weighing in on economic policy and the redistribution of wealth lol !
Your comment is utterly unintelligible! You need to learn how to communicate, or you have no business weighing in here at all.
If you have something to say, just say it. Otherwise please piss-off.
I asked a question and plenty of people seem to be able to engage it. I'll ask again - if you scored a 95% on an exam would you be willing to forfeit 15 points to help a struggling peer who only scored 60% ? Not complicated. It's a yes or no question.
It's an irrelevent question, in the larger scheme of things.
yes or no -? I have my answer - OWS hypocrisy abounds.
You propose a simple question to answer a complex societal problem. GypsyKing is correct. It's an irrelevant question. There is no hypocrisy from OWS, only duplicity from you.
hahahaha! of course you would say that ! Total hypocrisy
Was that an attempt to disprove the truth of my statement? I see only a lame attempt to use Doctor Doom villainous laughter to stroke one's own bruised ego.
SFB - you have a truly screwed up view of the world. How does a student giving up part of their test score help the individual with a poor test score?
Answer - it does not help not one little bit as the giving of any points would not imbue the other student with any additional intelligence. The only thing likely to happen is the failing student would not get the help needed to do better them self and would go out into the world unprepared.
One is a closed number system with a cap on the top score, the other is an infinite number system with no cap on the top amount one can earn. It sounds like you think we should have a wealth grade that caps the top earners and shrinks the gap between performers. Man, you people are grasping at straws to make your points.
Still - regardless of the cap issue - make 100% represent 100 million dollars and 60% represent $60,000.00. is grade redistribution fair in this illustration?
Throw out any numbers and the cap problem remains. It is like saying I should get a grade of 10,000 because I am that vastly superior to the other students. The two systems both utilize numbers, but that is as far as you can take the analogy.
just as I thought - all talk when it comes to something that you can be expected to redistribute. It's all fine & good when you are talking about someone else redistributing to you.
Your just sore because you have no rebuttal for my point
my rebuttal is that the principal still applies - cap or no cap. Is that your issue ? that people can earn an infinite amount of money? Why do you care how much money people have anyway?
Care. Seriously? You want to go there. Is my caring, whatever my motivations, more suspect than your own. Just exactly who started this thread about how much money people make? Whatever my motives are, I assure they come from a much better place than the Ayn Rand worship that you are wallowing in.
the thread is about grade redistribution and why shouldn't we redistribute grades the way we do income.
Then go post it on a school forum and see what they think.
I'm asking the hypocrite occupiers what they think. they can talk the talk but are unwilling to walk the walk. typical
First off chump, if you want my 3.7 you can have it. The digits were so easy to obtain that I wouldn't fret having to do it again. You do realize that the comparison between taxes and GPAs is trite at best, immature at the worst. I have never heard the old saying, death, taxes and GPAs are the only certainties in life. Taxes are not theft. Only a nimrod would come to such a conclusion. So if all I have to do is give you my GPA, judging from your posts, you need it more than I do, to get you to agree to higher taxes, then bet.
Go wrap your duplicitous brain around a pole, you're analogy is worse than a car crash.
Wonka Percentages
what does that mean? geeeez ! you cant answer a simple question because you are backed into a corner and your whole philosophy on life has just crumbled all around you ! You have no leg to stand on and you know it. That is why you are occupying like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
there are 10 hundreds in 1000
is not a valid argument to mean 10%
what? put down your crack pipe and expand your answer please. holy cow!
Wealth and academic achievement are two very different things.
Wealth is not distributed according to merit.
The most wealthy people in our society contribute very little. They don't labor, invent, design or produce anything - yet they extract the most wealth.
It doesn't really matter how hard working, studious, innovative, energetic or industrious you are; It won't better you situation unless profits can be extracted from you.
And that's what is happening.
We are not asking for a redistribution of wealth - the only real solution is to up-heave the very system which allows for the concentration of accumulated wealth to begin with.
"Wealth is not distributed according to merit." funny - it does at my workplace. Anyway - what is your solution to "up-heave" the system. Lay out the details for me.
What does a landlord do?
He holds a little piece of paper called a deed. It doesn't matter whether his parents gave him the piece of paper, or maybe he won the lottery, maybe he actually worked for many years to get it - anyway.....
Now he has the piece of paper, which means he owns a house. He doesn't live in the house, but he 'owns' it.
A working family comes along, they need shelter. So the landlord rents the house to the family.
The landlord doesn't work at all.
When something goes wrong with the house, he uses the money he has taken from the family and gives some of it to another worker to fix the house. The landlord evades all labor and contribution, yet takes the most money whilst exploiting the family's need for shelter.
Years pass, he has lots of money now. He buys another house, and charges another family, and another.
Lets say your workplace is a factory that makes clothes.
There's the workers, the managers, and the owners.
The owner obtained the factory in similar fashion to the landlord. Maybe he inherited it, maybe he had saved up from working in his youth and bought it.
Nowadays, the owner never works. He employs managers to run the factory, and workers to labor in the factory. The workers make a 10 shirts an hour. Each shirt sells on the market for $10, but they only get paid $10 an hour.
All the extra money goes to the owner, you see. The owner doesn't actually do any work, but makes the most money, merely because he 'owns' the factory.
It doesn't really matter if the owner worked really hard in the past, the fact is he doesn't work for the money he makes now.
It's not a fair system.
The solution is quite simple.
The workers should own the factory they work in. They spend 8 hours each and every day working to make the products which make the money, therefore they should own the products and the factory itself, and decide how to run it.
Nobody should be able to own anything they can't use, nor should they have political power over decisions which don't effect them personally.
is this your solution or are you ignoring the question above?
what is your solution to "up-heave" the system. Lay out the details for me.
We don't really have to do anything. The system is already state of collapse.
Western economies will start pushing austerity onto a working class that is already half way into poverty
Unemployment will continue to rise due to automation and outsourcing.
The only thing that the workers can really do is hold general strikes, which won't happen until class consciousness is developed.
Still there are too many people who think capitalism actually works, or hold selfish egotistical perceptions and think they will somehow escape the ecological catastrophe that is being created.
The solution to up-heave the system? Stop doing whatever you are doing and think.
Capitalism does work if it is managed properly. It runs amok if not. It also provides the impetus for innovation. Most of the things we take for granted today were the dreams of yesterday brought to fruition by a market economy. The evils associated with capitalism can be mitigated if we choose to do so. The use of fossil fuels has done ecological damage, but it is silly to suggest we would be better off not having used them. We are faced with challenges ahead, but capitalism and therefore innovation will rise up to meet the challenges. Our ability to adapt is what will ultimately keep us safe and capitalism enhances that ability better than other systems.
"The solution to up-heave the system? Stop doing whatever you are doing and think." So you have no solution except to throw a collective temper tantrum. Thanks - that's what I thought.
The first step on creating a solution is to first admit there is a problem.
Do you honestly think that everything is fine, and the world will merrily skip into the future?
There are consequences to our actions. This civilization pumps the atmosphere full of C02, clears forests, wipes out entire ecosystems, creates endless military conflicts - Why?
For the almighty dollar. Every problem the world faces today is carried out in the name of economic growth.
How long is this going to take people to figure out?
In the meantime, I guess we will just distract ourselves with entertainment and materialism.
I don't know why your asking me for the solution, as though it's my personal responsibility to save the world. The truth is that we all have to take part in it. That's what democracy is.
"I don't know why your asking me for the solution, as though it's my personal responsibility to save the world. The truth is that we all have to take part in it. That's what democracy is."
If you are protesting it's kind of fundamental to have a list of demands. Otherwise what's the point?
Kind of like how you have no point in posting on here?
I am just asking questions that nobody here seems to be able to answer. The post is about redistributing grades so I'll ask again - if you scored a 95% on an exam would you be willing to give 15 points to one of your struggling peers who got 60% ? It's a yes or no question. or if 15 points is too much - how many points would you be willing to forfeit for the sake of helping a struggling student?
You're just trying to waste people's time on here. I'm not going to play your stupid games.
Nobody cares what you think about us. No matter what you say, I'm going to keep fighting. The only way you're going to stop me is with a clip of lead.
hahahaha! you cant even answer a yes or no question lol! how hard can it be lol! are you kidding me. Who's the selfish one now? when it comes to your precious GPA you are unwilling to give away a few points to help out a fellow student but when it's talk of raising other people taxes you are all for it lol! Just what I thought - total hypocrisy!
You're just desperate for attention, huh?
still cant answer lol! looks like I hit a sore spot - this post is on fire lol!
And who cares? That's right, nobody.
no that's the republican job
the dems job is to stop the republicans
they'd have to offer college to all the people
No, they wouldn't.
Portfolio-based evaluations instead of grades were used by select schools for years, are were not only effective in terms of college admissions, but gave those colleges more accurate and more broad information about the actual learning abilities of prospective students. Those colleges and universities are able to better select who would be a fit - or not - in their institutions using measurements of learning other than grades.
Grades do not measure anything beyond how well a student is liked by his or her teacher. (Or, in some cases, anything more than a parent's money: I have seen, with my own eyes, bribes and threats by parents used to inflate student grades.) They provide no reliable information to a university about applicant abilities. They are almost entirely arbitrary. I say that having been a teacher for 15 years.
in solid state physic
grades reflected how well I understood crystal structures and electron quantum layers
You can't take your personal experience and generalize it to the whole population. (Generalizing from the particular is a logical fallacy.) What's more, you are talking about university grades based exclusively on your test scores. That not how grades are given in most subjects, and they are certainly not how grades are given in most high schools. Since there is no universal standard for grades, the grades high school students receive are at best unreliable indicators of their learning. They are also woefully incomplete.
Every single teacher I have ever known in my profession life as a teacher has different criteria for giving grades. Nearly all use the promise or threat of grades as a part of their classroom management technique, and not exclusively for measures of learning. Grades themselves are a holdover from the industrial model of education in the 19th century. Other forms of evaluations have been proven to be more accurate in measuring student learning.
Could you list those better ways to measure academic achievement? Thank you ahead of time.
There are, and have been, several. Here are just two: 1.)Thorough written evaluations on multiple educational criteria. 2.) Portfolio based evaluation.
Both of these methods identify different modalities of learning and arrive at a more complete picture of the learner. And that's what evaluation is supposed to do: give a complete assessment. Grades are almost entirely arbitrary at this point. (in fact they always were.) They have more to do with the teacher than with the student. Thorough written evaluations will break down the various issues upon which a student is judged, in effect, itemizing them. And since they are written, they automatically exposed whatever bias the teacher may have in coming to their conclusions. If you look at many spreadsheets many teachers use containing multiple criteria, this process makes those detailed evaluations available to prospective universities, instead of a single grade that does not reflect the weights each teacher may give to any particular issue (lateness or not asking questions, and the like).
Portfolio based evaluations present those colleges with the student's actual achievements, along with written evaluations and teacher observation of the student's learning process. Again, the teacher's bias an more easily come through, and results are more easily filtered by the admission counsellors, giving them a clearer picture of the student.
Both have proved far more accurate as indicators of future academic success. (And most teachers prefer them, even though it means a hell of a lot more work.)
I have a science degree and a doctorate. How would this work in those big undergrad classes like political science 101 and biology 101?
I'm really talking about secondary school, not college, and certainly not in terms of college science classes in which grades reflect test scores alone.
BUt you bring up another issue: class sizes. There is no good reason that they should be big. High student/teacher ratios are the least optimal environments for genuine learning.
where did I suggest my situation could be applied to everybody ?
In using it as a rejoinder, it was implicit.
How about you redistribute the brain cells that migrated to your ass back to your head again?
another good argument from you. Very good & thank you for admitting defeat.
Defeat from what? You OP is idiotic. Whether my argument is good or bad, your OP remains idiotic. I have lost nothing. Your started out with nothing, at least in terms of having or expressing an intelligent thought.
Seems like a pretty decent analogy. Earning money and earning grades seem pretty comparable. Can someone put up a good counter point to his OP?
One is earned, the other not. One effects all of society and creates poverty, the other does not. One creates an oligarchy that controls government. the other does not. They are entirely different issues.
Thank you for playing.
I dont understand. Isnt money earned? some is earned by investing, but a doctor seems to earn his, as does an NFL qb. An oil wildcatter looks to be earning his.
Your answer seems confusing.
A great deal of wealth among the wealthy is created simply from manipulating existing wealth. But whether unearned or not, the effects are equally destructive.
The inequitable distribution of wealth creates poverty, and the ability of the wealthy to divert more of the economy's resources to themselves. Concentrations of wealth create, disproportionate access to power, so the wealthy can make laws that further advantage themselves. The entire process undermines the economy as a whole and corrupts the entire political process, corroding democracy.
A nation of C students, do to sharing, is not a desired outcome.
Or you could just dumb down the tests, like the D and R have been doing for decades.
everytime you have to start calling names you admit defeat. your doing it again lol!
Just pointing out your in the strongest possible terms. (In fact, I really held back.) Calling Stalin, for example, a fucking genocidal piece of shit, hardly begins to do justice to his actions. Calling you an idiot is similarly mild. The defeat is only in that language doesn't contain the equivalent of the filthy degeneracy of your thoughts or motivations. To say you are a moron doesn't come close.
you're doing it again!!! lol!!!
A defeat can mask a victory.
You all for dumbing the population down?
You sound like a plant.
How about you try and sell it on ebay? Along with your identity?
Haha...
Fuck no, same thing with money. You don't deserve what someone else worked hard for if you at able bodied. Everyone will probably agree about no grade distribution but not about money.
yea - I am waiting to hear from the orthodox occupiers on this one lol!
you've been hearing plenty but you got no answers
exactly - because occupiers are hypocrites.
[Removed]
Your analogy is shit and your troll is old. If school grades were like money, the people with the highet grades would be paying others to do all their school work and then getting their grades while they would get shittier ones.
hahahahaha! you are very angry !
No, I'm slightly annoyed.
I suppose your argument is the equivalent of if advocates want socialism and the various accompanying redistributions, such as wealth and income, then advocates should be willing to redistribute their GPA. Further, I suppose, this argument could be reduced to with socialism all achievements should be shared. At first glance this argument seems to be sound; however, further consideration yields a weakness.
Due to boredom, I've discontinued the argument even though I believe it can be reduced further. Anyway, thanks for the intellectual provocation.
One teensy tiny flaw in that argument. Income distribution is not about psychology. It is about survival. And it is about democracy.
When fully 50% of the entire citizenry is living at or near the poverty line, while 400 of the people at the top own as much wealth as 150,000,000 at the bottom, psychology is the east of the problem.
Poverty is demeaning. Fairness is not.
doesn't giving people welfare create dependency and demean them?
we the people
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and issue domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare
and secure the blessing of liberty
for ourselves and prosperity
to ordain and establish this constitution
for the United States of America .
ah - the general welfare - with your interpretation of that why do we even need the rest of the constitution? Throw it out - just live by what some view as promoting the general welfare.
It would be redundant. You see with your Daddy's money, I can buy my own grades just like you did! :P
Following that premise, then poor students should redistribute their grades upward to the top performers to the point where they no longer can attain a grade of 100, but an infinite score and the gap grows enormously larger. You do understand there is a cap on the grade one can attain and no cap exists on income. The comparison does not hold water unless you are advocating putting a cap on something like what CEO's can make. Thanks for making such a good argument for doing that very thing.
ah - that is a decent point about the cap. Still - if I score a 95% isn't it more equitable to give my peer who is struggling with a 60% 15 points to bring them to a 75%? I still have an 80% score. Isn't that fair?
I think you are onto something here. We should institute a wealth grade immediately. There is no reason to have an infinite system that allows one to amass infinite wealth. Isn't that fair?
If people dont work and study t get good grades then they dont deserte what other people works hard for.
Kinda like you?
You need to go back to school now.
[Removed]
so this isn't the same as the redistribution of income how?
One has a cap on the top scorer, the other does not. You are not comparing similar measurement systems. Go to the back of the class.
Iris exactly the same, people don't want to give grades but they would with both their money and the money of others.
really? I only hear about the redistribution of the 1 percenters money.
Thank you for admitting defeat. You have proven you are just a footstool with a mouthpiece for 1%ers. I hope for your sake that they compensate you well for guzzling their cum so hard over the internet.
Troll alert!
[Removed]
yep US only has 41%
World Military budget in Billions (percent total)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
39% United States
18% Russia
8% France
7% United Kingdom
5% Germany
3% China
3% Italy
11% Other European
5% Others
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
what does this have to do with grade redistribution?
[Removed]
What does grade redistribution have to do with anything?
Moreover, what does it have to do with OWS?
it is an exercise principal. OWS advocates redistribution of wealth - so why not also redistribution of grades?
Have you always "chosen" to waste so much time and effort equating apples and oranges?
[Removed]
I want TV redistribution; my neighbor has seven LCDs and I only have two... it's just not fair.
It would be the "fair" thing to do. After all, isn't it greed to hold onto so many GPA points that others need more than you do? Shouldn't there at least be a minimum GPA because the dispersion of GPAs is just evidence of unfairness? Because people need a GPA, isn't it then a human right?
This is a fun game for leftist college students. It's hilarious to watch their minds of mush try to wrap their heads around the concept when it gets personal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5vfLkeLbPQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iW5b2li1Yw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLTh7EI6rzg