On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:23:32 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [Cultureal differences] >>> Some minor points ... >>> I did not mean to include the charta word by word. >>> It would be enough to include the most vital things. >>> Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. > SH> The US Declaration of Independence says something very similar . . . > SH> "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable > SH> rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > SH> happiness." > How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? > They are treated worse than animals. The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal classification, status, and category. >>> IMO american social/health system is total crap. > SH> Bush fixed that problem yesterday. > This problem is sooooooooooo HUGE that you can't "fix" it simply. > But hopefully he imporved the situation. > SH> Bush in his speech called for legislation to correct this problem. > SH> Among other measures he proposes, he is seeking a reasonable max on > SH> the awards that can be given for medical malpractice suits. > The question is how can that happened the first place. I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the awards should not be a factor in their decisions. > Some examples: > Person buys coffee at McDonalds. > Person spills coffee over hand ... person sues McDonalds because they did not > tell her that the coffee is hot. > No problem until now ... BUT > Person _WINS_ law suit, and gets really much $$$ for it. > Person B buys new microwave oven. > Person B has a cat which was out in the rain. > Person B decides that he dries the cat in the oven. > Cat doesn't survive. > Person B sues microwave oven maker, and gets huge amount of $$$. > For european thinking these cases are ridicolous. > And judge would give the other party right. I agree. There is something really wrong with the thinking of a lot of our judges and juries, especially in the area of civil lawsuits. >>> (eductation) >>> There is no "don't agree". >>> There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can >>> intervene. For me this is the best system available. And it saves >>> the children from misguided parents. In America it is possible that >>> children grow up with the thought that black/white/purple whatever >>> people are inferior. In Europe the child would at least hear >>> something different in school. > SH> The best solution for many parents is to take their children out of > SH> public schools. If the parents tell the teachers they are teaching > SH> things wrong the teachers won't change their ways, no matter how good > SH> a job the parents do at proving that the teachers are wrong. > This is not the problem of public schooling, but about bad american school > system. > In europe any teacher teaching not the truth will be immediately fired. It ought to be that way here too. I am not so sure that you europeans don't have some of the same problems with lousy teachers as we have here. >>> For example a german family left germany, because the children were >>> taught that there is evolution, and that the world was not created >>> in 6 (7) days. > SH> This is the reason why many parents take their children out of public > SH> schools in the US. > What ?? > That teachers teach them facts ?? The problem is that many people would rather believe in their interpretations of religious scripture than in the logical conclusions born out by science. > If yes than these parents have serious problems. Yes, they certainly do. In many other respects they might be very good parents. We can't expect all parents to be perfect in every way. Most people have problems in sorting out the religion vs. science problem and in getting it all together. What works best for me in tweaking my mind and spirit to run the way I want it might not work for somebody else. > SH> I don't think that is a good reason because I believe that evolution > SH> occurs and I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. > Believes are irrelevant for school. (facts are relevant) > Believing is not knowing. (german proverb) > And what you do not know has not to be taught in school. For those reasons we do not teach religion in public schools in the US. Another reason why we do not teach religion in public schools in the US is that the courts want us to adhere to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. > People have found millions of proofs for evolution. > (dinosaurs which are more than a million years old [measured with C14], embrios > which have a tale in the early development, .....................) Yes, I know, but many people will not listen to proofs for what they do not want to believe in. When Gallileo aligned his telescope on a particlar night for the purpose of allowing people to see with their own eyes how the planets revolve around the sun instead of around the earth, many of those who believed otherwise refused to look through his telescope. They did not want to look at the truth. > If somebody manages to collect enough true evidence that the world was indeed > created in 6 days, than he will get the nobel prize and his theory will be > taught in school. > But until than he should not speak nonsens. What is nonsense to you and me is truth for many others. You have to be exposed to a lot of ignorance in order to recognize that it is perceived by many as changeless truth. > SH> In the US parents have the right to take their children out of public > SH> schools, even if they don't have a good reason in my opinion for doing > SH> so. > As I already wrote every system has pros and cons. > But the advantages for me are much bigger than the disadvantages. > Imagine a family where the children are taught that all black people are evil, > and should be shot. > And than they learn that the US const. and the UN charta says that every human > being has undeniable rights. > this will get them thinking, and asking. > And THIS is a HUGE advantage for public schools. The US Constitution is taught in almost all private schools, but neither the public nor the private schools in the US care to teach very much about the UN. Americans in general do not have a very high opinion of the UN. We know that the UN aspires for some very noble ideals and some which are not so noble. Regardless of whatever the UN aspires for, the fact is that it has accomplished very little. > SH> Some parents do have some good reasons in my opinion for taking > SH> their children out of public schools. > I wouldn't know any reason. > But there are some reasons to change the school, eg go to another one. >>> For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a >>> diversity of oppinions. > SH> This should be one of the main purposes of education in the US. > But how to achieve this, if any rassist has the right to take his children out > of school, and "teach" them himself ? This is the drawback to allowing home schooling. There are a few parents who home school their children who are very bad parents. When the parents are found to be unfit, then social services will take the kids away from them and put them in foster homes. > SH> In most of the private schools in the US the schools seek to protect > SH> the children from learning of any opinions and points of view that the > SH> teaching staff thinks are wrong. > IMO a big mistake. > In Europe it is believed that these points are more important to learn. > In order that wrong things do not happen again. > Nazi regime, apartheit (S Africa) .......... >>> SH> The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited >>> SH> world languages and cultures and religions. >>> What is the UN. >>> It is an organization formed by the world governments. >>> So, no you couldn't be more wrong. >>> Because the world's governments can never form a world government. > SH> True, but the world's governments ATTEMPT to form a world government. > Anyways it is important that no single government can do as it wants. > And I don't see any better insurance for this than the UN. > SH> Also they ATTEMPTED to establish a world language which they called > SH> Esperanto. > This is nonsens IMO. > The world would loose so much cultural detail. > And IMO english has very much made it to an international second language. This situation might change after a few more decades. The growth rate of the Spanish speaking populations in the world is much greater than the rate seen in populations which speak English. Soon the Spanish speaking people will outnumber those who speak English. > SH> History repeated itself in the story about how the UN tried to > SH> establish Esperanto. > These 2 things have nothing in common. > NOTHING. The story of the tower of Babel is like the story of trying to establish Esperanto. Both projects were organized attempts to establish some kind of perceived universal ideal. The result in both cases was the further breakdown of society into increased misunderstanding. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/