TL;DR: The Thread

[Tonkyhonk]

FutureForJames,
excuse my language, i wanted to check if she would skip reading what she didnt want to read and proceed. did it on purpose.

[Nimmeth]

How is teaching kids English not giving them more opportunities in America? I see former students all the time. Some are productive members of society, some aren't.

you are so typical, Claeyt. thats all you managed to say?
yeah, i have met quite a few ***** aids like yourself who can only see things they want to see and ignore everything else like no problems can exist in front of them at all and believe they are great. who needs to have open mind?

is it not possible to turn that around? maybe you are the one that can only see one thing and ignoring everything else?

[Tonkyhonk]

is it not possible to turn that around? maybe you are the one that can only see one thing and ignoring everything else?

it is possible, but you are not in the position to say that with "TL;DR".

[Dallane]

You tell em' ManyLetters

I forgot about that nickname of yours for me.

I don't think you have ever had that name

[Tonkyhonk]

i wouldnt mind her claiming it, Dallane

[staxjax]

All I got from this thread so far was that Claeyt is a woman, instead of a retarded gay male that I initially thought (s)he was. I might have to take you off of my confirmed retarded list.

[colesie]

How is teaching kids English not giving them more opportunities in America? I see former students all the time. Some are productive members of society, some aren't.

you are so typical, Claeyt. thats all you managed to say?
yeah, i have met quite a few ***** aids like yourself who can only see things they want to see and ignore everything else like no problems can exist in front of them at all and believe they are great. who needs to have open mind?

is it not possible to turn that around? maybe you are the one that can only see one thing and ignoring everything else?

TL;DR

[Nimmeth]

is it not possible to turn that around? maybe you are the one that can only see one thing and ignoring everything else?

it is possible, but you are not in the position to say that with "TL;DR".

TL;DR

[staxjax]

[Claeyt]

Wall of posts answered. Sorry.

The conflict arises when people bring their beliefs with them and are not willing to give up them. I do believe, these people think about traditions and inheritance in a way Jorb thinks. These traditions can include nice things, like language and food, but there can be other side.

It's important to not generalize and to see both these sides irrespective of race, culture and other, I'd say, "clothing" traits (I can provide elaboration in case it's needed here).

Exactly

The problem arises on the Immigrant's side both here and in Sweden of giving up part of their culture to 'become' Swedish. It means a new language, it means letting their kids wear new clothes, it means letting their kids date, it means a whole range of cultural and religious changes. Generally these changes happen over the generations. By the 3rd or 4th generation the kids remember that their grandparents or great-grandparents spoke Turkish and made great Turkish food, say, but they also remember how they went to that conservative mosque that closed when all the grandparents died, or wore Turkish clothes that their family doesn't wear. I've seen it over and over here with any immigrant population I've worked with. Currently the 'Hmong(Laotian) and Thai populations are in that 2nd and 3rd generational integration process here where I live in the upper Midwest of the U.S. It means that the grandparents can't believe what their grand kids wear, and barely speak english, the 2nd generation parents have worked hard their whole lives to become more american, and the grand kids speak Laotian or Thai fluently but are American in most other ways. What it means for me is that my kids (if I had any) would go to school with Hmong kids in ESL and taxes cover it, that my city and state have integration programs for Hmong families covered by taxes, and I have an amazing new Thai/Vietnamese restaurant owned by 1st generation immigrants down the street.

The problem arises on Jorb's side by making him change his idea of who is 'Swedish'. Is a Swede only white, Lutheran, and speaks Swedish fluently. If his country can't get over those ideas of who is Swedish then they'll never fully accept or integrate their immigrant population.

I do. Or rather, I ignore differences that are irrelevant (subjective, I know). I don't care if politician / policeman / teacher is male or female. Christian or not. As long as he does his job and has proper skills. But I will still prefer a woman who has her own babies as a babysitter for my hypothetical baby.

Turn that around and ask yourself if you wouldn't mind a stay at home dad who raised his own kids their whole lives to be your babysitter.

This I won't do. I won't support / vote for women just because they are women. I won't provide special treatment for them. In my opinion it only deepens the differences by admitting that they are weaker indeed. If women are good enough then they'll make it. As far as I know there is no glass ceiling in my country, or some raging discrimination against women in my country. Besides what's so draconian about my ideas?

You were calling for chopping off people's legs to make them equal, that's taking equality to it's greatest severity, or Draconian. I'm not requiring you to vote for women, just to keep in the back of your mind why you are voting one way or the other and accept women as equally capable in politics. The next time you go vote ask yourself if you're voting against or for someone because of their sex.

These are very broad expressions. For some people "fight religious intolerance" equals fighting any religions in general and discriminating anyone who is not atheist. That's also part of the problem. Some people take fight with discrimination as fight with the group, whose members tend to discriminate. Fighting with discrimination of women = fight with men. Fight with discrimination of blacks = fight with whites. But that's a topic for another discussion.

I define religious intolerance as standardized religious disregard for other person's beliefs or rights. So yeah it's pretty general..

I have no hardened demands. What hardened demands do you mean?

What I meant was, 'Hardened Demands' for equality from people seeking it. I was talking about your required equality talking points like chopping off legs and such. Soft demands for equality look like a building up of nearly full equality in society through openness and changing people's minds. An example would be that 40% requirement for women in your parliament is a 'Hardened Demand' versus how we did it in the U.S. where progressive forces continuously promoted women in politics until we've reached this point in our development.

Liberal Progressives often forget that the fight for equality is in the 'fight' not in the getting there. The 'fight' is what changes peoples minds. Examples over here of 'Hardened Demands for Equality' would include 'Affirmative Action' and to a degree parts of 'The Voting Rights Act of 1965'. Again, both had their time and place but skipped over the 'fight' part of equality.

It's not removing differences - it's living with them and common sense. And I agree with that.

Common Sense is the best friend of Equality.

Has congress passed a law that gives extra benefits to black people or simply removed the law giving extra benefits to white people which caused the inequalities? And is this law that changed it all, or rather, has it only been the result of change in society's mindset?
In any case - from what I understand it wasn't a law which granted a protection / bonuses / minimal representation to blacks, but instead a law which gave equal rights to anyone, no matter what their colour of skin was, right? I disagree with the first and agree with the latter.

Yes, that's exactly what the Supreme Court just chipped away at over here. 'The Voting Rights Act of 1965' which came out of the 'Civil Rights' movement of the times required that all former members of the South during the Civil War get congressional approval for any local or state requirements or changes to voting laws or areas. This took the power away from these States to discriminate against large black populations in these states and put an end to blacks not being allowed to vote there. Of course much has changed in the last 50 years, but in recent years we've seen many of these states start requiring things like proof of citizenship, photo ID, birth certificates and gerrymandering of voting districts based on race, so the need for the law may still be there, but this Conservative Supreme Court is requiring Congress to make the Voting Rights Act national instead of regional. We'll see what happens, some of it is still in place.

Not society, but politicians. I can't remember what the polls said about society's views on this. In any case - reserving places for women in candidates lists is stupid. People should appear / not appear on those lists, because they are fit / unfit for elections. Because people trust / respect them or not trust / not respect them. If the reason for lack of women in government is because they got worse qualifications then that solution is dumb. If it's because women don't want to meddle in politics then that solution is dumb again. If it's because majority of society believes men should rule then the mindset of people is the problem and the law doesn't fix it.

Exactly, it's a quick fix, and I wouldn't support it here. Again, I don't know what country you live in. The progressive forces in your country are skipping the hard part of changing people's minds. They should be working towards promoting more qualified women to challenge men in politics and against the idea women can't 'do' politics. Again, some countries may need that quick fix for awhile to just break down the walls that might exist to women participating. This can be seen in Afghanistan where physical barriers and religious intolerance towards women was occurring to the detriment of society. I believe that the Afghan constitution requires 25% of seats go to women, this was imposed on them by the U.S. so as to drag them out of the 19th century concerning women's rights.

I don't overstate it. In my class in basic school there were 2-3 people with "dyslexia". I know also some other people who had the paper as well. They weren't dumb or simply unable to learn to spell. They could easily learn proper spelling. Some of them simply took the test, and cheated (it was enough to make lots of spelling errors on purpose) on it, to get the paper and not have to deal with spelling. BTW, dyslexia doesn't give you extra time, just spelling errors don't count anywhere. Extra time is given to people who can't write themselves or can do it but very slowly. What's the difference between someone having dyslexia and someone simply not being good in spelling? I was never good with chemistry and it was hard to learn / remember some stuff. So obiously my marks weren't that high. Now, if someone classified this as some "dischemistrylearningia", so that those poor people who have problem learning chemistry had equal chances, and I got the paper then I would probably simply get good marks.

Dyslexia is a spectrum, but it's actually a neurological aspect that affects learning and comprehension. Dyslexic's don't have below average IQ or anything like that. They simply aren't able to process language and writing correctly. between 5-10% of any population has some form of Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, or Agraphia. These kids may appear normal in every other way except in their ability to read and write.

Again, I don't know what country you live in, but it's possible your system of diagnosing students with learning disabilities is broken. Here a child who's having extreme difficulties in learning to read would be identified and tracked over years. Until the exact cause was found. Usually Dyslexics are identified before the age of 12 or so. Some Dyslexics can compensate into their teens and appear as average readers while only writing on keyboards, but it's rare. Some Dyslexics go un-diagnosed into their teens because of constant school changes or bad tracking and diagnosis teams. You should ask your school's special ed teachers about it and the process for identifying people with it. It's possible they actually have mild forms of Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, or mild Learning Disabilities. Be nice to the kid and ask him how long he's been diagnosed with Dyslexia, if he tells you he was diagnosed when he was a kid, then he probably has it.

Also most good teachers won't simply take out the spelling aspect for Students with learning disabilities and grade them the same. They'll rework the grading formula for those students so that the spelling isn't included. They'll make other parts of the test like comprehension or knowledge of the material worth more to make up for taking out the spelling.

EX. Spelling is 10% of the test grade for you while Comprehension is 45% and Correct Answers are 45%. While for the Dyslexic student, Comprehension is 50%, and Correct Answers are 50%. Do you see how that works for fairness in his grading. He is hurt more by getting incorrect answers than you. That's how I would have compensated for this student's disability while teaching.

As for chemistry, I suck at math and didn't take Trig until college, and never took Calc, but my writing and language skills were always way above average. We all learn in different ways. I've taken whole courses on ways that people learn and why you were bad at chemistry but good at spelling.

No, it's not the same. In case of wheelchair guy his inability to walk is totally irrelevant to what school teaches and rates (except for PE, but in this case such guy simply doesn't attend lessons and is not rated). In case of dyslexia guy - spelling / writing is one of the things school is supposed to teach. If everyone is rated from the subject which involves writing / spelling (in english countries it's literature I guess? In mine it's called "xxx language") then what sense does it make to give guy with dyslexia good mark when he can't spell / write properly?

Think of grading as measuring learning and not a competition. Your dyslexic friend may have been graded on how far he progressed from where he was and how much he's learned. It would be unfair to make him take the same test as you if he is unable to form words because of a neurological problem, the same way as it would be unfair to make the kid in a wheel chair compete in a basketball game in PE and expect him to win. The student with dyslexia is being graded different, and I doubt if he's the smartest kid in the class. The teacher is probably just taking out the spelling part of the grade and replacing it with other aspects of the learning measured, comprehension, knowledge of subject, correct answers. That means if he shows less comprehension or knowledge of subject than you, his grade will be hurt more.

you are so typical, Claeyt. thats all you managed to say? yeah, i have met quite a few ***** aids like yourself who can only see things they want to see and ignore everything else like no problems can exist in front of them at all and believe they are great. who needs to have open mind? :roll

I see everything and ignore nothing. I see problems everywhere and believe that I am average. Everybody needs to have an open mind.

All I got from this thread so far was that Claeyt is a woman, instead of a retarded gay male that I initially thought (s)he was. I might have to take you off of my confirmed retarded list.

Where did I say anything that proves that I'm a woman?