Here's a case of you moving the goalposts again.....or did you make another "honest mistake"?
Don't call me a liar little man. I did not "move the goalposts" in any way, and I'll explain why.
Schools don't provide children identical standards of tuition in all aspects of history, either. Or in art. Or in foreign languages--those are really unfair. Or, very particularly, in politics; varying political ideas definitely do NOT get their fair share of the attention. In my entire trip through college, I received exactly TWO DAYS of instruction in the philosophies of fascism. A political stance which, we all know, has had widespread influence on world history, yet very few people on Earth know what it actually IS. (Let me be very clear: fascism sucks ass. But after those two days of instruction, I now know WHY it sucks ass)
And I disagree with that. I think our modern education system is a pathetic joke designed to maintain the status quo. Considering I despise the status quo, and see it as dangerous and counterproductive, that in itself would be problematic to me.
However, my real problem is that school teaches children 'facts,' many of which aren't actually factual, instead of teaching them scholarship. You don't need to teach children 'things,' escepting obviously basics like reading and mathematics, you need to teach them how to learn 'things' for themselves.
But no, you don't demand the removal of history or art or languages or art or politics. Just religion. You take the rule (all aspects of a subject should get equal face time) and then you apply it unevenly. You apply it only to the one subject (religion) you really hate. Bad Sharwood.
You mentioned art twice. Got a soft spot for it? I believe children should be presented with a choice of what to learn, as they receive to a certain extent in high school. What we did in Years 7 and 8 was spend a few months each on what were called the Design and Technology classes; basically, wookwork, metalwork, agriculture, computer studies, etc. After this time, theoretically a student would know which of these subjects they wished to pursue, and would elect them in Years 9 and onwards. Done correctly, this would be a good system. Of course, being the Australian public education system, they royally botched it, but the principle was good.
And I do believe that all the points of view should be taught to children, so they may make their own decisions. For example, if a child is learning Roman history, they shouldn't simply be told; "Caesar was a very bad man who tried to destroy the Republic," or; "Caesar was a good man who wanted to lead the people well." They should be educated to the fact that there are differing viewpoints, and allowed to determine for themselves which view they prefer.
So, are you done generalising me yet? Or do you still believe yourself to be far more clever than you actually are?
Me? I say religion shouldn't be in public schools for an entirely different reason: because religion belongs in church. Math teachers teach math. History teachers teach history. PREACHERS teach religion.
You're right, preachers teach religion. There's no reason why they can't teach it in school as well, provided it's education, not indoctrination. Unfortunately, it usually is, as is history, politics, etc., nowadays.
There are many possibilities, but two new ones come to mind:
#1: You are poorly informed.
#2: You are lying to me.
Why do those two (additional) possibilities come to my mind?
Here's why.
It would seem that the Dutch government considers your claim false; they seem to think weed is causing more harm than you know (or admit, I don't know which)
I think I'll stop there. My opponents have tried your little trick several times in past threads (and Holland was their favorite country to use, too!), but seeing it nixed as Holland finally comes to its senses? That's gold. I'm grinning from ear to ear at the delicious irony of all this, and I'm gonna go to bed in a good mood.
(In the meantime, this change in Dutch policy might be worth a whole new thread....?)
Don't call me a liar little man. I'm not the one selectively choosing what to quote. I'd humble that point, but Ziggy already did. It should also be ponted out that much of the drug crime in the Netherlands is actually committed by tourists, who aren't educated about the stuff as the Dutch are, and everyone should be.
