I agree.
- that covers your criteria.
Um, no.
As for the equality of chance - it is more about connections than it is about a school certificate so please don't spout that it is some kind of filter when it is absolutely not.
It is true, networking plays a big role in politics, but what I was saying is that your education requirement is a filter that will keep some people out without preventing corruption and incompetence.
You agreed that intelligence and judgement are not always linked with academics. I'll go on a limb and say you think the same about competence and morality. So, what would an education requirement really do, aside from preventing some moral, competent, intelligent people from office?
So do you feel that it is arbitrary for nurses and other professions? I mean exactly its not like a nurse needs grade 12 history, geography to do her nursing...
Your making a false analogy.
One of the primary reasons it IS important is for languages, you want your nurse as you want your president to be able to speak, comprehend and write in a manner that is befitting someone educated. Although to be fair the 'Bushisms' do a lot to hurt what I'm saying.
That is a rather elitist view of who should be in office. As much as it pains me to say it, Bush jr. was smart. Smart enough to know that voters will connect with him if he speaks like them and doesn't sound like a member of the elite (even if he is part of it). I do not have to like this sort of electoral strategy to think it is a legitimate one or that it is legitimate for voters to identify with their
representatives in a
representative democracy.
What is that supposed to mean?
It means who gets to decide what is the right education needed to become president? The politico-economic elites will want people like it to represent it. So most likely a university degree will be required. That cuts off a lot of people who could make good elected officials, but did not have the socio-economic background to attend university. And it wouldn't garanty that competent morale people would get elected. All it would do is make sure that a certain elite stays in power.
25+ years without corporal punishment and I do not see an improvement but a deterioration in kids. We are dealing with rape, murder and drugs on a hourly basis. Soft touches are just not working.
That is a world view anchored in the
strick father model. A child's "sins", to use your vocabulary, is the parents' fault because it didn't enforce violent punishement to correct behavior. That violence is the way to foster civic virtues. It ignores external factors, like say the impact of aparteid, and the problem of domestic violence. But I guess apartheid was just being strick with a population that like children wasn't mature enough to govern itself.
You do realise there are a number of things one can do, to get fired - all of which pale when I make the statement "The right to work and provide for ones family is more important than x"
Again, a false analogy.
And the right to an education after school is not a right - it is a choice. We are talking about varsity kids.
University is education. In a world were automation and low skills jobs are very mobile and do not pay well, university is more than ever a right.
No, but cheating it way more endemic and a much more common problem than vandalism, yet apparently expelling 1 kid for the throwing of excrement and defacing a statue is more important than the expulsion of 8,000+?
Cheating is a problem. It does raise the question of whether memorisation for a test is education at all. But I digress. I'm less familiar with the issue of Chinese plagiarism in the US, but whether is it wrong or right to expel them, I still can critic your proposition to expel vandals in SA. Althought, from what you said there does seem to be elements of free speech in what they did.
Have you looked at the percentages of black people in comparison to other demographics in South Africa. Does this surprise you?
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Also, is the percentage of white prisoner the same as in the general population?
Norway is great for Norway and other countries similar to Norway. South Africa is not Norway in too many ways.
Maybe if it had more policies like Norway it would be more like Norway.
Exactly how many blacks do you think don't finish school these days?
So, black people would be disproportionately affected by your education requirement for the presidency, no?
As for our prisoners - we are not talking Canadian hard core crimes like throwing gum on the ground... you do get that right?
Heh. Ethnic stereotypes aren't arguements.
It is about building a better tomorrow with the thugs of today.
You're not denying it is exploitation. You also do not mind that using prisoners takes away paying jobs for the general population. And, if black people are over represented in prisons, that they would be more exploited in your prefered system.
Here is a conspiracy theory for you, perhaps you want South Africa to flounder around aimlessly for 100 years or so, blaming Apartheid, when in fact hard changes can be made to rapidly improve the country NOW.
Oy.
But that doesn't serve your purposes because you don't want a successful South Africa because then you cant exploit the black man for a couple more years raping them of their country's diamonds, gold, agriculture...etc like the white man did during Apartheid but in a bad PR sought of way. How does that grab you? It is a little too much of a western ideology for you? Bad Canada, bad, bad...
I'm a Québécois who says that Canada fosters discrimination against my nation. Your attack missed its target.
That being said, I agree with you that capitalism is a system based on violence, exploitation and inequality. The problem is that your solutions foster violence, exploitation and inequality.
Ringing bells are synonymous with shame? Is that an Afrikaner meme?
