**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't believe there are very many people like that in the US or in Finland. Poverty means something entirely different in developed countries. Like I said, a poor household in the US probably gets more cable stations than I do.

Sure. Standard of poverty is different everywhere.


Using your stance, in that case it probably would mean you are poor as well, and would also benefit greatly from additional gratis advanced educational opportunities offered to you.


See, if your standard on poverty is “how many cable channels people get” and “they get more than me”, you are boxing yourself into a particular corner. Think bigger picture brah.

I don't really see it that way.

I see you don’t see it that way, and that’s ok, you can see it in whichever way you desire.

It's not like condoms are hard to come by. Also the religious argument is iffy. I find it hard to believe that a sinner would brazenly embrace premarital sex but then draw the line at prophylactics.

Oh no they don’t; they fuck, they ignore wtf a condom is because they are told to ignore wtf a condom is, and then they have kids. Can’t have an abortion because their skygod told them it’s forbidden, yada yada. This is greatly documented, if you want I could conjure up some statistical black magic for you to scrutinize at will.


Education level, having kids early and religion it’s all correlated and intricately intertwined.

My point is, that the American system is set up so that virtually anyone, regardless of class or status, can achieve "average". If some choose to squander it with horrible choices like dropping out of school, or having babies that they can't support, I don't see that as a failing, or even a shortcoming, of American education.

Then if you can achieve better than “average” through better and free education, you are against it? You do know that “average” can be raised, right? Raising the actual “average” as a whole with a modicum of effort and you are still against it?


How about you want to go college because you want to be better than “average”; say, a cheap-ass community college. Yet you can’t afford the $9,500 annual tuition expected of you. What do you do? You either don’t go and accept your current fate or you get a student loan, which are handed out like candy. Or a sugar daddy.


This puts you in at least a $38,000 deficit upon graduation, assuming you graduate in four years. Suck at college-ing and don’t graduate, then you are stuck with that bill AND no degree.


Congratulations! You are now a modern wage slave.


Be good at college-ing to graduate in 4 years? Then obviously you have to major in something which makes a ton of money fast so that you can pay off this debt and others you have accumulated, and start thinking about buying your house and living life. This puts whole majors at a disadvantage. DUCY?

Still not seeing your point. If he wasn't good at algebra, that wouldn't necessarily be his undoing. His aptitude for math and science led him to a certain career. If he was better at sports and arts, maybe he'd be in a different career. That doesn't mean he'd necessarily be less successful. Unless he lived in Finland, which was my point about Oprah.

Ok, if this is how you feel, what's your point about Schmidt?

Probably, and that’s OK. Just not billionaire OK though, but he’d still probably be OK.


But, he’d never be the Eric Schmidt we know if he wasn’t “probably pretty good” at high school algebra. Oprah and JK Rowling were both “probably pretty good” at high school level English.