What Should Teachers Teach?

[Age]

Not me.

What are you saying here, that you do NOT vote?

Well, that's my business. Not yours.

Education ministries are generally staffed by ambitious, politically-motivated people. Most of them were never teachers, or have not been for a very long time, and weren't teachers for long in the first place. Ministries are dominated by theorists, politicians, and non-teachers. There are reasons for this, but I won't go into all of them here. Suffice it to say, the public education system is a football for politicians, because it's incredibly lucrative, incredibly important in the public perception, and incredibly easy to manipulate.

So, ONCE AGAIN, who EXACTLY is there to, so call, "blame" or, more correctly, 'accept responsibly for this HUMAN BEING created system'?

Human beings, of course. You answered your own question in the question.

So, now that 'you' have admitted that you are THEE CAUSE of 'this system' are you now going to 'take responsibility' for 'it'?

That is; Are you going to start CHANGING what 'it' is that 'you' do NOT like, and which you admit 'you' CAUSED/Created?

Since WHEN did 'reading and writing' become SO IMPORTANT?

It's important because both are transferrable skills that allow a person to gain more ability within the world. Is that really a serious question?

Do NOT forget that VERY SOON 'reading AND writing' will NOT be 'important' AT ALL.

...said the man who was writing in response to something he just read.

BUT which could have ACTUALLY listened AND spoke INSTEAD. And, so REALLY did NOT respond by writing what they just read AT ALL.

PLEASE REFRAIN from TELLING 'me' what 'things' DO MEAN or DO NOT MEAN.

You don't like the truth? Okay.

You are COMPLETELY FREE to TELL 'me' what 'things' MEAN to 'you'. But 'trying to' TELL "others" what 'things' SOLELY MEAN, or what thee One and ONLY Truth IS is something that you are NOT YET capable to do NOR even YET ready to do.

Now do you like this truth?

By the way, I do NOT like personal, subjective 'truth' being expressed as though it is thee ACTUAL Truth. And, what you expressed was NOT thee ACTUAL Truth.

Education has always involved some measure of added content,

So, 'you', "immanuel', have or BELIEVE that you have the ability to KNOW absolutely EVERY thing that occurred, well as far back to how long 'education', itself, has been in existence for, anyway, correct?

Are you off your meds? I never said any such thing. I have no idea what you're hammering on about.

You, "immanuel can" used the 'always' word here, as though you KNOW what has ALWAYS happened, in regards to what YOU SAID. So, this is what you ACTUALLY said.

Therefore, you DID say such thing.

Do you now have AN idea of what I was and am POINTING OUT and HIGHLIGHTING about?

And, OF COURSE, ADULTS KNOW what is BEST for CHILDREN, according to 'you', am I right?

Not always, of course. But one thing for sure: the average adult knows a whole lot more than their children do.

LOL In regards to what EXACTLY?

What is Right and Wrong in Life, or, How to obtain Truly immaterial 'things'?

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY adults know FAR MORE about what is Truly UNNECESSARY to living a GOOD and PROPER life, but are consciously BLIND about knowing what is Truly Right in Life. Whereas, if and adult LISTENED TO and OBSERVED very young children from the Truly OPEN perspective, then what these adults COULD learn from these children is that these children are ACTUALLY TEACHING adults a WHOLE LOT MORE about what to ACTUALLY DO in order to live thee Truly GOOD life.

Knowing a "whole lot more" of ANY thing in NO WAY infers that that one KNOWS ANY thing about what is Truly GOOD and Right in Life.

Could it EVEN be a POSSIBILITY that CHILDREN ACTUALLY DO KNOW what is BEST for their OWN "psychological development'?

No, it's manifest that they don't know much at all.

LOL Okay. At least you are SHOWING and PROVING just how ABSOLUTELY CLOSED 'you' are here, which suits 'me' PERFECTLY FINE.

That's why they're still children. If they knew what was best, they'd be "short adults."

And YOUR BELIEFS are SHINING BRIGHTLY NOW.

You BELIEVE children do NOT know what is best, and therefore they should NOT be LISTENED TO, NOR HEARD.

To you, ONLY 'you' adults know BEST, correct?

But that's no different from saying, "All the answers to an education can be found in a library."

NO. What I ACTUALLY SAID is VERY DIFFERENT from what you said is NO DIFFERENT.

I reword: no significant difference. A child who knows where the library is, and one who knows where the internet is, still only knows where the information is, but nothing about the information itself.

OBVIOUSLY NOT UNTIL THEY LOOK UP THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE SEEKING.

And no, it doesn't matter how big the library is. That changes nothing in the case, except plausibly to make it worse for the child, since a larger pool of information he does not know is just a larger pool of things about which he remains ignorant.

Have you COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN what I ACTUALLY said, which was:
whatever just about ANY one wants to find, learn, or know can be found in said internet.

How did this become an OVERSIGHT for you? How could you COMPLETELY MISS this? Could the reason possibly be because you are being BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS?

Does you OWN inferiority complex, that children might just KNOW FAR MORE about Life and living, itself, than you do, BLIND 'you' to thee Truth in front of 'you'?

Or, could that well maintained and VERY STRONGLY BELIEF within that body be PREVENTING and COMPLETELY STOPPING 'you' from SEEING what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, which is JUST VERY SIMPLY, IF just about ANY one WANTS to find, learn, or know, just about ANY thing, then they can, in the days of when this is being written just LOOK IT UP on the internet.

'Trying to' make the CLAIM that because a child does NOT YET KNOW some 'thing', then that one remains ignorant just SHOWS and REVEALS your OWN IGNORANCE and your OWN NARCISSIST TRAITS.

I was NEVER talking about the absolutely phenomenal amount of what is NOT KNOWN, which OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES 'you' here, but what can be found and BECOME KNOWN, which just about ANY one has ACCESS TO.

See, OF COURSE, 'you' adults, literally, know MORE, or better worded AWARE OF MORE, but this is ONLY because 'you' have lived for longer. But this NEVER means that 'you' adults actually KNOW MORE about what is ACTUALLY True NOR Right in Life.

Children NEED clean enough air, clean enough water, some nutrients, and attention. And that is ALL they NEED.

You clearly have no children.

I am glad 'you' BELIEVE you can CLEARLY SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

This here is just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one putting their WHOLE FAITH and BELIEF into ONLY 'that' what they just ASSUME is ACTUALLY true?

And as I keep forewarning these adult human beings, in this day and age of writing this, it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY thing BEFORE you gain or ascertain what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS, FIRST.

But most, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, prefer to just NEVER even LISTEN TO and HEAR this advice, let alone actually FOLLOWING this advice. They do this NON-LISTENING because of their PREEXISTING BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which they just do NOT want to Truly LOOK AT nor even CONSIDER AT ALL.

Which is ACTUALLY just MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of HOW and WHY these adults do NOT and will NOT just even Truly LISTEN TO their OWN children.

By the way, IF adults had ALREADY been Truly LISTENING TO and HEARING their OWN children, then these adults would ALREADY KNOW what is ACTUALLY True and Right in Life.

And thee ACTUAL Proof that the adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, STILL did NOT YET KNOW what is True and Right in Life can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout the internet and especially in forums just like this one.

[Age]

Bullies to NOT have self esteem, they lack it, and is why they are bullies.

This is a myth, and has been abundantly disproved by studies.

And, further studies could abundantly disprove that these new "findings" are just ANOTHER 'myth', correct?

Whether, so called, "bullies" have low or high 'self-esteem' ALL depends on HOW the word 'self-esteem' is being defined.

We thought that's how it was; but we were totally wrong, it seems.

And just like 'we' were wrong, when some "new study" comes along, so to what 'you' human beings, think in the days of when this is being written, 'we' will, once more, just be WRONG again. This usually happens when 'you' start ASSUMING 'you' know what is right, BEFORE that has YET been VERIFIED and PROVEN to be True, once and for ALL.

Many bullies have a very strong self-image.

'self-image' and 'self-esteem' are two different things.

Also, if a, so called, "bully" as a very strong 'self-image' that they are "bully", then this has absolutely NO bearing on their 'self-esteem'.

OBVIOUSLY, a Truly 'esteemed' human being does NOT 'bully' another human being. So, a human being who allegedly has 'self-esteem' but who is 'bullying' "others" lacks True 'self-esteem' COMPLETELY.

In fact, that's why they bully: they often have contempt for those they consider "less" than themselves, and do not think the pain of such people matters.

Well this is CLEAR EVIDENCE and PROOF that these people do NOT have True 'self-esteem' but they CLEARLY have a COMPLETELY FALSE sense of 'self-worth' and 'self-image'. That is; ANY human being who thinks that they above or beyond ABSOLUTELY ANY other human being, CLEARLY has a COMPLETELY FALSE sense of "them" 'self'.

clearly we have differing views of what self esteem is.

Perhaps. What do you think it is?

CLEARLY the OPPOSITE of YOUR VIEW.

self esteem is required for a man to reflect any of the virtures.

Actually, it's not.

And as I wrote, it was PROVEN.

A person could easily reflect many virtues, and among them, the tendency not to give much esteem to himself at all. He could value others, instead of focusing on his own feelings of "self worth," and might well be a very great person for so doing.

peace/

...and Happy New Year, G.

[Age]

Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE without absolutely ANY doubt at all?

I am absolutely sure, without a doubt, I never posted anything sayin', or that could be honestly interpreted as me sayin'...

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.


What EXACTLY are you referring to now?

You NEVER wrote 'what'?

this...

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

you say, in some fashion, I've posted this...I haven't

NO I DO NOT. In fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

This is what I ACTUALLY SAID, which can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above:

Are you talking about in those EXACT SAME WORDS?

Because if you are, then I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, in this forum, nor probably ANYWHERE.

What part of; 'I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, ...', did you CLEARLY MISS?

I even emphasized some words in capital letters so that they would STICK OUT MORE CLEARLY so as to be MORE EASILY SEEN and be MORE SIMPLY BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

So, WHY is 'IT', EXACTLY, which is CAUSING MANY READERS, in the days of when this is being written, to CLEARLY completely MISS, MISINTERPRET, or MISUNDERSTAND what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, especially considering the fact that what I am saying can be CLEARLY SEEN in the ACTUAL clearly written words that I do use?

By the way, thee actual ANSWER to this question I have PROVIDED MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Bullies to NOT have self esteem, they lack it, and is why they are bullies.

This is a myth, and has been abundantly disproved by studies. We thought that's how it was; but we were totally wrong, it seems. Many bullies have a very strong self-image. In fact, that's why they bully: they often have contempt for those they consider "less" than themselves, and do not think the pain of such people matters.

clearly we have differing views of what self esteem is.

Perhaps. What do you think it is?

self esteem is required for a man to reflect any of the virtures.

Actually, it's not. A person could easily reflect many virtues, and among them, the tendency not to give much esteem to himself at all. He could value others, instead of focusing on his own feelings of "self worth," and might well be a very great person for so doing.

peace/

...and Happy New Year, G.

interesting per bullies - your view. can you provide references, here to learn.

as for your last point i agree, one can be kind and caring and without self esteem. but think that person would do more caring and kindess if they also had self esteem.

VERY, VERY, True point.

Some of the most loving and caring for "others" are the one's with the lowest 'self-esteem', but who with the True and Right FULL 'self-esteem', can go ahead and be Truly MORE loving AND caring human beings for NOT just "others" but also for thy own True Self, which is just Everyone, anyway.

to my mind the concept of self esteem is not "wow i love myself so much - others are loser" - is false self esteem of bullies- narcissism. MY concept is if i love myself as i am - not perfect, but working on being good - and have self esteem, then i am humble and view other human beings as myself with humility, not judgement.

This, I think, paints a FAR MORE Truer picture of True 'self-esteem'.

I aways ask myself "if i walking in his/her shoes" would i do the same thing? and since i can't i really cannot judge thier sole. i can judge their action of course and i have nothing against judgment within those bouds. i'm a moderate in all things - so not mamby pamp we cannot judge, nor the opposite mr perpect - sceck/beam in the eye.

Honestly what you are 'trying to' say here can and does get completely lost in the misspelling, well for 'me' anyway.

your jesus was correct in "judge not others without judging yourself on the same standard. namby pampy folks refer to the first part and ingore the last.

basically we are talking about hipocrisy.

2-cents

Thee ACTUAL Truth and FACT IS that ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being would do the EXACT SAME thing, which "another one" does, if they were brought up in and with the EXACT SAME circumstances. So, human beings 'trying to' judge ANY one else, then the ONLY thing that they can Truly "judge" them on is there OWN 'past experiences', and OBVIOUSLY NO two human beings has had the EXACT SAME past experiences. Therefore, to 'be able to 'judge' "another" correctly and/or properly' is just FALSE and INCAPABLE thing to do.

This means that ABSOLUTELY NO person has the RIGHT TO 'judge' "another", nor even has the actual CAPABILITY to actually be able to 'judge' "another" correctly nor properly.

Until a common ground or standard, for EVERY one, is obtained, which by the way is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to obtain and ascertain, then ALL 'judging' is done FALSELY and INCORRECTLY.

[Age]

I think that person would do more caring and kindess if they also had self esteem.

Maybe. But maybe not.

LOL I REALLY think you do have a twisted or distorted of what it means to have 'self-esteem'.

I see no reason that thinking a lot of myself would make me more likely to care about anybody else; do you?

But thinking a 'lot about one's self' is certainly NOT True 'self-esteem'. Thinking a 'lot of one's self' is just a Truly narcissist trait, as well as being a COMPLETELY FALSE sense of thy 'self'.

MY concept is if i love myself as i am - not perfect, but working on being good - and have self esteem, then i am humble and view other human beings as myself with humility, not judgement.

That's a good 2 cents. Seems plausible.

[Age]

if you have power/wealth/etc you do much damage.

Why can't you have power or wealth and do much good?

But was that even implied anywhere?

What was clearly written was; If you are homeless your good is MORE LIMITED than if you had power/wealth/etc to do good.

What I took from this was if you are homeless you can STILL do 'much good', but you are just 'more limited' than to say one who already has power, wealth, et cetera. Which, to me anyway, is perfectly reasonable and makes a lot of sense.

[Walker]

If it was up to their union, the teachers would teach nothing, at full pay.

Oh, wait ...

The teachers must be kept safe.

Who represents the children?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... -poolside/

[henry quirk]

age, let's put this to rest and move on...

you wrote: You forgot about your favorite, teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

I said: yeah, that's not what I've posted, ever, in this forum, or anywhere


you wrote: Are you talking about in those EXACT SAME WORDS?

Because if you are, then I would be the first to AGREE that you have NEVER posted those EXACT SAME words, in this forum, nor probably ANYWHERE.

But you have posted YOUR VIEWS on who "deserves" to be shot, from YOUR perspective of things, which included IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, even included own wife and own son, (if you have them) if they "touched" your 'things', which I do NOT recall were EXACTLY at this moment of writing this here now.

I said: you're wrong, age, no if, ands, or buts

never wrote it...never wrote a damn thing remotely like that...never wrote anything that could honestly be interpreted as that


you wrote: Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE without absolutely ANY doubt at all?

I said: I am absolutely sure, without a doubt, I never posted anything sayin', or that could be honestly interpreted as me sayin'...

teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.


to be as clear as possible (cuz I really don't wanna keep runnin' in circles): I never said teach the children that they can shoot dead absolutely ANY one who touches absolutely ANY thing, which they BELIEVE is "theirs" ONLY.

...and...

this is not an accurate description of my views: YOUR VIEWS on who "deserves" to be shot, from YOUR perspective of things, include(s) IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, even included own wife and own son, (if you have them) if they "touched" your 'things', which I do NOT recall were EXACTLY at this moment of writing this here now.

so: if you think I've said such things, advocate for such things, you are wrong


So, WHY is 'IT', EXACTLY, which is CAUSING MANY READERS, in the days of when this is being written, to CLEARLY completely MISS, MISINTERPRET, or MISUNDERSTAND what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, especially considering the fact that what I am saying can be CLEARLY SEEN in the ACTUAL clearly written words that I do use?

your style sucks, plain and simple...you think you're bein' clear when -- truth is -- you're bein' confusin'

[Immanuel Can]

your style sucks, plain and simple...you think you're bein' clear when -- truth is -- you're bein' confusin'

This morning I awoke to 23 messages from "Age," all incoherent, all written in that same style.

Whoever "Age" is, the age is about 15 and off her meds.

Save your breath to cool your porridge, Henry. There are some hills not worth climbing...especially those that are largely composed of manure.

[henry quirk]

your style sucks, plain and simple...you think you're bein' clear when -- truth is -- you're bein' confusin'

This morning I awoke to 23 messages from "Age," all incoherent, all written in that same style.

Whoever "Age" is, the age is about 15 and off her meds.

Save your breath to cool your porridge, Henry. There are some hills not worth climbing...especially those that are largely composed of manure.

oh, if I let him (her?) he'll have me runnin' thru increasingly convoluted (and meaningless) page after page of dissection

I'm not doin' that

as I say: I never wrote or hinted at anything he's attributin' to me

[Immanuel Can]

as I say: I never wrote or hinted at anything he's attributin' to me

That's what I find. In discussions with "Age," you have to keep saying, "I said nothing at all like what you are saying I said." And "Age" doesn't even listen to that, and just rattles off more hyperbole, more misrepresentation and more abuse...It vexes the soul and drains the mind of will to live.

[henry quirk]

as I say: I never wrote or hinted at anything he's attributin' to me

That's what I find. In discussions with "Age," you have to keep saying, "I said nothing at all like what you are saying I said." And "Age" doesn't even listen to that, and just rattles off more hyperbole, more misrepresentation and more abuse...It vexes the soul and drains the mind of will to live.

yep...ain't doin' that no more, with anyone, in RL or on-line

that's about as close to a new year resolution as I've gotten to in years

[Walker]

The CAPS aren’t for eliciting, as I first thought. They are for expressing. You can’t control such wild and abundant energy. What a gift to have it.

It must be led like a wild horse rather than controlled.

Led outward, energy is words and movement. Led inward it encounters the immovable object, total physical stillness. The mind follows and gentles down, the flow of thoughts stops, the energy remains, humming like a spinning top. Awareness expands.

It’s very simple to get a taste. Don’t move the body at all for about 30 minutes, no matter what. Afterwards, contemplate the reactions and judgments about such non-activity.

[commonsense]

as I say: I never wrote or hinted at anything he's attributin' to me

That's what I find. In discussions with "Age," you have to keep saying, "I said nothing at all like what you are saying I said." And "Age" doesn't even listen to that, and just rattles off more hyperbole, more misrepresentation and more abuse...It vexes the soul and drains the mind of will to live.

yep...ain't doin' that no more, with anyone, in RL or on-line

that's about as close to a new year resolution as I've gotten to in years

I noticed the same thing as you two noticed. Age seems to have gone through the rabbit hole.

Usually, what I do when I encounter this situation is just to stop participating in the thread, which I obviously have not done yet here.

[henry quirk]

That's what I find. In discussions with "Age," you have to keep saying, "I said nothing at all like what you are saying I said." And "Age" doesn't even listen to that, and just rattles off more hyperbole, more misrepresentation and more abuse...It vexes the soul and drains the mind of will to live.

yep...ain't doin' that no more, with anyone, in RL or on-line

that's about as close to a new year resolution as I've gotten to in years

I noticed the same thing as you two noticed. Age seems to have gone through the rabbit hole.

Usually, what I do when I encounter this situation is just to stop participating in the thread, which I obviously have not done yet here.

yeah, he's a pip