Originally posted by Phil jacksonThe UK state debt is about 44% of GDP. That's fine, really.
But the net result of Labour, 'Old' and 'New', is to land us in bankruptcy. We are now back in the same sinking boat that the infamous H.Wilson and his successor Callaghan left us in 1979. Both spent and wasted taxpayer's money as if there was no tomorrow with the same disastrous result.
5 edits
Originally posted by FMF…Perhaps it means you can volunteer to do whatever you want
Perhaps it means you can volunteer to do whatever you want - within reason - as you accumulate your community service hours.
Teenagers are able to voluntarily choose many of the subjects they are examined in at the age of sixteen, even though staying in school till they are sixteen is compulsory. I note that the youth work scheme "...is likely to become part ...[text shortened]... grated into moves to make everyone stay in education or training until the age of 18 by 2011."
..…
Why should they have to?
What about those that have a paid job and they just want to continue to do their paid work rather than unpaid work?
If they are forced to do it then if they have a choice of what sort of compulsory labour they do doesn’t any way the fact that it is compulsory and thus not voluntary.
And if THEY (the teenagers) SHOULD be forced to do unpaid work then why shouldn’t EVERYONE (including ALL the politicians such as Gordon Brown) and in every age group be forced to do unpaid work for exactly the same reason (whatever that is)?
I have done volunteer work. Actually I was a voluntary worker when I was young for over a year.
I have nothing against “voluntary" work providing it IS “voluntary” (as in my case) and not forced.
….Teenagers are able to voluntarily choose many of the subjects they are examined in..…
This is educating them and not just getting free labour out of them. The two are not the same thing -one is educating them so that they have a future and the other is exploitation.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…If they are forced to do it then if they have a choice of what sort of compulsory labour they do doesn’t any way the fact that it is compulsory and thus not voluntary.
[b]…Perhaps it means you can volunteer to do whatever you want
..…
Why should they have to?
What about those that have a paid job and they just want to continue to do their paid work rather than unpaid work?
If they are forced to do it then if they have a choice of what sort of compulsory labour they do doesn’t any way the fact that it i the same thing -one is educating them so that they have a future and the other is exploitation.[/b]
..…
Sorry, I missed out the word “change” and "then this" in the above and it should have read:
…If they are forced to do it then if they have a choice of what sort of compulsory labour they do then this doesn’t any way change the fact that it is compulsory and thus not voluntary. …
-now it make a bit more sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLook, I understand your position on this completely. I just don't feel appalled. And nothing you've said causes any indignation in me yet. But I am open to it if you are willing to try to ratchet some up!
if THEY (the teenagers) SHOULD be forced to do unpaid work then why shouldn’t EVERYONE (including ALL the politicians such as Gordon Brown) and in every age group be forced to do unpaid work for exactly the same reason (whatever that is)?
You ask, why only teenagers and not all adults too?
I don't quite understand the argument implied by your question.
Are you appalled because of the inconsistency of the proposed scheme. Is it really hypocrisy because it doesn't apply to adults?
Or are you appalled because it infringes upon the freedom of youths to not be required to contribute to their community in any way?
So. Why only teenagers and not all adults too? I will make my suggestion. Maybe because the community/citizenry/government already have a well established and (I thought) uncontroversial claim to determine certain aspects of the education, training and general development of children and youths. The consensus, as manifested in the policies of the governments we elect, has long given its overwhelming assent to the government participating in, and requiring certain things to happen in the lives of children and youth.
Are you against compulsory schooling up to the age of 16? And if you're not, are you against the aim of raising that to 18? Are you against the National Curriculum? Are you against other efforts to exercise quality control over the development of youth, such as inspectorates, required minimum standards and so on? Are you against laws restricting child labour and youth labour? Are you against laws pertaining to the age of consent, tobacco, alcohol etc.? These are all, surely, outrageous infringements on the rights of youth according to the central (er... only) tenet of Wajomaism and WajomaWorld.
How is community service any different, to any significant degree, from the other "collectivist" schemes that are already in place to help our youngest citizens reach adulthood in reasonably un-dysfunctional shape?
Why do you draw the line at this scheme? Why have you never started a thread bemoaning the "hypocrisy" of requiring children and youth to attend school but not adults?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFree labour? Exploitation?
[Teenagers being able to voluntarily choose many of the subjects they are examined in] is educating them and not just getting free labour out of them. The two are not the same thing - one is educating them so that they have a future and the other is exploitation.
You don't take a holistic view of education then?
And yet you profess to be concerned about teenagers' "future".
For you 'education' does not include things like training, vocational and practical skills training, work experience, apprenticeships, personal development and pastoral care, acquiring life skills, wider interaction with adults, and other aspects of 'education' that go beyond just "GCSEs and A Levels"?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF…Are you appalled because of the inconsistency of the proposed scheme. Is it really hypocrisy because it doesn't apply to adults?
Look, I understand your position on this completely. I just don't feel appalled. And nothing you've said causes any indignation in me yet. But I am open to it if you are willing to try to ratchet some up!
You ask, why only teenagers and not all adults too?
I don't quite understand the argument implied by your question.
Are you appalled because of the [ oaning the "hypocrisy" of requiring children and youth to attend school but not adults?
Or are you appalled because it infringes upon the freedom of youths to not be required to contribute to their community in any way?
..…
Mostly the former but I suppose also the latter albeit to a much lesser extent.
Don’t I have the “right” to not be required to contribute to their community in any way by, for example, living as a hermit and in an isolated place?
(actually, I don’t believe there is such thing as “rights” -all the social-behavioural preferences I express here and have are only as a result of purely emotionally determined preferences rather than as a result in any belief in “right“ or “wrong“ in the moral sense of these words)
….Why do you draw the line at this scheme? Why have you never started a thread bemoaning the "hypocrisy" of requiring children and youth to attend school but not adults?
..…
Because that is not my position. Where did I say/imply that children shouldn’t be educated?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF…For you 'education' does NOT include things like training, vocational and practical skills training
Free labour? Exploitation?
You don't take a holistic view of education then?
And yet you profess to be concerned about teenagers' "future".
For you 'education' does not include things like training, vocational and practical skills training, work experience, apprenticeships, personal development and pastoral care, acquiring life skills, wider interaction ...[text shortened]... ith adults, and other aspects of 'education' that go beyond just "GCSEs and A Levels"?
..… (my emphasis)
That is simply not true -where did I say that?
I have absolutely nothing against training, vocational and practical skills training etc for youngsters for this can be just part of their education. I would have something against what the UK government is proposing which is to FORCE teenagers to work for NO PAY to do “community service” and when this “community service” does NOT even necessarily have anything to do with education that is relevant to what career they want to do -this isn’t really about “educating” them nor improving their future -it is just getting free labour from them (maybe so that the government can be seen to punish them for their layabout stereotype image many people have against teenagers? -not sure but I hope not. I don’t know what their reasoning/motive is)
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour central point appears to be that you see compulsory education and training for youth (which surely includes work experience, personal development and acquiring life skills, among a wide range of other things) as an imposition and infringement. If you are to be consistent then surely you should oppose compulsory schooling for all up to the age of 16? I mean, why isn't that voluntary too?
Where did I say/imply that children shouldn’t be educated?
3 edits
Originally posted by FMF…Your central point appears to be that you see compulsory education and training for youth (which surely includes work experience, personal development and acquiring life skills, among a wide range of other things) as an imposition and infringement.
Your central point appears to be that you see compulsory education and training for youth (which surely includes work experience, personal development and acquiring life skills, among a wide range of other things) as an imposition and infringement. If you are to be consistent then surely you should oppose compulsory schooling for all up to the age of 16? I mean, why isn't that voluntary too?
..…
Nope; where did I argue/imply that?
…If you are to be consistent then surely you should oppose compulsory schooling for all up to the age of 16?
..…
No. Education of a person is for THEIR personal benefit while forcing them to do unpaid community service that is not related to their education is NOT for THEIR personal benefit -that is my criterion.
How would, say, forcing a teenager who is striving for a career in, lets say, physics, be better educated in his career in physics as a result of being forced to do unpaid community service? -I mean, how would that help his future career in physics?
…I mean, why isn't that voluntary too?
..…
Did I say it was?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe see education very differently.
Education of a person is for THEIR personal benefit while forcing them to do unpaid community service that is not related to their education is NOT for THEIR personal benefit
How can you possibly argue that work experience, like skills training and personal development (the aims and substance of a youth community service scheme) are not related to their education?
Not only do the youth clearly benefit, but society benefits to from having new adults whose education has been of a holistic nature.
The 'unpaid' thing and the 'exploitation' thing and 'no benefit' thing are red herrings.
And the 'forced' thing is a red herring. Why do you approve of youths being forced to stay in full time education or training until they are 16 year of age?
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh please! You cannot mean this, surely? "It's just getting free labour from them"? You're coming at me with the bright midday Daily Mail behind you... I can't see ... I can't see... I've been hit...
this “community service” does NOT even necessarily have anything to do with education that is relevant to what career they want to do -this isn’t really about “educating” them nor improving their future -it is just getting free labour from them
I also think it's unfortunate that you appear to believe that education is only about getting a job or preparing for a specific career. What about growing up? What about the transition from coddled youth to young adult? What about experience in a workplace with a new set of adults? What about life skills? What about personal development? Don't you see how community service fits into a programme of holistic education? Do you realy and trully think this scheme is about getting free labour from the work of youth?
Originally posted by megstripesAbscond.
lets face it politics is dead /no one left to vote for/corruption everywhere.i am 19 and at uni in Bristol,ill be paying of my student loan and the national debt until the day i die
Nineteen or twenty years is enough to devote to only one country when there are approximately 200 others out here to choose from. Mail them the student loan when it suits you. Don't let a debt shape the decisions you make in your early 20's. That would be tragic.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy force him to delay the start of his career in physics until he is sixteen years old?
How would, say, forcing a teenager who is striving for a career in, lets say, physics, be better educated in his career in physics as a result of being forced to do unpaid community service? -I mean, how would that help his future career in physics?
Why force him to do anything other than physics while he is at school?
While we're at it, why isn't he paid to study physics in secondary school?